Started By
Message
re: I hate to say it federal court and sec has no case on lsu
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:25 pm to Bamatide69
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:25 pm to Bamatide69
It's an absolute trash complaint and theory of liability from a federal litigation standpoint. This stuff isn't LSU's fault. These institutions don't work anymore after the 2021 Alston case. We have to make something new.
0
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:25 pm to Mbeloso
quote:
they can subpoena telecommunications improve that lane and company orchestrated this. I would disagree with you
Lane can’t give life advice to an old player?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:25 pm to shinerfan
Exactly. These rules were made a week ago. It’s amazing that the retards on this board leave that part out.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:27 pm to Boom33
quote:They should be allowed to break federal law? What is wrong with you? You're just turning into SFP at this point
If it had the backing of all schools, then yes, they should be allowed to
quote:Yet is still relevant
A law that was created in the late 1800s to stop oil and railroad barrons from using shady practices to create monopolies
quote:The LA judge was on the side of the adults in the room. The SEC were buffoons. Besides, there's no reason to file this in AL.
Do you just outright admit that these judges aren't ruling based on law, but based on bias?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:29 pm to Boom33
quote:How curious. Kind of like the situation right now? Except bama didn't get sued in federal court.
One is an individual exception - forced by a court
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:29 pm to Boom33
quote:Yes, those rules that are in contradiction to court judgments
You mean other than the rules that state and clarify exactly what is allowed and what isn't
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:30 pm to Dawgs2122
quote:Chambliss is currently ineligible according to the NCAA. Not a peep from the SEC about punishing OM for playing him.
Did Chambliss declare for the draft or sign any contracts with pro teams?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:30 pm to Boom33
quote:
How many other people have been allowed to play due to that ruling?
Not sure why you're obsessed with this.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:32 pm to somethingdifferent
Has OM simply decided to risk it then? If so that's on them. LSU on the other hand has gotten some hack judge to say the organization they are a part of voluntarily can't enforce the rules they agreed to on them
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:33 pm to Boom33
quote:You are still wrong about this and the court rulings across the country proves that you are wrong.
They weren't
quote:It's nothing like that and it's a stupid analogy. Imagine it's an item that the store enters into an agreement with. The store practically gave them away to 2020/21 class, then put them on sale for the 23 class but then stupidly overlooked the 22 class and said no soup for you. Yeah, the players have a legit gripe.
It's like claiming you were treated unfairly because an item you bought went on sale a week later
quote:
A line has to be drawn somewhere
Sankey's line looks like Stevie Wonder drew it. Here's your line - CBA
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:34 pm to Boom33
quote:Bediako and Chambliss are absolutely double standards and I've explained it in detail.
Or you and others just refuse to acknowledge the differences between the cases so that you can pretend there is a double standard that you are the victim of
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:34 pm to Boom33
quote:1. 1 million. What difference does it make? He is INELIGIBLE. But the conference is doing nothing.
How many other people have been allowed to play due to that ruling?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:34 pm to Boom33
quote:
Boom33
Making the SECrant dumber since Jul 2026
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:37 pm to Dawgs2122
quote:You're missing the point. The conference isn't suing OM for playing an ineligible player. They didn't sue bama for playing an ineligible player.
Has OM simply decided to risk it then?
quote:
LSU on the other hand has gotten some hack judge
First, LSU did nothing. That was the players genius. Second, that judge knew WAY more than the jello brains Sankey quote:When those laws are contrary to a court ruling, it doesn't matter that they "agreed" to them
can't enforce the rules they agreed to
Posted on 9/4/26 at 5:25 pm to Boom33
quote:
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.
i hope you are being facetitious (sp). unfortunately for many LSU hasn't done a damn thing. there are about 40 players affected by this situation ( being left out of the 5 for 5). Lane Kiffin surely isn't stupid enough to contact them all and offer scholorships. in any event, this is a one year thing as the 5 for 5 thing will be in effect from here on in future years.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 5:55 pm to Dawgs2122
quote:
Did Chambliss declare for the draft or sign any contracts with pro teams?
He was declared ineligible by the NCAA. Ineligible is ineligible, regardless of the cause.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 6:08 pm to Bamatide69
quote:
Bamatide69
quote:
I hate to say it
quote:
sec has no case
quote:
lsu
finally admitting the SEC protects Bama from harm and screws everyone else over?
why would anyone support a mickey mouse organization whose own commissioner does not know what the 5 for 5 rule nor what a professional is?
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News