I hate to say it federal court and sec has no case on lsu

It’s ok to say it, because it’s the truth. The grandma from Tennessee and the Old Miss AD have forced the others hands. It’s a waste of time and money. Meanwhile LSU will keep stacking players and wins while everyone else yells about

Sankey is a FirstAmendment auditor

The players will win again at the Supreme Court. Then, LSU should sue the SEC for damages for the frivolous law suit it brought and trying to impose discriminatory sanctions.

quote:

---

Of course they do. LSU violated their right to free speech.

---

Freedom of association.

The court rulings are saying that the SEC/Conferences have no real power to enforce their rules or punish members for breaking them. All you need is a corrupt judge and a school willing to push it because "If we don't, someone else will".

In doing so, the conference and its members are being forced to accept players that may not meet the standards the conference and teams have chosen for themselves. AKA, the SECs freedom of association has been violated.

The SEC tried to play nice, but LSU ignored it. Which will also be used as further evidence in the case.

quote:

---

The conference can't even define the groups it's trying to bracket, good luck.

This particular suit is going nowhere.

---

It's not an eligibility case for the 100th time.

It's a case on if the SEC and conferences have autonomy to define their own rules and punishments for breaking them.

It can be a rule that says all members must claim the sky is brown. You can argue how much the sky is blue all you want to, but the actual question won't be about the color of the sky, it will be about if the SEC has the right to create its own rules and penalties.

If the SEC wins, all this TRO shite goes away. If the SEC loses, then it will be the wild west where all you need is a judge to declare someone eligible, and even then, that might not be required since the conferences will lack the ability to enforce their rules.

quote:

---

It's not an eligibility case for the 100th time.

It's a case on if the SEC and conferences have autonomy to define their own rules and punishments for breaking them.

It can be a rule that says all members must claim the sky is brown. You can argue how much the sky is blue all you want to, but the actual question won't be about the color of the sky, it will be about if the SEC has the right to create its own rules and penalties.

If the SEC wins, all this TRO shite goes away. If the SEC loses, then it will be the wild west where all you need is a judge to declare someone eligible, and even then, that might not be required since the conferences will lack the ability to enforce their rules.

---

Sure, but in this case the conference is admitting that it doesn't know the differences between blue and brown. You can't have the right to create your own rules and penalties if you can't even differentiate between the groups affected.

You're missing the point, over, and over, and over again.

I’ll kill this argument in 5 seconds. If the SEC decides to ban black players. Are they allowed to? And use free speech freedom of association as a defense? Membership is voluntary. And if that’s the case why didn’t the SEC just say we aren’t going to allow NIL or rev share?

You’re a freaking clown! Rambling on an on about something you have absolutely no clue about? The SEC as a conference falls under the Sherman Act/ antitrust. If a bylaw is illegal they can’t enforce it. Brush up on your law. You have the legal knowledge of a high schooler.

It’s not as simple as you think. Why do you think Sankey wouldn’t/ couldn’t say what a professional is? Same with an amateur. If he did then every player could use that to become an employee and then negotiate under a CBA. This court case if it’s not moved to federal court in Louisiana, will be dismissed, or the SEC will just flat out lose.

quote:

---

And unfortunately a lot of fans are so blinded by hatred of LSU and Kiffin they can’t see how ludicrous the whole situation actually is.

---

It’d certainly seem that way.

There are also those of us who’d like to follow a game in a league which used to mean something to most of the posters here until it became more and more obvious that game and league is now without any semblance of rules which are not subject to testing by the courts.

There is no end in sight. The courts have repeatedly said the NCAA is powerless to enforce any standards. The conference’s are going to find that they are equally powerless going forward. The only regulatory body available are school presidents and that is limited to the school in question. There is going to bo limitation on eligibility of any sort in a few years. No limit on salaries of players. No limits on roster numbers. Texas Tech and LSU are merely the tip of the iceberg. With the increase in sports gambling it’s only a matter of time before a scandal breaks in college athletics, in the absence of any regulations, which will stain the concept to the point it never recovers. One cannot lament the current state of college athletics while simultaneously celebrating the absence of any meaningful regulations. We are witnessing the dismantling of a uniquely American past time….college athletics.

quote:

---

I’ll kill this argument in 5 seconds. If the SEC decides to ban black players. Are they allowed to? And use free speech freedom of association as a defense? Membership is voluntary. And if that’s the case why didn’t the SEC just say we aren’t going to allow NIL or rev share?

---

If it had the backing of all schools, then yes, they should be allowed to. The schools had this policy in the past and it wasn't because they were forced to change that it happened. It was because it's stupid to not have things based on meritocracy and not getting with the times was a competitive disadvantage.

quote:

---

You’re a freaking clown! Rambling on an on about something you have absolutely no clue about? The SEC as a conference falls under the Sherman Act/ antitrust. If a bylaw is illegal they can’t enforce it. Brush up on your law. You have the legal knowledge of a high schooler.

---

A law that was created in the late 1800s to stop oil and railroad barrons from using shady practices to create monopolies.

Of which should NOT remotely apply to organizations like the NCAA, which only have rules for competitive reason to create a product. The fault in this law and scope has been made evident when MLB, NFL and others needed an exemption from it, a recognition that it was being applied to areas it doesn't belong to.

And that is ultimately what will likely happen for the NCAA as well.

quote:

---

It’s not as simple as you think. Why do you think Sankey wouldn’t/ couldn’t say what a professional is? Same with an amateur. If he did then every player could use that to become an employee and then negotiate under a CBA. This court case if it’s not moved to federal court in Louisiana, will be dismissed, or the SEC will just flat out lose.

---

Probably due to other cases where the terminology is more about who is an employee and who isn't. I can't speak for the guy, but it's not even really valid.

Why do you think it needs to be in Louisiana? Do you just outright admit that these judges aren't ruling based on law, but based on bias?