re: Rumor floating around the SEC offices this afternoon:

Kicking us out of the SEC will long-term hurt the conference way more than just letting two players play for one season in a one time situation, due to 5/5. Talk about some fricking overdramatic bullshite, and people think we are distracted right now? Just more scare tactics. Kiffin is an evil genius.

Setting the precedent is dangerous. Right now, any player can get a TRO for pretty much anything at the state level. You allow this for one year, and you will see somebody else sue next year as well ... are you willfully ignorant, or so far up Kiffin's arse that you just don't care?

quote:

---

Right now, any player can get a TRO for pretty much anything at the state level.

---

Like Pavia ?

quote:

---

You allow this for one year, and you will see somebody else sue next year as well ...

---

Like Chambliss ?

It appears to be a united front. Never thought I would see that. I may completely lose it when Alabama and Auburn speak out publicly. Those two cannot agree on anything.

quote:

---

At some point, “we didn’t start the fire” falls on deaf ears. 

---

Oh well. You can lead a horse to water and all that.

quote:

---

The new rule vote, and LSU abstaining is what changed.

---

LSU didn't abstain from the rule vote, they abstained from the penalty piece. Very different.

That’s sort of been the MO, to pit the schools against each other using greed.

Like you said, it’s difficult to get all members to agree, on anything…

quote:

---

These cases now have the potential to impact the autonomy and ability of academic institutions to decide whom they can or cannot admit, and how those rules are administered and governed.

---

Let's go back to this for a second, because I think this is the part that everyone is overlooking...

If a court can order a conference/NCAA to recognize an athlete as eligible despite the governing body's eligibility rules, where exactly does that principle stop?

Because universities aren't just football teams. They're academic institutions with admissions standards, residency requirements, degree requirements, academic progress requirements, etc.

Today it's:

“This player was previously a professional, but the court says he can compete.”

But what happens when the next lawsuit involves some other eligibility requirement?

And the next one?

Eventually you're potentially creating a system where the courts, rather than the universities and their governing organizations, determine who is entitled to participate in collegiate athletics.

That's a pretty significant problem for the schools themselves.

Imagine two students applying to the same university. One has to satisfy the institution's normal academic requirements because he's a regular student. The other gets an exception because he's a valuable athlete and his attorney finds a sympathetic judge.

At what point does “student-athlete” become a legal category that gets privileges ordinary students don't have?

And that's why I think the SEC is fighting this so hard.

This isn't really about whether LSU gets to add two football players.

It's about who ultimately gets to establish the rules governing admission and participation at universities: the institutions themselves, their governing organizations, or individual courts issuing injunctions one case at a time.

Once you establish that precedent, it's awfully difficult to predict where it ends.

And that's a MUCH bigger issue than LSU vs. Sankey.

quote:

---

LSU didn't abstain from the rule vote, they abstained from the penalty piece. Very different.

---

Factually correct. I could have articulated more details but I was going for brevity.

quote:

---

Let's go back to this for a second, because I think this is the part that everyone is overlooking... If a court can order a conference/NCAA to recognize an athlete as eligible despite the governing body's eligibility rules, where exactly does that principle stop? Because universities aren't just football teams. They're academic institutions with admissions standards, residency requirements, degree requirements, academic progress requirements, etc. Today it's: “This player was previously a professional, but the court says he can compete.” But what happens when the next lawsuit involves some other eligibility requirement? And the next one? Eventually you're potentially creating a system where the courts, rather than the universities and their governing organizations, determine who is entitled to participate in collegiate athletics. That's a pretty significant problem for the schools themselves. Imagine two students applying to the same university. One has to satisfy the institution's normal academic requirements because he's a regular student. The other gets an exception because he's a valuable athlete and his attorney finds a sympathetic judge. At what point does “student-athlete” become a legal category that gets privileges ordinary students don't have? And that's why I think the SEC is fighting this so hard. This isn't really about whether LSU gets to add two football players. It's about who ultimately gets to establish the rules governing admission and participation at universities: the institutions themselves, their governing organizations, or individual courts issuing injunctions one case at a time. Once you establish that precedent, it's awfully difficult to predict where it ends. And that's a MUCH bigger issue than LSU vs. Sankey.

---

Key points: this is a 1 time thing because the NCAA dropped the ball.

This wouldn’t be an issue if the SEC had made its ruling 3 weeks ago when they knew this was on the horizon. Instead they drug their feet and waited till someone did something completely within the rules. Then they tried to change the rules. That’s the problem.