Started By
Message
A Pro SEC Attorney is Defending LSU and Lane Kiffin
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:16 am
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:16 am
quote:
It can punish a violation of its rules. What it cannot do is punish speech alone. After Tuesday night, speech is all that is left. LSU filled its roster to 105. No professional will play a down. The harm the SEC went to federal court to prevent never happened.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
11
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:17 am to H2O Tiger
LSU defending AMERICAN FREEDOM against tyranny
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:19 am to H2O Tiger
Anyone that thought about this issue for longer than 3 seconds realized the SEC had no case and was acting like a petulant child. Sankey got absolutely embarrassed last week and was desperate to save face.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:20 am to H2O Tiger
The First Amendment claim the SEC is making in that filing is the right to free association.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:21 am to Prof
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:21 am to The Baker
quote:
LSU defending AMERICAN FREEDOM against tyranny
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:23 am to H2O Tiger
Sankey is a god damn clown and so is anyone who thinks he should still lead the SEC after this bullshite.
Oh, and that liberal POS bag of counts in Tennessee, too.
Oh, and that liberal POS bag of counts in Tennessee, too.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:23 am to H2O Tiger
So it always was about little bitches trying to gaslight us all
quote:
Strip away the pearl-clutching and read the SEC's own complaint and Sankey's declaration. The conference seems intent on doing something regardless. Complaint ¶ 94 and Sankey ¶ 44: the CEOs will proceed "whether LSU renounces its intention to roster and play professional players on its football team, or not." Paragraph 81 goes further, saying the same thing whether or not LSU ever rosters anyone at all. That language was drafted to survive precisely what happened Tuesday night when LSU filled its roster to 105 and left no room for the pros. I get that it may succeed procedurally. It fails catastrophically as persuasion because it concedes that the expulsion has nothing to do with the conduct the lawsuit is about
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:24 am to H2O Tiger
I think he may well be right on prior restraint in terms of the lawsuit and wrong in terms of what the SEC can do (well not wrong so much as that aspect is not addressed). IOW, the SEC filed that as a warning shot. I don't think it needs a ruling either way to kick someone out.
This post was edited on 9/10/26 at 11:27 am
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:24 am to H2O Tiger
Pankreb needs to come eat some crow
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:25 am to H2O Tiger
With all seriousness... the way he explains it makes the SEC look so crazy.
LSU has every right to be pissed.
LSU has every right to be pissed.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:27 am to Prof
quote:
I think he may well be right on prior restrain in terms of the lawsuit and wrong in terms of what the SEC can do. IOW, the SEC filed that as a warning shot. I don't think it needs a ruling either way to kick someone out.
The lawsuit and threats of expulsion are completely unnecessary IMO. The conference bylaws give the conference a lot of latitude as far as enforcement goes.
They made their rule, they stated the penalties. That was all they had to do.
If LSU violated the rule, then you start the penalty phase. Instead, they completely jumped the gun and sued LSU and then started talking about expulsion when the rule was never actually violated. That doesn't seem responsible on any level.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:28 am to H2O Tiger
Every legal expert I’ve heard chime in on the federal lawsuit said the SEC was going to get embarrassed again in court.
It’s why they backed out to not get a bigger L.
It’s why they backed out to not get a bigger L.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:28 am to Prof
quote:
I think he may well be right on prior restraint in terms of the lawsuit and wrong in terms of what the SEC can do (well not wrong so much as that aspect is not addressed). IOW, the SEC filed that as a warning shot. I don't think it needs a ruling either way to kick someone out.
What people are overlooking here is the fact that, without the TRO in federal court, the Louisiana judge's preliminary injunction is still in effect.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:30 am to SidewalkTiger
quote:
If LSU violated the rule, then you start the penalty phase. Instead, they completely jumped the gun and sued LSU and then started talking about expulsion when the rule was never actually violated. That doesn't seem responsible on any level.
A-frickin-men to this right here
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:32 am to H2O Tiger
Who cares. frick LSU
Nobody likes LSU. Hence why all "15 SEC CEO's directed" the commissioner to take action
quote:
-frickin-men to this right here
Nobody likes LSU. Hence why all "15 SEC CEO's directed" the commissioner to take action
This post was edited on 9/10/26 at 11:35 am
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:34 am to jangalang
quote:
Nobody likes LSU. Hence why all "15 SEC CEO's directed" the commissioner to take action
Fair enough, let's stop with the facade and call it what it really is, then.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:35 am to H2O Tiger
LSU athletics should be heavily sanctioned for inviting outside private investors to own a share of future SEC media rights. Three years of additional probation added onto the probation they are still currently on, a two year post season ban in all sports, a one year suspension for Ausberry, and a $50 million dollar fine (half the amount that LSU is trying to sell) would be appropriate.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:38 am to The Baker
quote:
With all seriousness... the way he explains it makes the SEC look so crazy.
LSU has every right to be pissed.
I've been saying that the other schools should be pissed about what was happening. Sankey went completely off the rails.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:38 am to captdalton
As long as the same is applied to bama for playing a literal pro player, obviously LOIC
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News