Started By
Message
re: LSU's TRO players sat OM's TRO started
Posted on 9/7/26 at 3:50 pm to LSUtigerNVegas9
Posted on 9/7/26 at 3:50 pm to LSUtigerNVegas9
quote:
First off, the suit in Louisiana was after the suits in Texas that directly affected the SEC.
Secondly, what did LSU do that was any different than what Alabama did with Bediako?
It's another instance of an exception vs something that forced a rule change. The Bediako case also didn't make it past TRO. Perhaps if it had, the SEC would have taken additional steps, I don't know. I know I didn't see other cases of the same nature pending on it.
I don't agree with any of them. I'm telling you what the difference between them is. I think it's bullshite for the courts to be involved in all of this completely. I hope the NCAA and the SEC win every single case.
But there is a good reason why the SEC had to push back like this now and it's not just because "Everyone hates LSU and loves Ole Miss".
1
Posted on 9/7/26 at 3:52 pm to Boom33
BoomButthurt i am hoping to take over that title cause being called stupid by you is what i consider the exact opposite.
I didn't know they let people in mental institutions have computer time.
I didn't know they let people in mental institutions have computer time.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 3:54 pm to Boom33
quote:
Chambliss was 1 person being declared elible. What Kiffin/LSU tried to do completely changed the rules on who was eligible in large numbers for the entire conference.
You are factually wrong and deliberately deflecting.
Chambliss getting a 6th year was and is literally against the rules. Not some obscure and vague rule open to interpretation. The rule is clear, the exceptions are clear and simple.
The judge literally acknowledged the rule prevents Chambliss a 6th year and then creates an exception to obfuscate the rule.
This is a narrow and special exception that only can apply to one specific individual, namely Chambliss.
Ole Miss is playing him as the most important player in the most important position in the game.
At LSU, meanwhile, it was the SEC who "clarified" a rule by making the rule more vague by adding terms like "contract" "properly withdraw" etc which were an attempt to target specifically the two players joining the LSU team.
In doing so, the SEC actually technically made ineligible every one of the class they were trying to grant eligibility to.
The term contract, legally includes liability waivers, participation agreements, any agreements signed to participate in anything pertaining to any events the NFL sponsors is legally a contract.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 3:55 pm to Boom33
quote:
It's another instance of an exception vs something that forced a rule change. The Bediako case also didn't make it past TRO. Perhaps if it had, the SEC would have taken additional steps, I don't know. I know I didn't see other cases of the same nature pending on it.
I don't agree with any of them. I'm telling you what the difference between them is. I think it's bullshite for the courts to be involved in all of this completely. I hope the NCAA and the SEC win every single case.
But there is a good reason why the SEC had to push back like this now and it's not just because "Everyone hates LSU and loves Ole Miss".
You haven't articulated what the actual difference is. You just keep saying it's an exception vs a rule change, which for the the third time, is factually incorrect.
Wright/Harris were exceptions, just as Chambliss or Bediako were. It only became a "rule change" because the conference reacted differently.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 4:00 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
what the actual difference is
The actual difference is that the rule is broken by the TRO for Chambliss.
The rule clarification was an attempt to single out LSU players by the SEC.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 4:04 pm to SidewalkTiger
Another point is that the rule broken by Chambliss was an established rule before the TRO
The exception created by SEC to exclude Wright was a reaction after he signed
In court Sankey could not explain, under oath, what the rule he was defending actually meant.
He testified that he did not know the NCAA 5 for 5 rule he claimed that the SEC rule was supposed to be upholding.
The exception created by SEC to exclude Wright was a reaction after he signed
In court Sankey could not explain, under oath, what the rule he was defending actually meant.
He testified that he did not know the NCAA 5 for 5 rule he claimed that the SEC rule was supposed to be upholding.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 4:06 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Not in my opinion, I think the conference just decided to draw a line here because they know fans can stomach medical redshirt arguments a bit easier than pro players. The basics are the same, players are using courts to circumvent rules.
As for your argument, if 5 for 5 didn't exist, it's now clear that anyone with any type of vague ailment could now get extra eligibility in the SEC just by obtaining a TRO in a local court.
5 for 5 now solves that issue (perhaps temporarily), as it does the pro problem.
Then why did LSU cave.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 4:08 pm to Boom33
quote:
Then why did LSU cave.
They didn't cave, Lane said from day 1 that he'd look to the conference for guidance and follow conference rules. The conference went all in on stopping this, as did the CFP committee, so for now, he isn't going to play the players.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 4:08 pm to stitchop
quote:
You are factually wrong and deliberately deflecting.
Chambliss getting a 6th year was and is literally against the rules. Not some obscure and vague rule open to interpretation. The rule is clear, the exceptions are clear and simple.
The judge literally acknowledged the rule prevents Chambliss a 6th year and then creates an exception to obfuscate the rule.
This is a narrow and special exception that only can apply to one specific individual, namely Chambliss.
Ole Miss is playing him as the most important player in the most important position in the game.
At LSU, meanwhile, it was the SEC who "clarified" a rule by making the rule more vague by adding terms like "contract" "properly withdraw" etc which were an attempt to target specifically the two players joining the LSU team.
In doing so, the SEC actually technically made ineligible every one of the class they were trying to grant eligibility to.
The term contract, legally includes liability waivers, participation agreements, any agreements signed to participate in anything pertaining to any events the NFL sponsors is legally a contract.
Chambliss was 1 person.
Allowing pro players is an entire group of players.
The SEC tried to tell LSU nicely to not do what they were doing with the clarification. It told LSU it would do so not as nicely with the lawsuit.
LSU caved at the last minute because they knew they would lose the case.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 4:12 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
You haven't articulated what the actual difference is. You just keep saying it's an exception vs a rule change, which for the the third time, is factually incorrect.
Wright/Harris were exceptions, just as Chambliss or Bediako were. It only became a "rule change" because the conference reacted differently.
No, it became a rule change because it applied to a broad group of people. In particular, players who were previously professionals.
Just because you had only 2 of those players doesn't mean those were the only 2 affected, and it's ridiculous that this kind of a point even has to be debated.
You want to keep applying a narrow view on it so you can ignore other factors. And it makes this conversation worthless.
Enjoy your crying.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 4:12 pm to Boom33
quote:
Chambliss was 1 person.
Allowing pro players is an entire group of players.
It's like 3 players. Again, an exception.
quote:
The SEC tried to tell LSU nicely to not do what they were doing with the clarification. It told LSU it would do so not as nicely with the lawsuit.
The lawsuit is a joke and not even relevant.
quote:
LSU caved at the last minute because they knew they would lose the case.
They were never going to risk playing the kids unless they know 100% they won't be penalized, that remains to be seen and will play out through the conference appeal.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 4:15 pm to Boom33
quote:
No, it became a rule change because it applied to a broad group of people. In particular, players who were previously professionals.
Just because you had only 2 of those players doesn't mean those were the only 2 affected, and it's ridiculous that this kind of a point even has to be debated.
You want to keep applying a narrow view on it so you can ignore other factors. And it makes this conversation worthless.
Enjoy your crying.
How many people were in this "broad group" that you've created in your mind?
Posted on 9/7/26 at 4:15 pm to Boom33
quote:
The SEC tried to tell LSU
Now you are understanding the foundation of the problem.
The difference between Wright at LSU and all the other players is a technical difference that has zero impact on the game.
Allowing Wright to play does more to damage college ball than any other returning player.
This was a rule that affected a narrow scope of players and excluded one year of players without a reason other than that year.
In court, Sankeys main argument and what he thought was the biggest damage to the SEC was that Wright on the roster would remove opportunities for freshman.
Somehow, magically, the other players who he would allow back wouldn't affect freshman opportunities?
Posted on 9/7/26 at 4:15 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
It's like 3 players. Again, an exception.
As long as you pretend this is true, there is no point in having any discusion with you.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 4:16 pm to stitchop
quote:
Now you are understanding the foundation of the problem.
The difference between Wright at LSU and all the other players is a technical difference that has zero impact on the game.
Allowing Wright to play does more to damage college ball than any other returning player.
This was a rule that affected a narrow scope of players and excluded one year of players without a reason other than that year.
In court, Sankeys main argument and what he thought was the biggest damage to the SEC was that Wright on the roster would remove opportunities for freshman.
Somehow, magically, the other players who he would allow back wouldn't affect freshman opportunities?
The SEC fought against the other cases also.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 4:17 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
How many people were in this "broad group" that you've created in your mind?
I have no idea how many professional football players exist.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 4:19 pm to Boom33
quote:
I have no idea how many professional football players exist.
It didn't apply to all professional football players, it applied to class of 2022 kids, involved in the 5 for 5 lawsuit, who were in NFL training camps but didn't make final rosters.
A very small group of impacted individuals. I am not shocked at all that you don't even know who was actually impacted or not.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 4:24 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
It didn't apply to all professional football players, it applied to class of 2022 kids, involved in the 5 for 5 lawsuit, who were in NFL training camps but didn't make final rosters.
A very small group of impacted individuals. I am not shocked at all that you don't even know who was actually impacted or not.
As long as you believe this is the case, there is nothing to talk about.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 4:26 pm to Boom33
quote:
The SEC fought against the other cases also.
yes, and they appealed several cases.
then they sued LSU.
They sued LSU for something LSU has yet to do.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 4:26 pm to Boom33
quote:
As long as you believe this is the case, there is nothing to talk about.
Notice, the poster cannot actually disavow my statement so he just attempts to deflect and end the debate.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News