Login | Sign Up
TechSideline

All Hokie, All the Time. Period. Presented by First Bank & Trust Company

Football Board
◀ ▶
T-Austin
Joined: 08/04/2021
Posts: 231
Likes: 423
T-Austin
Subscriber

Someone clarify the difference for me

With Mensah's situation vs William's (Washington's QB). I see some people saying Duke has no chance at winning this but isn't this similar to what caused Williams to withdraw his name from the portal? Or are there some differences at play here?
Posted: 01/21/2026 at 01:47 PM ET
(In response to this post by BigDaddyHokie)

Thread Replies (56)

Full Thread →
Duke sues Darian Mensah after QB enters portal
BigDaddyHokie • 01/21/26 09:27 AM ET
HE could just not attend classes at Duke and WD
bigbadbird • 01/21/26 04:20 PM ET
Vt isn’t at 100% attendance either.
GreenvilleVT • 01/21/26 05:48 PM ET
Someone clarify the difference for me ◄
T-Austin • 01/21/26 01:47 PM ET
I bet duke has some pretty good lawyers. **
GreenvilleVT • 01/21/26 02:19 PM ET
And sitting judges. An honest one with season tickets to Duke FB recused.
V333T • 01/21/26 05:41 PM ET
See below (link)
AirborneHokie96 • 01/21/26 02:03 PM ET
Delete
SCHokie1103 • 01/21/26 01:29 PM ET
Obviously he wasn't smart enough to get into Duke to begin with.
UEMcGill • 01/21/26 12:46 PM ET
...which makes his last name even more ironic.**
MP4VT2004 • 01/21/26 08:55 PM ET
He played for them this past year and is trying to move on.
BigDaddyHokie • 01/21/26 04:06 PM ET
This is a very interesting case and might
GCHokieof91 • 01/21/26 10:19 AM ET
Link to the actual pleadings if anyone is interested.
SkyHokie • 01/21/26 12:14 PM ET
Thank you. Very interesting to see NIL contract language **
HokieAl • 01/21/26 01:33 PM ET
They aren't asking for their money back, so they must be paying
VT ChemE 1986 • 01/21/26 01:16 PM ET
Interesting, Duke is not asking the court to stop him from transferring...
WholeLottaHokie • 01/21/26 12:44 PM ET
Don't the courts tend to do the opposite?**
Seikoh_04 • 01/21/26 04:37 PM ET
I'm thinking they are limiting this Complaint to
SkyHokie • 01/21/26 01:26 PM ET
The greed of players and schools should have gotten all our attention
VTCALS72 • 01/21/26 12:10 PM ET
I don't really think the players are greedy. They're simply going along
reestuart • 01/21/26 01:12 PM ET
The players will have to pay their gambling debts someway. **
VPI 1924 • 01/21/26 02:44 PM ET
I don't begrudge the players for wanting their own fair share
AirborneHokie96 • 01/21/26 01:04 PM ET
somewhat agree, but don't sign a contract. BTW, i know almost nothing
radhokie1 • 01/21/26 01:14 PM ET
The idea that Duke is “establishing precedent” is backwards...
AirborneHokie96 • 01/21/26 10:27 AM ET
Duke is doing us a favor
Vippie1 • 01/21/26 12:04 PM ET
It will be interesting what happens**
GCHokieof91 • 01/21/26 11:51 AM ET
Duke payed him to play 2 years, he played one, shouldn't
HortHokie • 01/21/26 11:50 AM ET
If deemed "pay to play" instead of NIL as originally approved by the court,
TomTurkey • 01/21/26 12:59 PM ET
that is a major point but there really is one more
VTCALS72 • 01/21/26 12:35 PM ET
No, they didn't pay him to play 2 years
AirborneHokie96 • 01/21/26 12:22 PM ET
Thanks, this makes sense**
HortHokie • 01/21/26 03:09 PM ET
Isnt it really just contract law though?**
JACHokies • 01/21/26 10:32 AM ET
That's like saying the Titanic was “just a boating accident...”
AirborneHokie96 • 01/21/26 10:39 AM ET
I get it but the whole story isnt on one player and one situation. Didn't
JACHokies • 01/21/26 11:37 AM ET
Washington didn’t have “the exact same scenario”...
AirborneHokie96 • 01/21/26 11:41 AM ET
Nice Airborne**
BigDaddyHokie • 01/21/26 04:07 PM ET
Well, this is not a boat accident! And it wasn't any propeller,
Brown Water • 01/21/26 11:08 AM ET
It is, but if it's a contract deemed to control where a player plays,
Pylons • 01/21/26 10:35 AM ET
...and opens up a major larger legal situation for schools and the NCAA
AirborneHokie96 • 01/21/26 10:40 AM ET
Their case is based on him playing for Duke. Pay for play isn't allowed.**
reestuart • 01/21/26 10:34 AM ET
Semantics. He signed a contract obligating him to
Hokeedokee • 01/21/26 12:12 PM ET
If he signed a contract to "play football for Duke", it's not allowed.
reestuart • 01/21/26 12:28 PM ET
Exactly**
AirborneHokie96 • 01/21/26 12:31 PM ET
No, he did not
AirborneHokie96 • 01/21/26 12:23 PM ET
Massive employment‑law and labor‑rights implications....**
AirborneHokie96 • 01/21/26 10:42 AM ET
All the more reason for this to end up in the courts because it was going
VTHokie2000 • 01/21/26 10:51 AM ET
It has been in the courts — repeatedly....
AirborneHokie96 • 01/21/26 10:55 AM ET
Will schools ever be able to enforce multi-year contracts?
Ship PA Hokie • 01/21/26 11:21 AM ET
Athletic scholarships are per academic year in most instances...**
AirborneHokie96 • 01/21/26 11:38 AM ET
I believe schools enter into multi-year contracts now on the academic side
VTHokie2000 • 01/21/26 11:24 AM ET
The courts are needed to define several pieces of the puzzle even if
VTHokie2000 • 01/21/26 11:14 AM ET
You’re right that the system needs clearer legal definitions..
AirborneHokie96 • 01/21/26 11:48 AM ET
It does matter because if all athletes are now defined as "employees," then
VTHokie2000 • 01/21/26 12:09 PM ET
You’re raising fair concerns, but the premise is flipped.
AirborneHokie96 • 01/21/26 12:30 PM ET
You seem to know much about labor relations and law.
GCHokieof91 • 01/21/26 04:49 PM ET
No
AirborneHokie96 • 01/22/26 12:15 PM ET
I believe the Diego lawsuit is challenging that premise though. Even if he
VTHokie2000 • 01/21/26 12:47 PM ET