3
Started By
Message
re: Auburn says hold my beer LSU
Posted on 10/14/26 at 5:54 pm to SidewalkTiger
Posted on 10/14/26 at 5:54 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:Worth mentioning, FWIW.
The lawsuit seems to ask whether the NCAA can apply new interpretations to an international player who relied on existing rules and certification practices when making plans to leave his Lithuanian club team and move to the United States.
He had already committed and signed with Auburn when the new rules dropped, from everything I’ve read.
My opinion is that professional players shouldn’t play college. My opinion is also that, given the time of his signing, he should’ve been ruled eligible because the rules changed after the fact.
Very unfortunate circumstance for the guy, IYAM.
Posted on 10/14/26 at 5:58 pm to jangalang
You fricking Clown. You have been one from the start of this in early September.
Where has the SEC made a claim of exactly what LSU did wrong? They want LSU to admit to wrongdoing but yet can't specify what it is LSU did.
Sankey could not define what makes a "pro" athlete. He did not know the ins and outs of the 5/5 rule. I mean; I think the commissioner of the SEC should be able to define that when queried in court.
Yet we sit here and bash LSU. Eat shite.
Where has the SEC made a claim of exactly what LSU did wrong? They want LSU to admit to wrongdoing but yet can't specify what it is LSU did.
Sankey could not define what makes a "pro" athlete. He did not know the ins and outs of the 5/5 rule. I mean; I think the commissioner of the SEC should be able to define that when queried in court.
Yet we sit here and bash LSU. Eat shite.
Posted on 10/14/26 at 6:00 pm to TTsTowel
Apply that logic to the LSU football players! They were committed and enrolled at LSU. Then the SEC changed the rules.
Posted on 10/14/26 at 6:01 pm to TTsTowel
quote:
Worth mentioning
The lawsuit also isn’t a TRO to try and gain eligibility. Another difference between this instance and others.
Posted on 10/14/26 at 6:02 pm to WylieTiger
quote:
Where has the SEC made a claim of exactly what LSU did wrong? They want LSU to admit to wrongdoing but yet can't specify what it is LSU did.
We all know where LSU went wrong. I said exactly why LSU got sued just today.
quote:
Yet we sit here and bash LSU.
You aint gotta twist my arm boy
Posted on 10/14/26 at 6:02 pm to TTsTowel
quote:
My opinion is also that, given the time of his signing, he should’ve been ruled eligible because the rules changed after the fact.
Same situation with the LSU football players in that they'd made plans to sign with LSU and then the rules changed.
Posted on 10/14/26 at 6:04 pm to jangalang
quote:
We all know where LSU went wrong. I said exactly why LSU got sued just today.
Scared the shite out of the conference and hurt their feelings.
Posted on 10/14/26 at 6:05 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:Did they “make plans” or had they signed?
Same situation with the LSU football players in that they'd made plans to sign with LSU and then the rules changed.
I honestly have no idea. I don’t request the board that much anymore.
Posted on 10/14/26 at 6:06 pm to SidewalkTiger
Regardless those were nobodies. This Lithuanian dude is a nobody.
Our Lithuanian dude getting denied will not be the end of the world. A tough loss of 8 ppg maybe. Live on the fringe live with the consequences
Our Lithuanian dude getting denied will not be the end of the world. A tough loss of 8 ppg maybe. Live on the fringe live with the consequences
Posted on 10/14/26 at 6:11 pm to jangalang
Are you going to have a team vote to kick you out? It only seems fair.
Posted on 10/14/26 at 6:12 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:Bama tried to play a G league dude but got back in line after Sankey intervened with a letter to the court.
Scared the shite out of the conference and hurt their feelings.
LSU claimed getting in line lip service while talking with I'll do as I please bravado.
Yall deserved it.
Posted on 10/14/26 at 6:18 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Same situation with the LSU football players in that they'd made plans to sign with LSU and then the rules changed.
Not really, honestly the exact opposite really. They had exhausted their eligibility in multiple ways. Their argument was that the rule change should re-establish andditional eligibility, but the rule did not blanket apply to the 2022 class. They would not have had eligibility even if the rule change had happened before the draft and they never declared, since they exhausted their eligibility at the end of the 25/26 season. For Wright and Harris specifically, they were ineligible regardless. They were suing that the transition policy was not fair.
This situation, the rule change is removing the eligibility from a presumably otherwise eligible player.
Posted on 10/14/26 at 6:19 pm to jangalang
quote:
Bama tried to play a G league dude but got back in line after Sankey intervened with a letter to the court.
LSU claimed getting in line lip service while talking with I'll do as I please bravado.
Yall deserved it.
Alabama actually did play the guy, LSU just thought about it.
But scared the shite out of the conference apparently.
Posted on 10/14/26 at 6:19 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Same situation with the LSU football players in that they'd made plans to sign with LSU and then the rules changed.
The NCAA didn’t change the rules. They made a 5 for 5 rule that was not supposed to be implemented until the 2027-2028 year. Then players sued for their 5th year(not LSU but layers originally). Then the “LSU Football players” didn’t make it on to an NFL squad and tried to join the team in week 0 of the football season.
The Auburn guy in the OP, enrolled at Auburn in June. I assume he doesn’t want the 5 for 5 rule to apply. So it is pretty much the exact opposite situation.
Posted on 10/14/26 at 6:21 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Not really, honestly the exact opposite really.
Are you just a contrarian? You keep disagreeing with me and I have to keep correcting you.
quote:
They had exhausted their eligibility in multiple ways. Their argument was that the rule change should re-establish andditional eligibility, but the rule did not blanket apply to the 2022 class. They would not have had eligibility even if the rule change had happened before the draft and they never declared, since they exhausted their eligibility at the end of the 25/26 season. For Wright and Harris specifically, they were ineligible regardless. They were suing that the transition policy was not fair.
Most of this is incorrect. I urge you to do more research.
Posted on 10/14/26 at 6:23 pm to mckibaj
quote:
The NCAA didn’t change the rules. They made a 5 for 5 rule that was not supposed to be implemented until the 2027-2028 year. Then players sued for their 5th year(not LSU but layers originally). Then the “LSU Football players” didn’t make it on to an NFL squad and tried to join the team in week 0 of the football season.
The Auburn guy in the OP, enrolled at Auburn in June. I assume he doesn’t want the 5 for 5 rule to apply. So it is pretty much the exact opposite situation.
Sure, but I'm saying big picture it's similiar.
The players made moves based on one reality, then it changed.
Posted on 10/14/26 at 6:25 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
I urge you to do more research.
Pot, kettle and such.
Posted on 10/14/26 at 6:26 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Pot, kettle and such.
Please point out one thing I've been wrong about, I'm happy to provide evidence.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News