Started By
Message
re: Rumor that the SEC will file federal suit tomorrow
Posted on 9/2/26 at 1:57 pm to TeeteringBrink
Posted on 9/2/26 at 1:57 pm to TeeteringBrink
quote:
I will be unable
You are perfectly capable of explaining the difference, and I am capable of understanding the difference.
The SEC absolutely has interest in having their rules followed.
That does not grant standing in federal court for a lawsuit.
1
Posted on 9/2/26 at 1:59 pm to billjamin
quote:
Kinda hard to argue they did when they didn't vacate the games the he played in while ineligible.
It's actually pretty easy since the SEC did everything in their power to fight it. They honored the TRO in effect until they got their day in court where they won and it was removed.
Then they tried to pass this conference specific rule currently being challenged to limit that loophole in the future/present.
Mainly by trying to get.member institutions to come to an agreement about the Bediako case not happening into infinity with the conferences hands tied by TROs that result in players playing a few weeks before they are removed.
I can see a ton of arguments about NCAA and SEC not solving these issues. However. It seems they are also doing every thing they can to fight them as far as the law allows. Even to rhe point of the new rule aimed at these very loopholes like with Bediako.
This post was edited on 9/2/26 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 9/2/26 at 2:09 pm to stitchop
We’ve agreed that the SEC clearly has a direct particularized interest in having its rules enforced. The very crux of standing. All they’d have to do is allege that without an injunction stopping the violation of its rules, they will be eroded. Done.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 2:19 pm to wm72
quote:
It's actually pretty easy since the SEC did everything in their power to fight it
They didn't. They could have made the point that if you play a player that is later determined to be ineligible then they will vacate any games he played it. This has been done to dozens of schools retroactively for a variety of reasons. It would have ended a lot of what we're seeing now because no one would risk that. They sent a strongly worded letter to the court in the Bediako case, then chose to do nothing after the fact until all this blew up.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 2:24 pm to TeeteringBrink
quote:
All they’d have to do is allege that without an injunction stopping the violation of its rules, they will be eroded.
That isn't standing in federal court.
"Will be" is a key phrase in your statement.
Federal courts do not allow standing based on hypothetical damages.
Only in very rare cases. And this isn't one of them.
Direct injury. This would most certainly have to be monetary. Speculating fairness and competition would be an abstract.
Some would argue actual monetary increase with skill and name recognition.
Causation of harm would have to be directly connected. The argument that the potential punishment of the rules (a concrete figure, not speculation) far exceeds the potential loss. It would be a net gain for SEC.
Then the judicial review aspect. The federal courts may not have review authority over sports conference governance
Posted on 9/2/26 at 2:25 pm to ManBearSharkReb
I don’t care at this point
But
If this is true, all TRO’s should be “no”
But
If this is true, all TRO’s should be “no”
Posted on 9/2/26 at 2:28 pm to lsusteve1
quote:
all TRO’s should be “no”
Standing and damages are different in state courts.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 2:29 pm to stitchop
In that case, the SEC would just enforce their rules with whatever punishment is determined, and hold off on a federal suit until the need arises.
It’s just a rumor. Tomorrow sounds premature.
It’s just a rumor. Tomorrow sounds premature.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 2:30 pm to stitchop
Tell ya what, sport. If the SEC in fact brings a suit over this issue, you should send your legal brief to defense counsel and see if they use it in their MTD. Keep us posted.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 2:32 pm to stitchop
quote:
Standing and damages are different in state courts.
Don’t give 2 shits
NCAA and SEC want authority, then take it and don’t make exceptions
5 years to play 4 and that’s final
Posted on 9/2/26 at 2:34 pm to Milk
Agree with you with respect to the NCAA. I think its entirely fair to state that their decisions and rules have been arbritary and capricious, especially with respect to the Class of 2022.
While the NCAA doesn't enjoy an exemption to antitrust laws, it would be difficult to build a case in Federal court under the Sherman Act. That's where the Class of 2022 players fall short.
Similarly, the SEC simply should demonstrate that it is empowered under the member institutions to enforce its bylaws. There is no antitrust case to any conference under the Sherman Act. Member institutions voluntarily subscribe to its bylaws.
While the NCAA doesn't enjoy an exemption to antitrust laws, it would be difficult to build a case in Federal court under the Sherman Act. That's where the Class of 2022 players fall short.
Similarly, the SEC simply should demonstrate that it is empowered under the member institutions to enforce its bylaws. There is no antitrust case to any conference under the Sherman Act. Member institutions voluntarily subscribe to its bylaws.
This post was edited on 9/2/26 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 9/2/26 at 2:35 pm to lsusteve1
quote:
NCAA and SEC want authority, then take it and don’t make exceptions
This is the reason SEC will ultimately have to back down and create rules with clarity and consistency.
SEC and NCAA created the problem they are fighting in court.
Thier rules are contradicting and unfair to the very athlete they claim to care about
Posted on 9/2/26 at 2:37 pm to Lgrnwd
Would be the most prudent thing to do. I highly doubt they play this weekend.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 2:45 pm to Quicksilver
quote:
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.
I 100% agree with this. The NCAA stepped on their own dicks making the 5 for 5 ruling in June. I think the courts see that and will make any ruling strictly about the 2022 class. How the conference handles this is anybody’s guess. Do they acquiesce and say 2022 guys are ok or do they dig in their heels and drag this out till the end of the season.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 3:06 pm to stitchop
quote:
And the current SEC rules were AFTER Wright. These rules were NOT in place at that time. More Hypocrite BS from Alabama
Doesnt invalidate rule in slightest...especially when you consider the fact that LSU voted to pass rule
Posted on 9/2/26 at 3:17 pm to ManBearSharkReb
I read through this thread and I still haven't see the answer. So just adding to the echo chamber and hoping to get an actual response.
Who is the SEC suing federally? The NFL? The student athletes? The schools? The NCAA? All of the above or some combination?
Who is the SEC suing federally? The NFL? The student athletes? The schools? The NCAA? All of the above or some combination?
Posted on 9/2/26 at 3:20 pm to BOSCEAUX
That's life. Congress enacts legislation that occurs on a particular date. Should I sue congress because I couldn't utilize a particular law sooner?
There are likely any number of rules that occur for the benefit of some and not others.
These guys that couldn't make a 53 man roster are just backtracking for NIL money. Lets say they are allowed to play CFB this season. What after this year?
There are likely any number of rules that occur for the benefit of some and not others.
These guys that couldn't make a 53 man roster are just backtracking for NIL money. Lets say they are allowed to play CFB this season. What after this year?
This post was edited on 9/2/26 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 9/2/26 at 3:21 pm to LVag1997
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. quote:
The SEC filed a brief with a Louisiana court ahead of Thursday’s injunction hearing, including an affidavit from commissioner Greg Sankey. The brief outlines why the SEC should hold authority to enforce its rules against a member school and that Sankey should not be held liable.
quote:
Sankey details the penalties afforded to him/presidents; says no president voted against the penalties released in memos last week (LSU's Wade Rousse abstained); clarifies SEC is not an NCAA agent; and says permitting pro players would create unfairness for high school athletes.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 3:23 pm to ouflak
quote:
I read through this thread and I still haven't see the answer. So just adding to the echo chamber and hoping to get an actual response.
Who is the SEC suing federally? The NFL? The student athletes? The schools? The NCAA? All of the above or some combination?
Honestly, with the OP's track record, you should go ahead and just assume there will never be a federal suit.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 3:24 pm to kajunman
quote:
Pavia and Chambliss
Ok… that doesn’t answer the question in any way.
Should athletes who did not graduate high school and didn’t receive a GED be able to use the legal system to force a university to accept them? Not being allowed to play will impede their ability to make money.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News