re: The SEC Should Seriously Consider Kicking LSU Out

quote:

---

Then why are you so concerned if you think the SEC has no case?

---

The case isn’t needed to kick LSU out.

The case isn’t asking to have LSU expelled.

It isn’t asking for civil damages.

And the case is going to be dismissed if you believe any legal analysis of it.

Why hasn’t the SEC acted to remove LSU yet? It’s because it can’t. LSU knows. You can bitch and complain. But there’s nothing you can do. I realize this bothers you. It bothers you enough to make up a dishonest, non-factual, fantasy based argument to pretend you have the power.

But just know that we know you are impotent.

He’s a complete fraud and a moron.

quote:

---

A court ruling against an eligibility restriction doesn't automatically invalidate every conference rule

---

You might have missed the part where the courts ruled that schools can't be punished in any way for playing those players

I see you still haven't educated yourself on this topic despite the fact that I basically put it in your lap

quote:

---

eliminate the SEC's authority over its membership

---

Go read my thread. This is explained thoroughly. Or keep saying stupid things.

quote:

---

You keep insisting LSU did nothing wrong

---

No, the courts have said LSU did nothing wrong and that Sankey is in contempt

quote:

---

the SEC has the right to enforce its membership agreements,

---

Not when they defy a court order they don't. You really don't understand what's going on in this case

quote:

---

And citing unspecified court rulings while declaring the SEC has no case isn't much of a legal argument

---

It's quite specific

quote:

---

Which rulings, and how exactly do they eliminate the SEC's contractual and associational rights?

---

So you basically don't know anything about this case. I gave you a resource to clear up your misconceptions, you didn't read it and you're still trying to trash talk like you do.

quote:

---

conference obligations

---

Those rules are in contempt of court. But I get that you don't understand what that means

quote:

---

failing to distinguish player eligibility from conference membership authority

---

Oh I fully understand it and discussed it at length in the legal thread.

quote:

---

We had a legal recourse. We used it.

Why do you hate America?

---

Are you trolling right now?

I've read the arguments, and you're still conflating two separate legal questions. Yes, courts issued temporary orders protecting player eligibility and restricting sanctions. Nobody is disputing that. But those orders don't automatically establish that the SEC has no right to determine its own membership.

The SEC's amended complaint specifically raises its First Amendment associational rights and Section 3.1.5 of its bylaws, which provides for expulsion by a two-thirds vote.

Whether those rights prevail against the existing court orders is precisely the legal dispute. You keep declaring the matter settled when it isn't.

And if you believe a court has already ruled that the SEC cannot expel LSU, cite that specific ruling. Repeatedly telling me to read your thread isn't a substitute for making the argument.

quote:

---

It also would face a lawsuit if it did not penalize/investigate another institution for violating the same rules.

---

That cake is baked. The SEC knows it.

imagine the Judge's reaction to SEC's response saying that Louisiana AG's motion to dismiss a lawsuit is evidence.

This kind of motion response can get lawyers sanctioned.

No judge would ever consider the argument that Filing a common and routine motion is a reason to rule against that motion.

in plain English, The SEC is telling the judge the the fact that LSU filed a motion is the reason to dismiss that motion.

this would be great in a court with forum members that hate LSU serving as judges

quote:

---

Reducing a federal lawsuit between a conference and one of its members to Sankey's hurt feelings is certainly one way to avoid addressing the actual legal questions.

---

You do realize theres precedent for this right?

quote:

---

rather than you following the rules of the conference

---

LSU is now being held in contempt of court for signing those players according to the court's stated ruling on their eligibility and then releasing them due to SEC threats and pressure. IOW, now LSU is in hot water with the courts for doing what the SEC said to do.

Your point is stupid

quote:

---

prevent the SEC from enforcing it's own rules and standards

---

The SEC is also in contempt of court for this particular rule.

quote:

---

My own point is that LSU's right to challenge conference rules doesn't eliminate the SEC's right to enforce its membership agreements

---

Has LSU or anyone here even argued against this?