re: The SEC Should Seriously Consider Kicking LSU Out

quote:

---

that. He's reporting that the presidents voted for a dismissal, and the SEC ignored their vote and continued on. The Louisiana AG agrees

---

You won’t get many upvotes on this because it doesn’t feed into the narrative that their own school reps want LSU out

quote:

---

You won’t get many upvotes on this because it doesn’t feed into the narrative that their own school reps want LSU out

---

Oh well, they can bury their heads in the sand if they want to. Most still don't even know what's going on and are trying to spout opinions.

quote:

---

Not sure where this narrative comes from that LSU is the only one challenging rules.

---

I don't know. All good questions.

quote:

---

I don't know. All good questions.

---

Exactly. Sankey has a major problem in that the SEC Bylaws say that all NCAA rules must be followed.

Trinidad was ruled ineligible by the NCAA. Trinidad took it to court and got relief. Sankey did not challenge it.

Players that LSU wants to play sought the same remedy. Sankey doesn't like it and gets a new rule passed. LSU obeys the new rule.

Now other schools have players they want seeking court relief and crickets from Sankey.

Sankey is making up rules as he goes and that is why he will ultimately lose.

If he had taken a stance in the Trinidad situation he would have much firmer ground to stand on.

Instead, he has chosen to make decisions based on whatever he feels is necessary, and in doing so, he ignored the SEC Bylaws.

That is not a good way to conduct business.

quote:

---

Why is the conference turning a blind eye to other schools/players circumventing rules for eligibility? Auburn has a former Europro who just sued yesterday for eligibility. Ole Miss has a former Pistons player. Alabama literally played a former pro. A&M rostered one.

---

Also, and a key point, given all of the above being factual, how can LSU be considered rogue or uncooperative when LSU's conduct was in keeping with the above newly established precedent?

If the SEC decided internally that the line simply had to be drawn somewhere, then fine, say that and acknowledge that LSU cooperated from that point forward in spite of Sankey and the SEC office's smears and inconsistent rulings.

quote:

---

According to the article, the SEC says there was an attempt to circumvent or defy SEC professionalism rules by the LSU basketball and football teams.

Sounds to me like an employee who always pushes the limits of company policies and stirs up trouble for the manager. Maybe no rules were actually broken...but there is still a disruptive employee to deal with.

---

Except when you get down to the nitty gritty of giving the example of this, it can easily be countered and demonstrated that LSU was simply following suit with the trend both nationally and with other conference members. LSU complied with the SEC IN SPITE of the courts ruling in LSU's favor and explicitly against the SEC.

shite or get off the pot. Do it! Bye

From ESPN report: (quoting the SEC response to motion to dismiss)

"This case addresses a broader dispute: Defendants' complete lack of institutional control over LSU's athletic programs..."

This quote demonstrates the SEC's confusion.
In the SEC's argument about the lack of institutional control, they site the defendants' own actions as evidence defendants have lost control? LOL

Another quote from SEC response:
"It is notable that Defendants never say in their brief that LSU is committed to following the Professionalism Rules, maintaining institutional control, or not interfering with the SEC's First Amendment right of expressive association"

The SEC is try to use the AG's motion to dismiss against the Defendants.
Here, the SEC claims that because Defendants didn't say in their brief "(this specific language)," they are conflating the purpose of the dismissal motion.
The purpose of a motion to dismiss is not intended to force a Defendant to submit a settlement agreement.
The purpose is to argue that SEC has no reason to sue, no standing, the issue is moot, the accusations are invalid.
SEC's response in effect says that a Defendant has to agree to the accusations in their motion.
It's not a valid, legally based response.
The judge should be amused

quote:

---

You guys keep saying the same thing over and over and are missing the point.

---

The point is your 'feels' seem to have overpowered those tiny grey matter cells rolling around in your head.

You punish for things that actually happen. Otherwise, we sue you to pieces and win. That's Sankey courting this. He knows as well as everyone here that LSU broke zero rules. Sorry, not worried about made up fever dreams of what might have been. We're dealing with reality here. Reign in your estrogen please.