Bre Warren's motion to play is denied
Per Mark Berman of the Roanoke Times.
This is totally wrong on so many levels.
I sat in the courtroom on Monday for two hours and the testimony from Bre simply broke my heart.
Bre was a Top 10 recruit when she signed with Texas A&M, where she earned all-SEC honors as a freshman after hitting .308 with 28 runs batted in. Unfortunately, Warren had to have shoulder surgery to repair her rotator cuff and labrum during the off-season and Warren completely missed her second year and she still wasn’t one hundred percent in 2023 when she batted .182. Texas A&M eventually cut her and she transferred to South Carolina.
She shared some horrendous experiences at South Carolina involving race and after a coaching change, was cut there as well. She was given incorrect academic advice by the USC staff that caused her not to graduate on-time (and thus be eligible to play immediately as a graduate student).
She openly admitted to having some mental health issues due to her up and down career along with the death of her two-year old sister in 2019 while under her care. The NCAA considers mental health issues a valid reason for not playing.
You hear stories of players getting seven and eight years to play and then she is denied a fourth year.
The NCAA is a total clown show!
Sam will have a story posted soon. I am posting as Bre Warren fan. She is a wonderful young lady and I am so very sorry this happened to her.
** Edited by VTChip at 4/15/2026, 9:59:13 AM
35 Replies
3mo
(In response to this post by VTChip)
3mo
clown show. The schools are the ones who decide the bylaws and what investigative authority the NCAA (HQ) in Nap Town have over them. If you look at an NCAA org chart, then you will discover that it is the schools via representatives on 1 of the NCAA committees who determine if the student-athletes receive extra year(s) of eligibility or not. Since all 3 division levels have the same structure, I am pretty sure the same committee has the responsibility.
For most people, it is easier to blame 1 entity (aka the NCAA) than a group of schools (aka all 300+ DI schools) especially if their school's representative (aka President or AD) is a member of the committee at the time the decision was made. I am not saying you are doing that here. Just something I have notice after I took it upon myself to do an in depth understanding of the NCAA bylaws. Instead of blaming the NCAA for the problems, maybe it is time to start point the finger at the schools or the various committees who helped create the problem.
(In response to this post by VTChip)
3mo
and take any of the "blame" so the schools don't feel any of the heat.
(In response to this post by TomTurkey)
3mo
The NCAA is supposed to enforce the rules that are determined by its member institutions.
My entire frustration is the number of exceptions that have occurred all over the country.
The seem to be consistently inconsistent.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
3mo
limit and the spots on the committee do rotate among all the schools to ensure everyone has a voice. Since people have different opinions on an issue, it does help explain why it appears the NCAA's opinion is inconsistent. Should the NCAA's opinion be consistent? Probably. However, if you view the NCAA as being not that much different than Congress, then you could argue it is suppose to be a living organization that evolves and adapts with the changing of the times. Generally speaking, a rigid fixed opinion isn't supposed to adapt regardless of what is going on around it. Hence why I thought maybe it is time to hold the schools more accountable for the decisions they make when they are represented on the various committees.
(In response to this post by VTChip)
3mo
"Catch 22"
(In response to this post by VTChip)
3mo
same as the judicial system. Bylaws and regulations can be interpreted different ways.
(In response to this post by VTChip)
3mo
they are very similar in their structure and even how they do business with their rules, regulations, and bylaws. Also, there are some bylaws that require the support from the DII and DIII levels because the bylaw will impact everyone. Not just the DI level even though that is the level that receives the most public attention.
(In response to this post by hokietony)
3mo
Montgomery County VA judges do not work for the NCAA, last I checked. They shouldn’t give a rat’s tail what the NCAA thinks/wants. They can use their brains/legal training and issue independent rulings that overcome the NCAA’s idiocy. Clearly the judge did not do that here. He’s just as complicit as the NCAA, if not worse, because he had a chance to use some damn common sense. It’s not like the NCAA was going to take this to the Supreme Court if it lost.
Really disappointing. I’m guessing the judge gave no reason or explanation for his ruling. Frankly, Bre ought to be suing South Carolina next.
(In response to this post by VTChip)
3mo
He made a comment along the lines of "even if I grant your motion for a temporary injunction, you'll be back her in a week or ten days to argue if it should be permanent." That did not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about her chances.
(In response to this post by HolidayInnHokie)
2
2hhoop3
3mo
I had mixed feelings on which way Robert Turk would rule. You rightly honed in on the looming permanent injunction, IMO, however, some of his quips from the bench seemed to favor Bree. I am sad for Bree and my longtime disdain for the NCAA continues to grow. As I said before, it is ironic and sad this situation is where it is at, particularly with VT Outgoing President Tim Sands as the current chair of the D-1 board. It is just awful IMO.
(In response to this post by VTChip)
R
RJHokie
3mo
They ought to send him back as a judge in General District Court where the lies are rampant on a daily basis…..
(In response to this post by VTChip)
3mo
normal medical hardship if nothing else.
(In response to this post by VTChip)
3mo
(In response to this post by IB4TECH)
3mo
he came back and won a fricken Heisman Trophy. Wasn't hurt, didn't play and left college entirely on his own decision then came back to play the NCAA sport he left behind.
(In response to this post by hokietony)
2
2hhoop3
3mo
beat VT to win a national championship if you are talking about Chris Weinke?
(In response to this post by laphroaig)
R
RJHokie
3mo
(In response to this post by VTChip)
3mo
Why is it wrong?
I get that the rules can sometimes seem (and I guess be) arbitrary, but this seems like a pretty clear case. Her 5 years to play 4 are up. I would think she would need to have some pretty substantial documentation that South Carolina screwed her over here. What am I missing?
** Edited by JoesterVT at 4/15/2026, 9:41:44 AM
(In response to this post by VTChip)
3mo
South Carolina's Academic Advisor gave her incorrect advice on the courses that she needed to take as well gave her incorrect information on her transfer options. As her lawyer said in court, "The last, best advice was, 'You can't play, that was flat wrong."
(In response to this post by JoesterVT)
V
VT825
3mo
(In response to this post by VTChip)
3mo
And also, what was the courts reasoning?
** Edited by JoesterVT at 4/15/2026, 9:57:03 AM
(In response to this post by VTChip)
3mo
(In response to this post by JoesterVT)
3mo
Derrick Gwinn, the Executive Associate AD of Compliance at Virginia Tech spent an hour testifying Monday, outlining all the reasons that she should be allowed to play. Had you heard his testimony, you would have a different opinion.
(In response to this post by JoesterVT)
3mo
Similar situations and make the NCAA try to be the bad guy. The court of public opinion would massively sway the actual court case. What a crock of 💩 from the judge in this case.
(In response to this post by VTChip)
3mo
(In response to this post by VTChip)
3mo
Hopefully I gave you the gist of the issue
(In response to this post by JoesterVT)