re: Dallas says Sankey can't do anything to the coaches/institutions and see you in court

quote:

---

This is 100% incorrect

Chambliss is currently ineligible. Ole Miss is going to play him. The entire purpose of the TRO is that the courts rule ole Miss can not be retroactively penalized.

---

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

Tony Clayton is one of my favorite people in the world and is a fantastic trial attorney. I wouldn’t be shocked at all if he can persuade Judge Jorden to issue a preliminary injunction.

So what happens if LSU plays the former NFL players and the preliminary injunction protecting that decision is later vacated.

Here is the important part: that is not some remote pedantic hypothetical. Louisiana has seen almost exactly this sequence before.

In Jones v. NCAA, 679 So. 2d 381 (La. 1996), the NCAA declared a college football player ineligible under its five-year rule. A Louisiana trial judge issued an injunction allowing him to play, and the court of appeal upheld it.

The Louisiana Supreme Court, though, vacated the injunction.

It held that courts should not interfere with a private association’s eligibility decisions absent arbitrary, capricious, unfair, or discriminatory conduct.

Now let’s say the NCAA and SEC lose in the district court. What happens next?

I assume they would immediately seek an emergency stay and appellate review. That process can move quickly--although not overnight. In Jones, the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated the injunction just 21 days after the trial court issued it.

What happens if the NCAA is successful (as it was in Jones) but LSU had already played the former NFL players? The consequences would not be automatic, but the legal fight would become considerably more dangerous.

LSU would argue that it cannot be punished retroactively for conduct undertaken while protected by a valid court order. There is legal authority supporting that position, although much would depend on exactly what the injunction says.

The SEC would respond that the injunction did not require LSU to play anyone (although, given some of the theories now being advanced about the reach of injunctions, perhaps even that will be disputed). LSU voluntarily chose to play athletes who were ineligible under a rule LSU itself voted to affirm, knowing the announced consequences if the injunction disappeared.

The SEC would likely attempt to impose its penalties. Presumably, LSU would then return to court seeking another injunction -- this time to prevent a half-season suspension for Lane Kiffin, a fine potentially exceeding $25 million, the loss of SEC voting rights, and any additional sanctions imposed by the commissioner.

There is no guarantee those penalties would survive. There is also no guarantee LSU could stop them.

That uncertainty is the point.

LSU would be wagering an awful lot on an interlocutory ruling involving a rule it voted to adopt--and on the assumption that the ruling would survive every level of appellate review.

So yes, LSU might get an injunction next week. Stranger things have happened.

The real question is whether Monday’s injunction would still be standing in December.

And if it isn’t? What an extraordinary (and potentially very costly) mess--and for what?

(Footnote: no, I’m not commenting on the Kentucky case. I’m not a Kentucky lawyer, and I have not studied the governing Kentucky law.)

---

quote:

---

Nope

---

quote:

---

There is no penalty to the player

---

quote:

---

could simply refuse to play LSU if LSU intends to play an ineligible player

---

quote:

---

LSU voluntarily chose to play athletes who were ineligible under a rule LSU itself voted to affirm, knowing the announced consequences if the injunction disappeared

---

quote:

---

LSU would be wagering an awful lot

---

quote:

---

I am not going to laugh off a Vandy guy

---

quote:

---

Pretty sure the courts have no jurisdiction over the CFP committee

---