re: Political influence on the LSU admin?

I don’t disagree that this seems to be a premature use of the nuclear threat, but I’m not in the room.

I’m just saying that we aren’t that far from a world where, in the absence of deference to NCAA/SEc rules, a program in a state with a friendly judicial system could effectively operate with no eligibility restrictions at all.

quote:

---

I don’t disagree that this seems to be a premature use of the nuclear threat, but I’m not in the room.

I’m just saying that we aren’t that far from a world where, in the absence of deference to NCAA/SEc rules, a school is a state with a friendly judicial system could effectively operate with no eligibility restrictions at all.

---

far from a World.....

we are there brother!

look at little old Ole Miss and their 38 year old qb

quote:

---

I’m just saying that we aren’t that far from a world where, in the absence of deference to NCAA/SEc rules, a program in a state with a friendly judicial system could effectively operate with no eligibility restrictions at all.

---

Are we not kind of already there for all intents and purposes? More or less, the underlying point of the SEC's federal lawsuit is to hopefully get a ruling to prevent this very thing from remaining a reality

quote:

---

I don’t disagree that this seems to be a premature use of the nuclear threat, but I’m not in the room.

I’m just saying that we aren’t that far from a world where, in the absence of deference to NCAA/SEc rules, a program in a state with a friendly judicial system could effectively operate with no eligibility restrictions at all.

---

I agree completely with you, however, the NCAA was never viewed as a "fair" governing body because of its selective enforcement. The SEC is walking down that same road now.

You can't argue that you need the power to enforce your rules, when you can't even enforce your rules fairly.

quote:

---

I’m just saying that we aren’t that far from a world where, in the absence of deference to NCAA/SEc rules, a program in a state with a friendly judicial system could effectively operate with no eligibility restrictions at all.

---

And, that's the world the rest of the SEC is desperately trying to hold off until we can split away and form our own collective bargained rules. But, if everyone doesn't stick together, then even that will fall apart, along with the sport itself.

That's why the nuclear option is on the table so early here.

quote:

---

You can't argue that you need the power to enforce your rules, when you can't even enforce your rules fairly.

---

The SEC would argue, reasonably imo, that fair enforcement of eligibility rules is a new obligation on their plate, and it’s too early to judge whether they can do so fairly or not.

quote:

---

Are we not kind of already there for all intents and purposes? More or less, the underlying point of the SEC's federal lawsuit is to hopefully get a ruling to prevent this very thing from remaining a reality

---

The SEC looks somewhat foolish, though, in my opinion, because they aren't enforcing their rules fairly today.

quote:

---

The SEC would argue, reasonably imo, that fair enforcement of eligibility rules is a new obligation on their plate, and it’s too early to judge whether they can do so fairly or not.

---

That argument would work great, for a situation like Bediako, which was months ago. How does it work for the players currently in violation of 14.01.01?

The SEC can mount a formidable enough response to keep Wright and Harris from playing in a week's time, but not the rest?

quote:

---

I’m not arguing in favor of OM. Quite the opposite, in fact.

---

no i get what you are saying and would agree to an extent

but couple things

1) the eligibility thing is a 1 year issue, period
2) the lawsuit really had nothing to do with LSU. it came on the heals of multiple other suits across the country in which an injunction was granted. You can argue Kiffin encouraged it etc...whatever, there is no proof of that.

3) the sec was warned if they passed that rule, they would be named in the lawsuit and eventually would be found guilty in civil court and would have to pay. They never would have been named in the suit and Sankey would not have had to make a fool of himself on the stand

4) LSU never said they intended to play the kids. they said they would abided by SEC rules and the courts rulings.


i literally was the main LSU fan on this board screaming this was a bad look and the juice was certainly not worth the squeeze.

But at some point....after Sankey was made a fool of, this became personal for them and they are go strictly off feelings and emotions.

and i fricking despise having to say this...but yes the UT president comes off looking like this is a political stunt. especially with the bs about governor having a role

1) the governor hand picks the BOS
2) they serve at the behest of the governor
3) LSU is the sole p4 school in the state. Of course he will be involved in some way. but to say he orchestrated the whole deal when he was just on radio like 2 days ago and was asking the host questions because he didn't know all the details, is asinine.

i mean you have a point on judges but it was a 1 year thing and the SEC was told, point fricking blank....if you make that rule, you will be named in that lawsuit


now they are going to have to settle. pretty much for whatever those kids want...because the SEC can not afford for any of the behind the scenes stuff to come out in discovery.