Started By
Message
re: State courts have no jurisdiction to issue TROs in conflict with SEC rules
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:20 pm to meansonny
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:20 pm to meansonny
quote:
That is the rule which has the punishments which the rant is bitching about.
I don’t care what the rant is bitching about. I’m telling you what these players will be suing for.
2
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:20 pm to RB10
quote:
You can check out Diego Pavia’s lawsuit for yourself.
You probably should. You’re woefully uninformed
I dgas to look it up.
If i am uninformed, teach me.
But it is obvious that you are out over your skiis and don't know left from right. Chambliss was about a medical redshirt not offered in Juco (if he wasn't in juco, he would have gotten the medical)
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:20 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
think it would fly pretty easily. 1. We have rules 2. LSU and the other 15 members voted for the rules 3. The other 15 voted for punishment if you break the rules 4. LSU decided to comply with said rules
Also this lower court ruling is very unlikely to be the last word on the matter.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:21 pm to meansonny
quote:
There are lines not to be crossed. You know that Saban sat lane down, right?
I’m sure Disney sat LSU and Kiffin down as well.
I don’t really care. These players will be suing for damages. Bookmark this for when it happens.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:21 pm to SidewalkTiger
Yet
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:21 pm to RB10
quote:
players will be suing for.
Name image and likeness are paid by LSUs collective and local businesses.
If the collective and local businesses withhold money, that is on them.
This is basic legal shite.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:21 pm to RB10
quote:
Why they were ruled ineligible is irrelevant.
“Signed an NFL contract” isn’t the only rule the SEC has.
yep. this is a pretyy important SEC bylaw
quote:
GENERAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
14.1.1 Regular-Season and Postseason Competition. Unless otherwise specified in these Bylaws, regular-season and postseason eligibility rules for the Southeastern Conference are the same as the eligibility rules for NCAA championships.
So every time a player is deemed ineligible by the NCAA and thereafter sues them and gets an injunction, they are still ineligible according to the SEC bylaws. The SEC has simply chosen not to fight TROs issued by Courts until 2 weeks ago
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:22 pm to RB10
quote:
I don’t care what the rant is bitching about. I’m telling you what these players will be suing for.
But it doesn't work here. If the SEC was the only college football outlet, maybe. But it's not.
Suits against the NCAA worked really well because antitrust was easy to demonstrate; without access to play for an NCAA member, you are in effect locked out of earnings.
It simply doesn't apply when levied against a single conference.
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 10:22 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:23 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
But it doesn't work here. If the SEC was the only college football outlet, maybe. But it's not.
Suits against the NCAA worked really well because antitrust was easy to demonstrate; without access to play for an NCAA member, you are in effect locked out of earnings.
It simply doesn't apply when levied against a single conference.
Pretty much every conference created an "anti-pro" rule in a single week.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:24 pm to meansonny
quote:
But it is obvious that you are out over your skiis and don't know left from right. Chambliss was about a medical redshirt not offered in Juco (if he wasn't in juco, he would have gotten the medical)
It’s literally one google search away. AI handles all of it for you.
quote:
While it is not a direct breach-of-contract lawsuit demanding a specific debt repayment, the suit argues that the NCAA's arbitrary denial would cost Chambliss millions of dollars in potential Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) earnings and future professional standing if he was forced into the NFL draft early. His NIL deal to return to Ole Miss was valued at over $5 million.
His lawsuit quite literally claimed he was owed a medical redshirt because of lost earnings opportunities.
You can go sit in the corner and be quiet now.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:24 pm to RB10
quote:
These players will be suing for damages.
They can sue everyone.
And the judge will throw out the ones without merit.
There is no case against the SEC.
There is no case against Sankey personally.
NIL is paid by Nike and Gatorade.
NIL is paid by the LSU collective.
If they decide not to pay the players for their "name, image, and likeness" then they are the only remaining targets for lawsuit.
The conference does not pay players.
LSU does not directly pay players.
Payment cannot be for time on the field. Cannot be for stats. Cannot be for roster spots.
You need to bone up on what NIL is and isnt.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:25 pm to howieshoodlums
quote:
LSU is the one who refused to roster
Yea after the SEC took the unprecedented action of suing a member in court after following every single judges court order but for some reason, not this one. And holding a meeting to kick them out of the SEC.
Do you think judges are as stupid as some of you lol?
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:25 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Pretty much every conference created an "anti-pro" rule in a single week.
"Pretty much" is doing a lot of work here, but to validate claimed damages you'll have to:
1. Prove your earning potential
2. Prove every conference colluded to prevent you from earning that
It's very much an uphill battle compared to just suing the NCAA, which blanket prevented participation across the board.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:25 pm to meansonny
quote:
Name image and likeness are paid by LSUs collective and local businesses.
If the collective and local businesses withhold money, that is on them.
This is basic legal shite.
The reason they are withholding being a threat from the SEC removes the onus from LSU.
It really is very basic “legal shite”.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:26 pm to RB10
quote:
While it is not a direct breach-of-contract lawsuit demanding a specific debt repayment
Weird there’s a qualifier here
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:28 pm to DMagic
quote:
Weird there’s a qualifier here
He wasn’t suing for damages. He was suing for a restraining order, which he won. Had they violated the restraining order, and he still not been granted his 6th year, that’s when the suit for damages would have been brought. <—- we are here with these players
Following along?
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:28 pm to jonnyanony
quote:
"Pretty much" is doing a lot of work here, but to validate claimed damages you'll have to:
1. Prove your earning potential
2. Prove every conference colluded to prevent you from earning that
It's very much an uphill battle compared to just suing the NCAA, which blanket prevented participation across the board.
The players can easily demonstrate what they earned in the SEC last season, and then they'll point out that every P4 conference created rules to effectively ban them within a single week's time.
They'll argue that their earning potential is obviously much less in the SWAC or whatever. They'll argue that the NCAA colluded with its member conferences to keep them out, who knows if that works or not.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:29 pm to RB10
quote:isn't.
His lawsuit quite literally claimed he was owed a medical redshirt because of lost earnings opportunities.
He was owed a medical redshirt because he was denied one in JuCo. Medical redshirts are always "retroactive". You don't file for it at the time. You file for it when your 5 years is up and you need a 6th (or 4 years is up and need a 5th).
Juco does not offer medical redshirts because you don't play juco 4 years (juco degrees are 2 years).
The demanded damages in the suit listed NIL. But that probably would not have been awarded because Chambliss always was able to sell his NIL. That is the point of NIL. He owns it before college, in college, and after college. It cannot be based on playing.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:30 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
The players can easily demonstrate what they earned in the SEC last season, and then they'll point out that every P4 conference created rules to effectively ban them within a single week's time.
Boy that's a massive stretch. By that measure Albert Pujols should sue every MLB team for not signing him to a $30M contract tomorrow.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 10:30 pm to meansonny
quote:
They can sue everyone. And the judge will throw out the ones without merit.
Thats what I said.
quote:
There is no case against the SEC.
There is no case against Sankey personally.
We’ll see.
quote:
NIL is paid by Nike and Gatorade. NIL is paid by the LSU collective. If they decide not to pay the players for their "name, image, and likeness" then they are the only remaining targets for lawsuit.
Rev Share is a part of earnings. It comes from the school, and the conference.
quote:
The conference does not pay players. LSU does not directly pay players. Payment cannot be for time on the field. Cannot be for stats. Cannot be for roster spots.
You need to bone up on what NIL is and isnt.
I most definitely am not the one that’s needs to “bone up” on what is happening here
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News