Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/2/26 at 10:47 am to tigerskin
quote:Still acting like this somehow impacts him. The SEC didn’t rule him ineligible. Why are yall completely ignoring that?
Looks like Trinidad will be removed mid season then
The SEC and NCAA are completely different governing bodies. Not the same thing
The SEC is saying “no pro players” that’s it. Not “no players who the NCAA has ruled ineligible”
This post was edited on 9/2/26 at 10:49 am
Posted on 9/2/26 at 10:48 am to Lgrnwd
quote:
But will try to force the SEC’s hand to deal with other “ineligible” players in the conference through legal action. On the grounds of the SEC is arbitrarily enforcing its own rules regarding “ineligible” players with TRO’s. You cannot pick and choose which ineligible players with TRO’s you allow and which you punish.
Kiffin’s final act in his exit from Ole Miss, lol.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 10:49 am to tigerskin
quote:
Looks like Trinidad will be removed mid season then
Thus far, the SEC hasn't made any ruling on Trinidad one way or the other. What I meant was the SEC is arguing that they have the right to enforce their rules on their members
Posted on 9/2/26 at 10:49 am to ManBearSharkReb
quote:
rule their conference and make rules in governance of their own identity.
I guess it’s next man up at QB for the Rebs.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 10:50 am to Quicksilver
quote:Their dumbasses have convinced themselves that the NCAA and SEC are the same thing with the same rules.
Thus far, the SEC hasn't made any ruling on Trinidad one way or the other. What I meant was the SEC is arguing that they have the right to enforce their rules on their members
Posted on 9/2/26 at 10:51 am to Henry Jones Jr
They think Lane is playing 4D chess to stick it to us one more time. But WE are the scorned lovers
Posted on 9/2/26 at 10:51 am to kajunman
quote:
5 for 5 is more than one player. It won't be that simple.
It isn’t aimed at 5 for 5. It is aimed at professionals coming back to play in college. They will argue that signing a pro contract is a disqualifier regardless of any other circumstances. Otherwise they will argue it is just the minor leagues.
They will also argue that a conference is allowed to hold their members to higher standards, and can institute admittance requirements. Similar to how some schools have higher admittance standards than others, and this has been deemed completely legal. They will argue that since membership in the SEC is completely voluntary no one is forcing them to abide by these standards. Schools are free to leave. But if they are a member they will agree to follow all of the rules the membership approves. Similar to joining an HOA, which has been ruled completely legal. They will argue that the SEC conference is not prohibiting anyone from playing college sports, there are many other opportunities and avenues for players who do not meet their requirements to play.
This is not about 5 for 5.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 10:53 am to ManBearSharkReb
quote:
Rumor that the SEC will file federal suit tomorrow
So then a district judge can place holds on the entire country football ops just like they do to Trump stuff?
Posted on 9/2/26 at 10:57 am to MasterDigger
The SEC could make a ruling about Trinidad if they wanted. They haven't yet so they won't, but if they won this lawsuit, and then said he was ineligible, Trindad would go to the bench.
This lawsuit likely won't be solved prior to this season ending so the only real power the SEC will have is to retroactively punish teams for rostering NFL players. Of course, teams will argue it was legal via injunction at the time so that's also unlikely to happen. This is probably more to pave the way so that people who declare after 3/4 years and get cut can't come back in the future.
This lawsuit likely won't be solved prior to this season ending so the only real power the SEC will have is to retroactively punish teams for rostering NFL players. Of course, teams will argue it was legal via injunction at the time so that's also unlikely to happen. This is probably more to pave the way so that people who declare after 3/4 years and get cut can't come back in the future.
This post was edited on 9/2/26 at 10:58 am
Posted on 9/2/26 at 11:00 am to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
The SEC and NCAA are completely different governing bodies. Not the same thing
The SEC is saying “no pro players” that’s it. Not “no players who the NCAA has ruled ineligible”
Chambliss’ lawsuit enjoined the SEC and NCAA, effectively making them the same entity.
Words and actions have meanings.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 11:00 am to ManBearSharkReb
This would be interesting. I’ll look forward to studying it if/when it’s filed.
Not sure who the parties would be. The most reasonable would be all these scattered state courts that are issuing (sometimes inconsistent) TROs. But the Anti-Injunction Act probably prevents that unless there’s some exception I’m not seeing.
That would leave the players, and/or the schools trying to sign them. As to them, there’s no diversity of citizenship so no federal jurisdiction on those grounds. Unless the suit is brought by just Sankey in his official capacity, or by the other SEC member schools. Ugh.
SEC would have to come up with some “federal question” to get jurisdiction that way. Maybe rope in the House Settlement. Maybe try some argument under the Commerce Clause. Idk.
Gonna be fun nerding out on this one.
Not sure who the parties would be. The most reasonable would be all these scattered state courts that are issuing (sometimes inconsistent) TROs. But the Anti-Injunction Act probably prevents that unless there’s some exception I’m not seeing.
That would leave the players, and/or the schools trying to sign them. As to them, there’s no diversity of citizenship so no federal jurisdiction on those grounds. Unless the suit is brought by just Sankey in his official capacity, or by the other SEC member schools. Ugh.
SEC would have to come up with some “federal question” to get jurisdiction that way. Maybe rope in the House Settlement. Maybe try some argument under the Commerce Clause. Idk.
Gonna be fun nerding out on this one.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 11:02 am to Quicksilver
quote:
the only real power the SEC will have is to retroactively punish teams for rostering NFL players.
Did they make Bama forfeit those basketball games an ineligible player participated in?
Posted on 9/2/26 at 11:02 am to captdalton
quote:
It isn’t aimed at 5 for 5. It is aimed at professionals coming back to play in college. They will argue that signing a pro contract is a disqualifier regardless of any other circumstances. Otherwise they will argue it is just the minor leagues.
Wrong. 90% of the plaintiffs on the lawsuit didn’t sign a pro contract.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 11:04 am to ManBearSharkReb
All because of a handful of 2022 players. Although I suppose the SEC is figuring they have to take a stand because some schools won't stop with just the 2022 class.
The SEC likely sees this as protecting their brand and its power to govern member schools. However, I fail to see the logic in allowing an otherwise eligible player to return if that player was unable to make an NFL roster their first time out. They're not NFL players if they never made an roster.
The SEC likely sees this as protecting their brand and its power to govern member schools. However, I fail to see the logic in allowing an otherwise eligible player to return if that player was unable to make an NFL roster their first time out. They're not NFL players if they never made an roster.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 11:04 am to RB10
quote:
Chambliss’ lawsuit enjoined the SEC and NCAA,
No it didn’t. SEC wasn’t a party. Jesus, you just spout shite you know nothing about all the time?
Posted on 9/2/26 at 11:05 am to TeeteringBrink
Who do they sue? The NCAA?
Themselves?
The former Pro players who sued them?
Do they sue them for suing them?
Standing requires damage, not potentially future damage to hypothetical future freshman athletes.
Themselves?
The former Pro players who sued them?
Do they sue them for suing them?
Standing requires damage, not potentially future damage to hypothetical future freshman athletes.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 11:06 am to TeeteringBrink
quote:
No it didn’t. SEC wasn’t a party. Jesus, you just spout shite you know nothing about all the time?
It was Pavia. My bad. Got my eligibility lawsuits mixed it.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 11:08 am to Quicksilver
quote:
The SEC could make a ruling about Trinidad if they wanted.
If they were consistent, they would
Which is the point
Posted on 9/2/26 at 11:09 am to RB10
quote:
Wrong. 90% of the plaintiffs on the lawsuit didn’t sign a pro contract.
We are talking about the lawsuit the SEC is expected to file in federal court. Not the one currently in the East Baton Rouge kangaroo court.
The SEC’s hope is that the judge will issue a stay until the initial hearing. That would block players who have signed a pro contract from playing until then.
There are people in the LSU administration on their knees praying for this. It lets them off the hook from making some very difficult decisions between now and Friday.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News