2
Started By
Message
re: How come the injunctions made on behalf of Bediako & Trinidad are honored…
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:07 pm to AGGIES
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:07 pm to AGGIES
quote:
Seems like LSU is really taking the position of: The SEC has been inconsistent in the past (yeah, we know), So that justifies their decision to use the court to circumvent the SEC rule. It’s a statement of: “screw the SEC office, y’all are hypocrites”.
I promise you 100% of LSU fans will sign up for a rule stating no player under court injunction can play in the sec and those schools will be punished.
Until that happens we will act accordingly.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:07 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Only because of nostalgia. When you have to say “but this feels different” to explain why both are ineligible but only one punished that doesn’t do well in court The courts don’t view through a nostalgia lens.
Your arguments match you. Fundamentally broken.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:08 pm to this board
quote:
Your arguments match you. Fundamentally broken.
Care to take bets on how this all ends up?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:09 pm to AGGIES
quote:
Well, for the record, I wish we were just talking about football and game week. But this is a dramatic soap opera that we can’t look away from.
Why are you at a site that is mainly for LSU if you are not liking the dramas going on here?
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 1:10 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:10 pm to Adam Banks
The end results have absolutely nothing to do with your incredibly broken arguments.
“Precedent and member-agreed bylaws are just nostalgia” is an incredibly wild argument to make.
“Precedent and member-agreed bylaws are just nostalgia” is an incredibly wild argument to make.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:12 pm to scottydoesntknow
quote:
No one except Ole Miss fans are happy that Chambliss got another year.
My best friend is an LSU fan and hates Ole Miss and breaks out into Callin Baton Rouge just to irk me but she is pretty excited about watching him play this year so ….
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:13 pm to TrueLefty
Oh, I’ve clearly been pulled in by the drama…
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:13 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
I promise you 100% of LSU fans will sign up for a rule stating no player under court injunction can play in the sec and those schools will be punished.
Bingo
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:14 pm to this board
quote:
The end results have absolutely nothing to do with your incredibly broken arguments.
Well when that is what’s going to be argued in court and when they get cleared id say it’s the legally correct argument not “broken”.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:17 pm to Adam Banks
And at the end of the day… Regardless of outcome… Your very strange argument about nostalgia is still broken and stupid
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:23 pm to AGGIES
quote:
Seems like LSU is really taking the position of:
The SEC has been inconsistent in the past (yeah, we know),
So that justifies their decision to use the court to circumvent the SEC rule.
It’s a statement of: “screw the SEC office, y’all are hypocrites”.
That looks like sour grapes to me.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:24 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
When you have to say “but this feels different” to explain why both are ineligible but only one punished that doesn’t do well in court The courts don’t view through a nostalgia lens.
Yeah some court in Louisiana. LSU president voted to approve the rule banning former pro players. If you think a real court(not a local kangaroo court) will be side with LSU on this issue, you are smoking crack. Some Louisiana judge doesnt have final jurisdiction to tell the SEC which rules it can and cannot enforce
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:28 pm to scottydoesntknow
He’s making the argument that precedent and bylaws are “nostalgia“.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:28 pm to TeeteringBrink
quote:
At about the same time, he did intervene in the Bediako court case, with an affidavit strongly endorsing the prohibition against pros returning to college play.
Bit of a difference between a "strong affidavit" and creating a new rule out of thin air...
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:29 pm to this board
quote:
Your very strange argument about nostalgia is still broken and stupid
The only reason this is “different” than Chambliss pavia etc is because old notions of amateurism.
Which is purely nostalgia.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:30 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
The only reason this is “different” than Chambliss pavia etc is because old notions of amateurism.
Truly believe me when I say that it does not surprise me that an LSU fan would come to this conclusion
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:32 pm to scottydoesntknow
quote:
Some Louisiana judge doesnt have final jurisdiction to tell the SEC which rules it can and cannot enforce
Correct.
It will be interesting to see what happens if these players play and if the SEC decides to punish LSU.
At that point, I'm sure LSU would sue the SEC for selective enforcement of their eligibility rules, and the SEC would have to defend their enforcement of this specific rule, but ignoring the Article 14 violations.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:34 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
I promise you 100% of LSU fans will sign up for a rule stating no player under court injunction can play in the sec and those schools will be punished.
Geesh, are you really that ignorant? If a player has a court injunction against the NCAA and/or SEC prohibiting them from interfering with him from playing, both of those entities damn well better obey it, unless/until a higher court dissolves the injunction. The conference can’t adopt a rule saying he can’t play and then try to enforce it, in disobedience of a court order.
But that doesn’t mean a school is obligated to put him on the roster or play him. The school can simply decide not to. Or it can play him, at its own peril if it’s later decided the injunction was issued erroneously.
I’ll be honest, until the Supreme Court affirmed the Chambliss injunction I had deep misgivings about us playing him. A lot of these injunctions initially in favor of players are getting dissolved or reversed later. Just because a temporary order has protective language in it, is no guarantee against adverse actions if the injunction gets reversed. People need to understand that.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:35 pm to TeeteringBrink
quote:
The bigger distinction is that there is no SEC rule specifically addressing Chambliss’ situation. It was purely between him and the NCAA, and was merely a factual dispute.
Except for Article 14, which requires players to comply with all NCAA guidelines, of which he is not currently.
You're hung up on the differences between why the players are ineligible, it doesn't matter. The SEC has very clear bylaws which state that players must comply with NCAA guidelines, thus a player declared ineligible by the NCAA, is ineligible according to the SEC bylaws.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:35 pm to TeeteringBrink
quote:
People need to understand that.
They need to, but they lack the ability
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News