While Jayden Daniels and the Pickett family were locked in a tug-of-war over No. 5, the player at the center of Daniels’ precedent finally got pulled into the debate. Joe Burrow’s untouched No. 9 had become a major part of the argument. If LSU was willing to protect Burrow’s number, Daniels believed No. 5 deserved the same treatment. Burrow had barely finished Cincinnati’s preseason opener Thursday night when the LSU jersey dispute reached him, and he quickly acknowledged that he did not know the full story.

“Yeah, they told me that they wouldn’t use it again. But you never know what happens.” Joe said when asked about the status of his own No. 9 at LSU. “I just heard about it a couple hours ago,” Joe Burrow said, via ESPN’s Ben Baby. “I don’t necessarily have too many thoughts at this time. I just don’t know enough about the situation.”

So basically, the whole thing started with a recruiting promise. DJ Pickett had worn No. 5 since childhood, used it in high school, and even appeared in the number during his LSU official visit. Brian Kelly’s staff reportedly promised him No. 5 as part of his recruitment, but Pickett wore No. 3 as a freshman. Kelly later explained that he was not comfortable reissuing Jayden Daniels’ number without Daniels’ approval, especially after LSU had already kept Joe Burrow’s No. 9 out of circulation. That left Pickett with a promise that had been made but never actually delivered.

“I’m not going to judge something [that was done] when I wasn’t here,” he said. “But when a kid is promised something to come to a school, he should wear it. So at that point, I don’t think that’s really my decision. We should honor what he was told,” said Lane.

Lane Kiffin inherited that problem and chose to stop dancing around it. After speaking with Pickett’s family and representatives, he decided LSU should honor what the previous staff had promised. Pickett switched to No. 5, and that is when the situation blew up. Daniels’ family said they felt “profoundly disrespected” and believed the number should have remained protected as part of his LSU legacy, even though LSU had never formally retired it. The dispute then escalated into a cease-and-desist over LSU’s use of Daniels’ name, image, and likeness.

Well, LSU has never officially retired Joe Burrow’s No. 9, but nobody has touched it since his historic 2019 season. Burrow went 15-0, won the Heisman and delivered LSU a national championship while throwing 60 touchdown passes. He finished the run by shredding Clemson for 463 passing yards and six total touchdowns in a 42-25 title-game win. No. 9 may not be formally retired, but Burrow gave LSU plenty of reason to treat it like it was.

That expectation did not come out of nowhere. LSU has never officially retired Joe Burrow’s No. 9, but the school has not issued it to another player since his historic 2019 season.

As of now, LSU has officially retired four football jerseys: Billy Cannon’s No. 20, Tommy Casanova’s No. 37, Jerry Stovall’s No. 21 and Charles Alexander’s No. 4, with Bert Jones’ No. 7 set to join them later this year. But LSU’s post-2007 policy draws a clear line between retiring a jersey and permanently removing a number from circulation.

Other blue-blood programs have dealt with iconic numbers without creating this much confusion. USC retires Heisman winners’ numbers but has made exceptions when the former star signs off, as Mike Garrett did when Darnell Bing wore No. 20.

Ohio State keeps its old retired numbers off the field but honors more recent legends like Troy Smith without permanently killing their numbers. Michigan tried recycling retired numbers through its “Legends” program, then scrapped the idea and put them back on the shelf. LSU has chosen a murkier middle ground.

Most retired jersey numbers can still be issued at the head coach’s discretion, while recent stars can believe their numbers are protected without any formal rule guaranteeing it. Cannon’s No. 20 remains one of the older exceptions and can never be worn again.

That is exactly how LSU ended up with Daniels expecting No. 5 to stay untouched while Pickett was simultaneously promised the same number in recruiting.

That policy explains what LSU is allowed to do. The harder question is whether it should have done it, and that is where the two sides sharply disagree.

What each party is saying about the No. 5 

Neither side is particularly happy with how this played out. Daniels’ camp believes LSU failed to respect his legacy, while Pickett’s family is frustrated that a number they say was promised to him turned into a public fight.

When reporters noticed on Aug. 5 that DJ Pickett was wearing No. 5, it became clear Jayden Daniels’ camp saw the situation very differently.

“The Daniels family is deeply disappointed and feels profoundly disrespected by LSU’s decision to give Jayden’s number to another player,” the statement read. 

DJ Pickett’s father also spoke out after the cease-and-desist letter surfaced, and he made it clear the family was not backing off No. 5.

“If we would have been told during our recruiting process and they had said, ‘Hey, No. 5 is not being issued. We can’t promise you No. 5, but we can talk to Jayden and see what Jayden has to say. If he gives his blessing, he does. If he doesn’t, he doesn’t,’ (we would have) moved forward,” he said.

DJ Pickett has also stuck to the same story.

“I’ve worn the number my whole life, since I was 4 years old,” he said. “It’s the number I was promised. I wish Jayden the best. Good player, and he did real good here [at LSU]. So, that’s all.”

Jayden Daniels himself has tried to keep the temperature down.

“I have a lot of gratitude for my time at LSU, and I’m proud of what my teammates and I accomplished there,” he wrote on Instagram. “Obviously there are issues to be worked out between my team and LSU, and my hope is that it will get done privately.”

That is probably easier said than done because this stopped being about a jersey a while ago. Burrow’s comments only complicate the situation, because LSU apparently gave him assurances about No. 9 that now look relevant to Daniels’ case.