1
Started By
Message
re: How come the injunctions made on behalf of Bediako & Trinidad are honored…
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:38 pm to SidewalkTiger
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:38 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
The SEC has very clear bylaws
Looking forward to you posting that LSU should not be pursuing any players that have declared for the draft and/or signed with NFL teams.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:38 pm to TeeteringBrink
quote:
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.
Do you understand what is happening this week?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:39 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
Trinidad- never declared for the draft and never signed a professional contract.
It’s not hard to see where the line is
He was declared ineligible by the NCAA. A mississippi judge gave him eligiblity. Period.
The difference is that the SEC didn't jump in and say, "If you have a sore throat during the season you can't have an extra year. If you do play the next year after having a sore throat the previous year- we will fine you half of your budget and your head coach is suspended half a year AND we will have pillow talks about expelling you from the league."
That's the bottom "line" you speak of.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:40 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Bit of a difference between a "strong affidavit" and creating a new rule out of thin air...
Wtf are you talking about? There has always been an NCAA rule against pro athletes coming back to play in college, and the SEC has always had a rule generally aligning its own eligibility requirements with those of the NCAA. Nothing new about that.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:43 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
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.
Which LSU had a decent case...until they voted to ban NFL players
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:44 pm to scottydoesntknow
quote:
Which LSU had a decent case...until they voted to ban NFL players
So why are some bylaws enforceable but others aren't?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:45 pm to TeeteringBrink
So, the Texas guy is good? The one that went to NFL mini-camps then came back?
I'm sure the guys that want to come back to LSU would have done the same IF they knew before the end of June that they could do that.
BTW, there are over 300 kids that are trying to come back to college for that extra year, not just the two or three that want to come to LSU.
I'm sure the guys that want to come back to LSU would have done the same IF they knew before the end of June that they could do that.
BTW, there are over 300 kids that are trying to come back to college for that extra year, not just the two or three that want to come to LSU.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:46 pm to TeeteringBrink
quote:
Wtf are you talking about? There has always been an NCAA rule against pro athletes coming back to play in college, and the SEC has always had a rule generally aligning its own eligibility requirements with those of the NCAA. Nothing new about that.
So why do you think a player that is ineligible, per the NCAA, should play in the SEC?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:46 pm to scottydoesntknow
quote:
Which LSU had a decent case...until they voted to ban NFL players
Pesky little detail. They should take this to be a legitimate concern that the courts might reference.
There’s no precedence to help give the courts an “out” so it’s very likely they rule based upon unanimously agreed upon bylaws.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:46 pm to TigerDCC11
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:46 pm to Adam Banks
Even without reading all the pleadings I have a fairly good idea of what’s happening, but I doubt you understand much of it.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:48 pm to this board
quote:
Looking forward to you posting that LSU should not be pursuing any players that have declared for the draft and/or signed with NFL teams.
I agree, rostering such a player is in violation of SEC bylaws. Just as rostering a player like Chambliss.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:49 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
quote:Which LSU had a decent case...until they voted to ban NFL players So why are some bylaws enforceable but others aren't?
If LSU is willing to take this argument to federal court...good luck. Dont get mad if it blows up in their faces
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:50 pm to TeeteringBrink
There will be an injunction issued at the end of this week.
Which means Harris and wright will be no different than Chambliss.
You may feel like one is ineligible but the others are SUPER ineligible.
But they will be the same legally
Which means Harris and wright will be no different than Chambliss.
You may feel like one is ineligible but the others are SUPER ineligible.
But they will be the same legally
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 1:51 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:51 pm to SidewalkTiger
I knew you couldn’t do it. 
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:52 pm to scottydoesntknow
quote:
If LSU is willing to take this argument to federal court...good luck. Dont get mad if it blows up in their faces
I don't think they will, unless they feel they have a very good case. Too much risk, too little reward.
The alternative is that LSU isn't behind this at all and is just looking to add some extra depth if the players are available. In that case, if the players aren't available, they just won't sign them. No harm, no foul. I think that's the more likely scenario.
The SEC already circling the wagons and unofficially threatening to expel LSU barely a week into this makes it seem as though they aren't exactly confident in their other alternative measures.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 1:56 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
So why do you think a player that is ineligible, per the NCAA, should play in the SEC?
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. 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.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:01 pm to deathvalleyfreak43
Chambliss: initial TRO was issued exactly as in current case. NCAA appealed. Mississippi supreme court refused to remove TRO
Bediako : initial TRO was issued exactly as in current case. NCAA appealed and different Alabama judge removed the TRO and Bediako was ineligible.
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.
NCAA / SEC is obviously much more concerned about the NFL/NBA lines being crossed because they hope 5 for 5 should settles redshirt issues in the future.
However, 5 for 5 would still keep the door open for players to bounce back and forth between college and NFL for those 5 years if that rule is weakened.
That's why their response, right or wrong, is so focused on stopping the blurring of NFL/NBA and college.
Bediako : initial TRO was issued exactly as in current case. NCAA appealed and different Alabama judge removed the TRO and Bediako was ineligible.
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.
NCAA / SEC is obviously much more concerned about the NFL/NBA lines being crossed because they hope 5 for 5 should settles redshirt issues in the future.
However, 5 for 5 would still keep the door open for players to bounce back and forth between college and NFL for those 5 years if that rule is weakened.
That's why their response, right or wrong, is so focused on stopping the blurring of NFL/NBA and college.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:03 pm to TeeteringBrink
quote:
Two reasons: first, there’s no specific SEC rule you can point to that says he’s not eligible.
You don’t think there’s a SEC rule that says you can’t play a NCAA ineligible player?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:03 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Which means Harris and wright will be no different than Chambliss. You may feel like one is ineligible but the others are SUPER ineligible. But they will be the same legally
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.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 2:06 pm
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News