Started By
Message
re: For all of the derelicts on this site, let me clear some things up for you
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:20 am to RB10
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:20 am to RB10
quote:
Where does it say LSU encouraged them to file a lawsuit?
quote:
Specifically, Defendants waged a deliberate and coordinated campaign to recruit professional athletes to play football for LSU during the 2026-27 season,
Right here.
2
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:22 am to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
Right here.
quote:
Specifically, Defendants waged a deliberate and coordinated campaign to recruit professional athletes to play football for LSU during the 2026-27 season,
Where does it say anything about encouraging a lawsuit?
I’m beginning to think you can’t actually read.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:24 am to RB10
quote:
Where does it say anything about encouraging a lawsuit?
I’m beginning to think you can’t actually read.
Using logic which you don't have, there was no rule that allowed them to play. So to coordinate and recruit would mean leading them to the idea that they would have to sue for their eligibility. It is so easy to understand and will be proven in court that they didn't spell it out. Because attorneys actually have reading skills and the ability to use context clues.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 10:25 am
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:26 am to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
pecifically, Defendants waged a deliberate and coordinated campaign to recruit professional athletes to play football for LSU during the 2026-27 season,
Kinda doesn't work when the fact that Harris said Ole Miss was option number 1 until they asked him to play OL. And the agents will have the proof. You are so caught up in hating Lane Kiffin and LSU you can't see the facts.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:26 am to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
Using logic which you don't have, there was no rule that allowed them to play. So to coordinate and recruit would mean leading them to the idea that they would have to sue for their eligibility. It is so easy to understand and will be proven in court that they didn't spell it out. Because attorneys actually have reading skills and the ability to use context clues.
So it doesn’t say it you just THINK it totally says it.
Got it.
ETA: If they had any proof at all it would specifically be listed on the lawsuit. It’s not, because it didn’t happen. All they can prove is LSU recruited these players, which is listed.
It’s funny how that works.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 10:28 am
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:27 am to NussBusDriver
quote:
Kinda doesn't work when the fact that Harris said Ole Miss was option number 1 until they asked him to play OL. And the agents will have the proof. You are so caught up in hating Lane Kiffin and LSU you can't see the facts.
If you can't see this is an attempt at legal cover then I don't know what to tell you.
Discovery will prove all of this. They will get phone records.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:28 am to RB10
quote:
So it doesn’t say it you just THINK it totally says it.
Got it.
ETA: If they had any proof at all it would specifically be listed on the lawsuit. It’s not, because it didn’t happen. All they can prove is LSU recruited these players, which is listed.
It’s funny how that works.
No it absolutely says what I said. You just have to be able to think critically to understand it. We will see in discovery.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:29 am to RB10
quote:How about this pesky little rule:
Show us in writing where it says “signed a contract” is the delineation for being a pro.
quote:
A college football player may enter the NFL Draft one time during his college career without losing NCAA eligibility.
If he is not drafted, he can return to college.
He must declare in writing to his school’s athletic director that he intends to resume college football within 72 hours after the NFL Draft declaration date.
This rule was reaffirmed/updated by the NCAA in April 2026 and applies to NFL drafts occurring on or after April 15, 2026.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:30 am to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
If you can't see this is an attempt at legal cover then I don't know what to tell you.
Discovery will prove all of this. They will get phone records.
So anything Harris and Wright claim is just untrue because conspiracy? These agents and lawyers aren't dumb. They would never let their clients openly lie in the media knowing these lawsuits and discovery are coming. Just keep this same energy for penalties when it's proven your school was recruiting these guys.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:30 am to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
No it absolutely says what I said. You just have to be able to think critically to understand it. We will see in discovery.
Implying isn’t saying. There’s actually a pretty big difference.
Also, you can’t just get a court order for a fishing expedition into someone’s phone calls. You have to be very specific as to what you’re looking for, but it’s all moot because this will never make it to trial.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:31 am to Diamondawg
quote:
How about this pesky little rule:
Did the players at the 5 others schools that have been allowed to sign do that?
No, they didn’t. Weird.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:32 am to RB10
quote:
Show us in writing where it says “signed a contract” is the delineation for being a pro.
Here you go. This is the SEC rule verbatim.
quote:
“An SEC institution is not permitted to have an athlete on its roster who has:
Previously declared for the NFL, NBA, or WNBA draft, and did not appropriately withdraw,
Signed a contract with an NFL (or other professional football league), NBA/G-League, or WNBA (or affiliate) team, or
Been listed on an NFL (or other professional football league), NBA/G-League, or WNBA (or affiliate) roster
The commissioner is authorized to enforce this expectation with penalties against member institutions."
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 10:35 am
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:35 am to captdalton
quote:
Here you go. This is the SEC rule verbatim.
Awesome. Now explain why 5 other schools have players that signed “a contract” on their rosters with no threats or repercussions.
The uneven application of their rules is exactly why this injunction was granted.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 10:37 am
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:40 am to RB10
quote:Pretty clear they too should be ineligible. I think State even have a couple that would fall under this rule. Too bad. Not eligible. If we are just going to abide by the rules we like and disregard the ones we don't then we have no rules at all. Sucks but that's the way it is. I consider the rules as a textualist. They say what they say and they aren't ambiguous.
Did the players at the 5 others schools that have been allowed to sign do that?
No, they didn’t. Weird.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:41 am to Diamondawg
quote:
Pretty clear they too should be ineligible. I think State even have a couple that would fall under this rule. Too bad. Not eligible. If we are just going to abide by the rules we like and disregard the ones we don't then we have no rules at all. Sucks but that's the way it is. I consider the rules as a textualist. They say what they say and they aren't ambiguous.
I agree 100%. You can check my post history, because I’ve said none of these players should be allowed back.
The issue is some of them have been, so Sankey and the SEC can’t pick and choose which ones are and which ones aren’t.
Apply your rules evenly or don’t apply them at all.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:42 am to RB10
quote:
The uneven application of their rules is exactly why this injunction was granted.
Don't forget about the Alabama basketball situation last year. The fact the SEC didn't go after Bama then will bite them in the rear end on this one.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:44 am to Diamondawg
quote:
A college football player may enter the NFL Draft one time during his college career without losing NCAA eligibility.
If he is not drafted, he can return to college.
He must declare in writing to his school’s athletic director that he intends to resume college football within 72 hours after the NFL Draft declaration date.
This rule was reaffirmed/updated by the NCAA in April 2026 and applies to NFL drafts occurring on or after April 15, 2026.
And then the NCAA did this - The NCAA's "5-for-5" eligibility rule was approved on June 23, 2026, with the NCAA planning for full implementation to officially begin for incoming prospects enrolling in fall 2027
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:46 am to kajunman
quote:
The lines of delineation are clear in the NFL about what constitutes as an NFL player and what doesn't. The SEC and Sankey admitted they don't know.
An NFL player is defined as a player who is on the roster during the regular season. If so, he is considered an NFL player. If a player participated in mini camps and played in the preseason and didn't make the team, he is not considered an NFL player. Being on a pre-season roster doesn't allow you any of the benefits of the regular season rostered guys.
The SEC got spanked in court yesterday. The NCAA would also get spanked. Deal with it. LSU isn't going anywhere.
You aren't being sued in federal court for eligibility, you are being sued for 1st amendment violations.
LSU fans literally have no clue what is actually going on.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:47 am to Boom33
quote:
LSU fans literally have no clue what is actually going on.
Oh. You poor, retarded bastard.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 10:47 am to Boom33
quote:
You aren't being sued in federal court for eligibility, you are being sued for 1st amendment violations.
This is right. But the SEC's case isn't very strong.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News