1
Started By
Message
re: How come the injunctions made on behalf of Bediako & Trinidad are honored…
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:12 pm to TeeteringBrink
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:12 pm to TeeteringBrink
quote:
I’m assuming you’re referring to Chambliss. Two reasons: first, there’s no specific SEC rule you can point to that says he’s not eligible.
Article 14 of the SEC bylaws states that each student-athlete of each member institution who competes in, or is on the roster of a team that competes in, intercollegiate varsity or junior varsity athletic competition must comply with the Constitution, Bylaws, and other rules, regulations, and legislation of the Conference and the NCAA applicable to his/her sport in order to be eligible for athletically-related aid, practice, or competition.
quote:
Second, the NCAA’s initial refusal to grant his waiver was invalidated by court order after a full trial on the merits, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Pretty simple, actually.
Exactly.
The state of Mississippi said he could legally play, even though he's ineligible by NCAA standards, and by extension, SEC standards. The NCAA never gave him a medical redshirt, as far as they're concerned, he's ineligible today.
The state of Mississippi coming to that determination doesn't change the NCAA's guidelines or the SEC's bylaws no more than if Louisiana did the same thing for Dae'quan Wright or whomever, which obviously hasn't happened.
Obviously, the entire issue is null and void if the courts don't rule in support of these players. I'm just speaking under the assumption that the courts rule in favor of the players. It'd probably be better if they just strike it down, at this point.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:12 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
But they will be the same legally
You don’t seem to understand that one lower court judge, issuing a temporary or preliminary order, without affording all the parties a chance to be heard, has final or preclusive effect. That’s the most that could happen this week.
In other cases like Bediako and Sorsby, the preliminary order dissolved away after being subjected to scrutiny. The 10th Circuit federal court of appeals just overturned injunctions very similar to the one issued in Baton Rouge last week. Same in other states, Tennessee I think.
From an objective legal standpoint, I don’t see much merit in these cases, at least as against conferences. There’s no Antitrust/Sherman Act issues against the separate conferences. There’s no contract or breach of duty argument. There’s no valid cause of action. It’s just “we want this so give it to us.”
Maybe if the players hadn’t signed pro contracts for hundreds of thousands, and actually got paid signing bonuses for tens of thousands, and hadn’t participated in actual training camp, they might have some slender factual argument that they didn’t really go pro. But they don’t, and it’s a stretch anyway.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:13 pm to scottydoesntknow
quote:
Chambliss is eligible and so will these NFL players if the court enforces it. The issue is that the SEC didnt collectively vote to ban all players that were ruled eligible by court injunction. They DID(including LSU) all unanimously vote to ban all former NFL players, whether eligible or not, or not...to play in their league.
You keep saying this and it still doesn't matter.
Article 14 exists, and Chambliss is in violation of it. So was Pavia, so were many others.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:14 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
The SEC already circling the wagons and unofficially threatening to expel LSU
Only media people have brought this up. No one in the SEC with any real power and within their right minds wants to expel a founding member
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:16 pm to TeeteringBrink
quote:
You don’t seem to understand that one lower court judge, issuing a temporary or preliminary order, without affording all the parties a chance to be heard, has final or preclusive effect.
The temporary order is in place
The judge literally issued a show cause to force Sankey and the SEC to present their arguments in court
They will decide and issue an injunction same as Chambliss later this week.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:17 pm to wm72
quote:
Chambliss case is apples to oranges though because there is a very long history of players contesting redshirt rulings and often winning.
Bediako case is more similar since it dealt with NBA/NFL draft + contract being a line that was never crossed successfully.
This is most of the problem; the conference has been inconsistent on eligibility, depending on why the player in question was ineligible.
Pavia and Chambliss are just as ineligible as Brett Favre, per conference bylaws. But fans, and the conference, freak out over the one and barely even care about the other.
Pavia and Chambliss are the big names in this debate but there have been many others too. It's selective enforcement.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:19 pm to scottydoesntknow
quote:
Only media people have brought this up. No one in the SEC with any real power and within their right minds wants to expel a founding member
I agree.
Don't really think it ever gets close to going that far. IMO if there's any sort of risk of penalties, LSU won't roster the players on Friday. It's too low of a reward for much risk.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:25 pm to SidewalkTiger
You seem to think that some position by an entity, that has been invalidated by a final decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, continues to have any validity.
In Loving v Virginia SCOTUS declared laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional and invalid. Yet, some states still have century-old laws on the books stating that interracial unions are invalid and are criminal offenses, that were never formally repealed. If you cling to the notion that NCAA’s invalidated eligibility determination is still valid, it’s like saying that participants in interracial marriages are criminals.
In Loving v Virginia SCOTUS declared laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional and invalid. Yet, some states still have century-old laws on the books stating that interracial unions are invalid and are criminal offenses, that were never formally repealed. If you cling to the notion that NCAA’s invalidated eligibility determination is still valid, it’s like saying that participants in interracial marriages are criminals.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:27 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
This is most of the problem; the conference has been inconsistent on eligibility, depending on why the player in question was ineligible.
Pavia and Chambliss are just as ineligible as Brett Favre, per conference bylaws. But fans, and the conference, freak out over the one and barely even care about the other.
Pavia and Chambliss are the big names in this debate but there have been many others too. It's selective enforcement.
I dont disagree that it's a mess.
However, that they passed 5 for 5 does show they're going to some lengths to address the increasing redshirt lawsuit challenges.
It's all the special exceptions with redshirts granted over the years, like you mention, that has made it to hard to fight without something like 5 For 5.
From the NCAA side, they're obviously so focused on this case because it uses 5 For 5 to blur another line that's never been crossed and add more precedents for exceptions.
If 5 for 5 stands, it would solve redshirt chaos. The new Pandora's box would be players flip flopping between the NBA /NFL and college within that 5 year window.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:27 pm to SidewalkTiger
You are going to have to demonstrate where in Article 14 that should make Chambliss ineligible to play in the SEC. I asked Chatgpt and got this:
From what ive gathered Article 14 does give the SEC the power to be more restrictive than the NCAA and that is up to the discretion of the commissioner. He chose to allow him to play. There is no Article 14 violation.
quote:
can you explain Article 14 of SEC bylaws. Is Ole Miss in violation of Article 14 if they play Trinidad Chambliss this season
quote:
Short answer: as things stand on September 1, 2026, I would not say Ole Miss is presently violating SEC Article 14 by playing Trinidad Chambliss. There is a real textual argument under Article 14 that he ordinarily would be ineligible after the NCAA denied his waiver, but the Mississippi court injunction changed the operative situation, and—importantly—the SEC itself is currently treating Chambliss publicly as a returning 2026 player.
From what ive gathered Article 14 does give the SEC the power to be more restrictive than the NCAA and that is up to the discretion of the commissioner. He chose to allow him to play. There is no Article 14 violation.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:29 pm to TeeteringBrink
quote:
You seem to think that some position by an entity, that has been invalidated by a final decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, continues to have any validity.
Not at all, I completely agree with you. If these players ultimately prevail (which is a long shot), the SEC/NCAA can really do nothing about it.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:32 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
They will decide and issue an injunction same as Chambliss later this week.
For it to be “same as Chambliss” you’ll need to show me where a lower court decision survives appeal. Get back to me then.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:35 pm to TeeteringBrink
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:40 pm to scottydoesntknow
quote:
From what ive gathered Article 14 does give the SEC the power to be more restrictive than the NCAA and that is up to the discretion of the commissioner. He chose to allow him to play. There is no Article 14 violation.
Textually, it's a violation. The commissioner is given discretion, and it's a voluntary organization, so how will a court view that?
If these players won their case, such as Chambliss, I predict they'd play. I think LSU would feel good about their position.
The problem is, Lane doesn't know that by Friday. Let's say the players get their preliminary injunction; does he take that risk? I don't know.
I'd kind of like to see the injunction denied to settle the matter.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:41 pm to deathvalleyfreak43
Because those cases are #JustDifferent
Posted on 9/1/26 at 3:13 pm to AGGIES
quote:
For that reason, there cannot be any evidence that implies LSU was encouraging the lawsuit or involved in any way. Why was it filed in Louisiana?
Same can be said about the Dallas lawsuit which was filed earlier. Were there any Texas schools behind that suit? Why did the players file it there?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 3:24 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Textually, it's a violation. The commissioner is given discretion, and it's a voluntary organization, so how will a court view that?
Doesnt seem to be a violation at all. He is eligible to play, the commissioner has decided to allow it.
quote:
If these players won their case, such as Chambliss, I predict they'd play. I think LSU would feel good about their position.
Well maybe...before the league unanimously voted to exclude those players. They effectively removed the ability of the commissioner to make a judgement call. There is no playing favorites, nor can that even be argued. If LSU hypothetically DID try that, the judge would ask "why did you then vote along with the other schools to ban these players if you intended to roster them a week later?"
The eligibility ruling on Thursday does not remove the bylaw just passed by the SEC...again it must be pointed out...a bylaw that LSU supported and voted for
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 3:27 pm
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News