Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/30/25 at 7:50 am to pankReb
quote:
What’s the tarmac equivalent for fan boats?
A dock.
This is why schools need to require academic standards for admission, and not just money.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 7:50 am to Lonnie Utah
I'm not sure that would survive a legal challenge. A judge might view that in a similar light as a non-compete clauses which have consistently failed court challenges.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 7:51 am to Hateradedrink
quote:
Being able to think “well at least I can bank on 50m if this goes to shite” keeps you from interviewing for other jobs as soon as you smell a hot seat.
Unless you are Lane Kiffin or Brian Kelly.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 7:51 am to Aguga
quote:
I’m worried Lane is gonna start drinking again being in Baton Rouge and it’s gonna destroy his life.
If he didn't indulge himself into the bacchanal life in Oxford, I think he'll be ok.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 7:52 am to ibldprplgld
quote:
The easier option would be for the NCAA to fix the calendar and portal IMO.
This is the way. It takes the pressure off the schools to include clauses that only some will and others won’t.
If the calendar makes sense this kiffin drama is much less noticeable.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 7:52 am to Beau Fontenot
quote:
I'm not sure that would survive a legal challenge. A judge might view that in a similar light as a non-compete clauses which have consistently failed court challenges.
They already exist in coaches contracts. All we are talking about is increasing the about of the buyouts.
This post was edited on 11/30/25 at 7:53 am
Posted on 11/30/25 at 7:55 am to Swagga
quote:
If the calendar makes sense this kiffin drama is much less noticeable.
I don't disagree, but the calendar was accelerated so transfer kids could enroll at their new schools for spring semester.
The problem is not the transfer schedule but the playoff schedule (being so late in January.) It's a product of expanding the playoffs and adding games.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:03 am to Poker_hog
quote:ours gives absurd contracts to go 1-7
Our AD prides himself on not giving coaches absurd contracts. It works great if you want to go 0-8 in conference play.
think i like your way better
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:05 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
They already exist in coaches contracts. All we are talking about is increasing the about of the buyouts.
But if you make it so large is retrains a person's ability to take a new job, it's going to face a serious court challenge. Non-competes also existed, but people started challenging them and winning in court.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:07 am to Lonnie Utah
You’re assuming anything that is being reported is true
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:08 am to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
It would take a league wide rule otherwise coaches just wouldn’t go to schools with stiff penalties.
Pretty sure that would not be legal
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:10 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
I'm not sure that would survive a legal challenge. A judge might view that in a similar light as a non-compete clauses which have consistently failed court challenges. They already exist in coaches contracts. All we are talking about is increasing the about of the buyouts
I think he is referring to the post that said the league should implement the rule. I don’t think THAT would be legal
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:14 am to FearlessFreep
quote:
ours gives absurd contracts to go 1-7
think i like your way better
Then Hunter is your guy. This is our 3rd 0-8 season with him as the AD. In fact, I believe we are 14-52 in SEC play while he's been the AD. Somebody needs to poach him from us.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:15 am to Beau Fontenot
And $4-$5 million isn't enough to do this already? Liquidated damages deals with money for breach; non-compete deals with limiting future behavior. They are two totally different things. Courts have been shown to generally enforce liquidated damages/buyout clauses. The times they dont are when they are found to be "unreasonable". But when the coaches buyouts are so high, i think that would be a difficult bar to get over.
Non-competes clauses are often challenged and struck down for being too restrictive.
Non-competes clauses are often challenged and struck down for being too restrictive.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:25 am to Lonnie Utah
College football is completely out of control from every angle.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:30 am to SCLibertarian
I guess we will be as mad as ole miss fans and rightfully so. However, all you other whiny arse baby fanbases melting down everywhere into a giant puddle are puzzling.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:32 am to Aguga
quote:
I’m worried Lane is gonna start drinking again being in Baton Rouge and it’s gonna destroy his life.
Oxford’s got plenty of places to drink. When you’re an alcoholic, you don’t need a good excuse. You’ll find a way and a place. He’ll be just fine
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:37 am to Germantiger001
quote:
Oxford’s got plenty of places to drink. When you’re an alcoholic, you don’t need a good excuse. You’ll find a way and a place. He’ll be just fine
It’s the environment. Baton Rouge/LSU is a pressure cooker compared to Oxford/Ole Miss. Sark was on the wagon for a good while until he took HC job in Austin. Didn’t take long to fall off the wagon.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 9:13 am to Aguga
quote:
I’m worried Lane is gonna start drinking again being in Baton Rouge and it’s gonna destroy his life.
I've lived in Baton Rouge for 30 years and been sober 27 years and know a lot of others that are sober and don't drink he'll be fine.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News