Started By
Message
re: How come the injunctions made on behalf of Bediako & Trinidad are honored…
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:22 pm to deathvalleyfreak43
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:22 pm to deathvalleyfreak43
Because #JustDifferent
LA attorney says that Stankey and the SEC broke State law by denying these players.
LA attorney says that Stankey and the SEC broke State law by denying these players.
0
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:30 pm to Night Vision
Has Sankey won this in court?......no he hasn't
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:38 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Also so you agree he’s not eligible his case is still pending Thanks
I don’t have to agree. That’s literally a fact of the case. Trinidad is going to play this season because he got a preliminary injunction under completely different circumstances from the former NFL players LSU was trying to bring in. It’s really not that hard to understand.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:41 pm to BearRebelShark
quote:
Trinidad is going to play this season because he got a preliminary injunction under completely different circumstances from the former NFL players LSU was trying to bring in.
They both have TROs regarding their ineligibility
One is being colluded from being able to enter the marketplace and one isn’t.
That is all the court will see.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:43 pm to deathvalleyfreak43
The Bediako situation was just as bad. It took way too long, but eventually that situation was handled and he was told he could no longer play. Likewise, LSU's shenanigans should not be allowed. It's not really a difficult thing to grasp if you look at it without your purple shades on.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:49 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
The Bediako situation was just as bad. It took way too long, but eventually that situation was handled and he was told he could no longer play. Likewise, LSU's shenanigans should not be allowed. It's not really a difficult thing to grasp if you look at it without your purple shades on.
The Bediako thing was "fixed" by a court, not the SEC. The SEC was allowing him to play.
The OP seems to be asking why the SEC is picking and choosing when they enforce eligibility rules, which is an extremely fair question.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:50 pm to AUTiger789
quote:
The Bediako situation was just as bad. It took way too long, but eventually that situation was handled and he was told he could no longer play. Likewise, LSU's shenanigans should not be allowed. It's not really a difficult thing to grasp if you look at it without your purple shades on.
Yea, the biggest difference at this point is Bediako happened mid-season and they just said frick it and played him. At that point, SEC & NCAA went through the court procedures, which the alabama courts delayed stuff for obvious reasons. I think they both thought that would be a clear enough stance on the matter that teams wouldn't try this again.
Since it wasn't, they've stepped in and acted quicker here, but ultimately the stance from SEC is the same in Bediako and this case. SEC is now making its own bylaws, to be able to get around the NCAA rules continuously being sued.
Chambliss is a completely different scenario. There is already precedent for him to have eligiblity, his TRO is in regards to the ruling on his medical redshirt. This would not be the first time a medical redshirt waiver was denied, petitioned, and overturned. They are just taking a different route (i'm not a fan of how they've done it).
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:53 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
The SEC was allowing him to play.
Not really. Legally they couldn't stop him without breaking the law.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:55 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Not really. Legally they couldn't stop him without breaking the law.
Sure they could've, they could have ruled that any team that plays a former pro will be punished, just like they did this week.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:56 pm to Night Vision
ok the crying blake in the gAYS hat is funny.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:58 pm to deathvalleyfreak43
LSU needs to go independent. LSU fans would be happier. The SEC office would be happier. Other SEC members and their fans would be happier.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:59 pm to deathvalleyfreak43
Because L$u sucks
Posted on 8/27/26 at 12:59 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Chambliss is a completely different scenario.
Legally it’s the same.
quote:
There is already precedent for him to have eligiblity,
There is plenty of precedent with the other players too.
Euros in basketball have gone pro and been eligible.
Plenty of guys who played baseball came back and were eligible via the NCAA.
Hell russell Wilson played in the minors and was compensated the same year as playing collegiate “amateur” football
Feelings are on chambliss side not legal facts.
This is what sankey will have to argue in court.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:01 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
This is what sankey will have to argue in court.
I doubt it, the schools gave him uninhibited power in cases like this. Nothing they can really do about it.
And the players can't really sue the SEC directly.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:01 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
This is what sankey will have to argue in court.
Why do LSU fans do this to themselves? They continuously set themselves up for failure and disappointment.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:04 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Sure they could've, they could have ruled that any team that plays a former pro will be punished, just like they did this week.
They challenged throught he courts, which at the time was the correct approach. Again, your argument was the SEC allowed him to play. No, they didn't. Alabama played him anyways. Since it was an individual case, with already active NCAA rules against it that were working, there really wasn't a need for a new bylaw. The court system upheld the current eligibility rules, only difference here is the timing of when it was challneged.
The reason they are now is because the LSU and Colorado cases rendered the entire NCAA eligiblity rules around it unenforceable by the NCAA. Therefore, the individual leagues had to change their approach and put in their own rules.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:08 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Legally it’s the same.
It is not.
quote:
There is plenty of precedent with the other players too.
Euros in basketball have gone pro and been eligible.
Plenty of guys who played baseball came back and were eligible via the NCAA.
Hell russell Wilson played in the minors and was compensated the same year as playing collegiate “amateur” football
Legally, these are not the same. You can't try and hang your hat on semantics around this and then completely ignore the actual differences in the cases and the actual rules.
quote:
Feelings are on chambliss side not legal facts.
I mean, I think the facts of the Chambliss case are argued by the NCAA correctly. I think his medical waiver is garbage. That doesn't change the fact that it has no similarity to these other cases other than the fact that a TRO is being used as the method to try and challenge the NCAA's ruling. At no point is Chambliss challenging the rules of the NCAA, they are challenging the verdict of his case for being granted a medical redshirt. So again, legally, it is a very different case.
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:09 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
They challenged throught he courts, which at the time was the correct approach. Again, your argument was the SEC allowed him to play. No, they didn't. Alabama played him anyways. Since it was an individual case, with already active NCAA rules against it that were working, there really wasn't a need for a new bylaw. The court system upheld the current eligibility rules, only difference here is the timing of when it was challneged.
The reason they are now is because the LSU and Colorado cases rendered the entire NCAA eligiblity rules around it unenforceable by the NCAA. Therefore, the individual leagues had to change their approach and put in their own rules.
Exactly.
The SEC specifically created a rule to keep this group of players from playing yet they didn't bother to create rules to keep people like Pavia, or the rest, from playing, despite the SEC already having a rule in place that a player has to be in good standing with the NCAA.
That's what the OP is arguing.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:13 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
I mean, I think the facts of the Chambliss case are argued by the NCAA correctly. I think his medical waiver is garbage. That doesn't change the fact that it has no similarity to these other cases other than the fact that a TRO is being used as the method to try and challenge the NCAA's ruling. At no point is Chambliss challenging the rules of the NCAA, they are challenging the verdict of his case. So again, legally, it is a very different case.
It shouldn't matter really.
The NCAA views Chambliss as ineligible. The SEC requires athletes to be in good standing with the NCAA to compete.
They could create a rule to punish any school who plays a player that isn't in good standing with the NCAA, but they haven't, despite it happening multiple times.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News