Started By
Message
re: Dallas says Sankey can't do anything to the coaches/institutions and see you in court
Posted on 8/28/26 at 9:47 am to somethingdifferent
Posted on 8/28/26 at 9:47 am to somethingdifferent
You can sue anyone for anything. Like I said, the legal system is a waste of time
0
Posted on 8/28/26 at 9:48 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
Yes. See the court cases that currently exist. When a judge says it, it's effectively law
So this is not true . . . and it shows you don't even understand the judges ruling and how federal laws are put in place.
The only thing that can serve as a federal law is a congressional bill approved by both the House and Senate and signed into law by the executive branch.
You need to go back to watching Schoolhouse Rock.
And there is no federal law governing Collegiate Athletic eligibility.
Posted on 8/28/26 at 9:49 am to Sl0thstronautEsq
quote:That are now in direct conflict with multiple judges' rulings. That's why the Dallas judge allegedly issued a block on the conferences' punishments.
Every school in the SEC agreed to bylaws
quote:Apparently the courts disagree with you which is why Sankey had been called as a defendant.
Again, you're off the mark
It's hilarious people keep thinking gentleman's handshake agreements can thwart the judicial system
Posted on 8/28/26 at 9:49 am to somethingdifferent
Posted on 8/28/26 at 9:49 am to ColoradoAg
quote:
The CFP playoff committee can easily put a stop to this. Refuse to accept any team that plays with pros. Literally nothing the courts could do about it, and the schools would drop all pro players immediately
And then follow that up with the same rule for playing players not eligible by the NCAA (Chambliss)
Deal
Posted on 8/28/26 at 9:50 am to tigerskin
I’m okay with that. You really hate Chambliss for telling your coach to pound sand. It is fascinating to watch.
Posted on 8/28/26 at 9:51 am to somethingdifferent
I don't even know where to start here. You're wrong about so many things and you're misinterpreting pretty much everything that's happening in the courts right now.
So we can just agree to disagree
Posted on 8/28/26 at 9:54 am to ColoradoAg
Nah he didn't tell Lane to pound sand. He was scared crazy Ole Miss fans would kill him.
Golding said as much. Effective recruiting pitch but is what it is
Golding said as much. Effective recruiting pitch but is what it is
Posted on 8/28/26 at 9:54 am to Sl0thstronautEsq
Note that he said “certain players, including former professionals,”
They will have to make it blanket no TRO players are ok or all TRO players are ok.
OM fans should be worried
Posted on 8/28/26 at 9:54 am to Sl0thstronautEsq
quote:
Every school in the SEC agreed to bylaws when it joined the conference. If they don't abide by those bylaws, they can face punishment by the SEC.
This is true most of the time; but courts can restrain the SEC from levying punishments.
The same holds true with the NCAA; otherwise Ole Miss would not be planning to play Chambliss, who is ineligible by NCAA rule. They would not risk another judge overruling the Oxford judge, subjecting themselves to new penalties or being left out of the CFP.
Posted on 8/28/26 at 9:56 am to RidiculousHype
quote:
but courts can restrain the SEC from levying punishments.
That's true, the wording of the injunctions matter.
quote:
The same holds true with the NCAA
Also true. In the past TRO cases, the NCAA has explicitly agreed not to retroactively punish the schools.
Posted on 8/28/26 at 9:59 am to Sl0thstronautEsq
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.)
This is the best and most accurate summation of the situation and potential consequences that I’ve seen. In short, what happens if the TRO is vacated is very much unclear.
Posted on 8/28/26 at 10:05 am to UpToPar
quote:
So what happens if LSU plays the former NFL players and the preliminary injunction protecting that decision is later vacated
I don't know what would happen, but I know what should happen - and this goes for any team, not just LSU.
It's like your boss telling you in writing that you're allowed to take a 2-week vacation. Then you get back in town and fires you for taking the 2-week vacation, because they changed the policy while you were away.
Posted on 8/28/26 at 10:44 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
The SEC told teams they can't play legally eligible players meaning the conference rules are in conflict with US law
No they didn't. They told them there's a penalty for playing them. By your logic, players can't be ejected for targeting because that deprives them of eligibility.
This post was edited on 8/28/26 at 10:45 am
Posted on 8/28/26 at 11:50 am to imjustafatkid
quote:And now a judge has blocked that which is what I said would happen
They told them there's a penalty for playing them
Posted on 8/28/26 at 11:53 am to tigerskin
If it’s reversed, it’s meaningless.
That’s no safe harbor.
That’s no safe harbor.
Posted on 8/28/26 at 11:53 am to Sl0thstronautEsq
quote:It is a fact that Sankey has been called as a defendant, i.e. explain why you're contravening a court order. It is a fact that a judge issued an order blocking the conferences from punishing teams that play these particular 2022 players
You're wrong about so many things and you're misinterpreting pretty much everything that's happening in the courts right now
The same thing could potentially happen to the CFP if they make moves that discriminate against teams with these players.
Posted on 8/28/26 at 11:54 am to Windy City
quote:So when a court issues an order, people can just ignore it? No. It's effectively law
So this is not true
Posted on 8/28/26 at 11:56 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
And now a judge has blocked that which is what I said would happen
And that judge answers to the 5th District Court of Appeals.
TROs often expire without a PI being granted. PIs often get reversed on appeal.
This is like scoring in the first quarter and calling yourself the game winner.
Posted on 8/28/26 at 11:56 am to somethingdifferent
quote:
people can just ignore it?
Parties cannot. Anybody else can.
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News