0
Started By
Message
re: Sankey has stepped out into "No man's land"
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:37 pm to Tigerinthewoods
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:37 pm to Tigerinthewoods
The B1G cares about your academic profile. Y'all do not...
You might go independent but B1G will not be an option so B12 or ACC
You might go independent but B1G will not be an option so B12 or ACC
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:38 pm to Scoob
Kiffin launched another torpedo at the SEC with his “imagine if we had pro players” comment. It appears that on Thursday the SEC will approve a nuclear missile strike in return.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:41 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
and people need to come to terms with that.
It's really not this dramatic. I mean....Most (I would hope) have other things going on besides taking pride in what athletic conference their school belongs to. We'd be fine, and the rest of the SEC will have gotten exactly what they wanted- and have the satisfaction of telling one another they made the right decision.
Win / Win.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:41 pm to Scoob
quote:
Expulsion from the SEC, for that?
I mean logically there has to be some sort of justification for them to even call a vote, right?
They won't just show up and say "because we want to."
Surely it's based on something?
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:43 pm to paperwasp
quote:
Surely it's based on something?
And if it isn't? Would that make a difference?
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:52 pm to Tigerinthewoods
quote:
Don't be fooled. Sankey is instigating all of this.
It's really easy to convince a bunch of Academics someone is trying to take advantage of them.
16 institutions at first voted to stop Lane.
After somebody with money I guess called your president, it became 15 with your president still refusing to actually vote against.
It is not just Sankey. Believe that if you want. The 15 other schools and Sankey have been in lock step. The obvious split is in BR.
I'll repeat 16 schools voted to keep players who signed NFL contracts off SEC rosters. Zero schools have voted against these rules.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:54 pm to paperwasp
quote:quote:
Expulsion from the SEC, for that?
I mean logically there has to be some sort of justification for them to even call a vote, right?
They won't just show up and say "because we want to."
Surely it's based on something?
So, then what's this based on? Kiffin being a troll? That was tolerated at Ole Miss for years, and Jimbo got into it with people while at A&M.
And you can't tell me that neither Vandy with Pavia (hell that was his coach at the other school too) nor Ole Miss didn't at least support, if not directly encourage, their lawsuits to regain eligibility. Not a peep on that.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:22 pm to Scoob
quote:
So, then what's this based on?
I don't think we know yet.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:24 pm to Lsupimp
quote:
Lane Kiffin and LSU are throwing a wrench into the already broken machine because he doesn’t care about the unjust enrichment the NCAA, SEC, and schools are profiting. Lane only cares about winning football games and because of that the SEC knows he is on the verge of toppling the already vulnerable system.
Lane is getting the Trump treatment. He can't be bought and doesn't give a shite about anyone's feelings. Notice how media types like Fukbaum just pile on and pile on?
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:27 pm to koreandawg
quote:
16 institutions at first voted to stop Lane.
After somebody with money I guess called your president, it became 15 with your president still refusing to actually vote against.
It is not just Sankey. Believe that if you want. The 15 other schools and Sankey have been in lock step. The obvious split is in BR.
I'll repeat 16 schools voted to keep players who signed NFL contracts off SEC rosters. Zero schools have voted against these rules
That's all fine and dandy...
LSU does not have any players listed on the roster, who have been ruled ineligible by the NCAA for any reason.
I have had to repeatedly ask google AI, because it keeps speculating and trying to predict my questioning motive
But what I can gather, here's a list:
quote:
NCAA INELIGIBLE PLAYERS ON ACTIVE 2026 FBS ROSTERS
SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE (SEC)
* Cole Hutson (OL, Texas Longhorns)
Reason Ineligible: The NCAA flagged an administrative registration issue during his filing for an extended year of competition, rendering him technically ineligible. He remains on the roster but is sitting out games during an active NCAA appeal.
* Trinidad Chambliss (QB, Ole Miss Rebels)
Reason Ineligible: The NCAA explicitly denied his sixth-year medical waiver request (stemming from a 2022 respiratory illness), ruling him out of eligibility. He is actively starting under a Mississippi state court injunction overriding the NCAA.
* Danny Saili (DT, Oklahoma Sooners)
Reason Ineligible: The NCAA ruled that he exhausted his maximum collegiate eligibility under the old four-year framework, refusing to grandfather in his high school graduating Class of 2022 into the new five-year rule. He is rostered via an individual temporary restraining order (TRO).
* Braxton Fely (DT, Oklahoma Sooners)
Reason Ineligible: Ruled ineligible under the exact same Class of 2022 framework as Saili. He is on the active roster under his own separate court-ordered TRO.
BIG TEN CONFERENCE
* Van Wells (OL, Oregon Ducks)
Reason Ineligible: The NCAA ruled that he exhausted his maximum collegiate eligibility under old rules because he belongs to the high school graduating Class of 2022, which was excluded from the new five-year rule. He is rostered via a multi-athlete federal court injunction.
* Jaheim Patterson (WR, Oregon Ducks)
Reason Ineligible: Ruled ineligible under the same Class of 2022 framework as Wells. He is on Oregon's active game-day roster under the same federal court injunction.
* Stephen Daley (DL, Indiana Hoosiers)
Reason Ineligible: The NCAA ruled that he exhausted his maximum eligibility under standard maximum-season limitations. He remains on Indiana's 105-man roster under a specific multi-state court injunction carve-out.
ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE (ACC)
* DQ Smith (Safety, Virginia Tech Hokies)
Reason Ineligible: The NCAA ruled him ineligible for an additional season after completing four years at South Carolina, citing exhausted maximum eligibility under the Class of 2022 restrictions. He is rostered at Virginia Tech under a multi-state TRO.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:29 pm to paperwasp
Rumor has it that the SEC has obtained some text messages that appear very damning for Lane/LSU. That is just a rumor of course.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:31 pm to ForeverGator
quote:
Y'all are so fricking delusional and scared.
Bookmarked Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:31 pm to paperwasp
quote:
It also seems to me that LSU has better players on their roster already, so I'm not sure why they don't just capitulate
But LSU did. They didn’t place the 2 guys on the roster.
Sankey and the SEC should have dropped it then
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:41 pm to Pikes Peak Tiger
quote:
Sankey and the SEC should have dropped it then
That's why I think there has to be more to it, right?
The SEC would look pretty bad in the end if they did all of this with no justification.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:42 pm to captdalton
quote:
just a rumor of course
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:44 pm to Rabern57
quote:
for breaking rules
Name the rule, retard
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:45 pm to ForeverGator
quote:
He literally has 15 of the SEC Presidents/AD behind him.
Most of them cannot wrap their mind around the fact that they can be expelled because they don’t think they deserve it.
I don’t think they deserve it based on the publicly available information and the fact that they didn’t play their NFL guys while Missouri and Ole Miss did.
The other 15 teams can vote anyone out they feel like as long as they follow the guidelines specified if someone isn’t following the rules, I just don’t want to see it come to that at all.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:46 pm to paperwasp
quote:
That's why I think there has to be more to it, right? The SEC would look pretty bad in the end if they did all of this with no justification.
I have come to the conclusion that there are only 2 possibilities:
1. LSU did something we are currently unaware of and the league has cause to do this. But there hasn’t even been a rumor that this is the case
2. The SEC messed up and are going to get their bluff called and it may cost Sankey and a few college presidents their job and the SEC a shitload of money.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:47 pm to Pikes Peak Tiger
quote:
there are only 2 possibilities
I think that's fair based on what we currently know.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:51 pm to Pikes Peak Tiger
in digging, I found this
quote:
OFFICIAL RULES ON COACHES ADVISING LITIGATION
NCAA MANUAL (BYLAW 19 - ENFORCEMENT)
* Rule on Advice: No regulation prohibits a coach from verbally recommending that a player seek legal counsel or pursue a lawsuit.
* Prohibited Actions (Bylaw 19.2 - Obligation to Cooperate): An athletic department or coach cannot provide university-retained legal counsel, fund the athlete's litigation using institutional resources, or physically coordinate the court filings. Doing so is classified as an improper use of university resources and a failure to cooperate with the association.
SEC CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
* Rule on Advice: No clause restricts or penalizes a coach simply for giving verbal legal advice or guidance to a player.
* The Compliance Requirement: The SEC mandates that all member employees act in accordance with conference governance. A coach faces penalties only if league governance determines that the actions escalated beyond advice into active institutional collusion or a structural campaign to intentionally violate agreed-upon conference roster rules.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News