Login | Sign Up
TechSideline

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

Football Board
◀ ▶
radhokie1
Joined: 01/01/2005
Posts: 636
Likes: 227
radhokie1

somewhat agree, but don't sign a contract. BTW, i know almost nothing

and mostly just parroting what I've heard about the contract.
Posted: 01/21/2026 at 01:14 PM ET
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)

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