2
Started By
Message
re: Timeline the federal judge will be looking at
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:51 pm to DeathByTossDive226
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:51 pm to DeathByTossDive226
quote:
Why did the SEC need to vote on a new bylaw to begin with then?
It was a re-affirmation of the rules in place. Lane and the LSU admin thought they had found a loop hole - they didn't. They encouraged the former NFL players to sue - not just the NCAA, but the SEC for eligibility. They fricked up. Your school president and AD were dumbass for not reigning Lane in. Then your governor and AG got in on it. It was daring the SEC to do something. Now they are getting their wish.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:51 pm to DeathByTossDive226
Jeebus! At this point, only lsu fans care. The rest of us could give a flying f.
Stop trying to convince us.
Stop trying to convince us.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:53 pm to Pickle_Weasel
quote:You all keep saying this, but if that was true, it would be in the legal filings.
It was a re-affirmation of the rules in place. Lane and the LSU admin thought they had found a loop hole - they didn't. They encouraged the former NFL players to sue - not just the NCAA, but the SEC for eligibility. They fricked up. Your school president and AD were dumbass for not reigning Lane in. Then your governor and AG got in on it. It was daring the SEC to do something. Now they are getting their wish.
Unless your contention that the most powerful aspect of this complaint would not or should not be in the court filings, because that would be retarded.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:53 pm to Pickle_Weasel
quote:
They encouraged the former NFL players to sue - not just the NCAA, but the SEC for eligibility.
How did this look?
Did Lane and LSU round up these 30 athletes, including a bunch of non-football players, and some players that signed with other programs? Did they then encourage them to sue the NCAA?
Why was Lane/LSU in charge of legal strategy for this group? Seems like their lawyers could have handled that.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:53 pm to moneyg
quote:
Is it your legal opinion that the NCAA could implicitly enforce its anti-labor, anti-trust rules (Pay for Play, NIL, etc.) if all it did was kick teams out of the NCAA that tried to pay those players?
The NCAA should have targeted the boosters with the NIL IMO.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:54 pm to Boom33
quote:
The NCAA should have targeted the boosters with the NIL IMO.
Don't run from the question.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:59 pm to moneyg
quote:
Don't run from the question.
I just answered your question.
The NCAA should have targeted boosters and prevented them from using the NIL as a pay to play scheme. That would have come in the form of punishment from the NCAA just as it had been in the past when the boosters gave illegal beneifts to players.
Real NIL deals would still be completely legal. If Nike wants to give an NIL deal to your QB - within the rules. If Joes Tiger Shack wants to pay $1 million to your QB, it's probably not within the rules.
In doing so they do not at all stop players from getting legitimate NIL deals, but they do prevent boosters from using it as a pay to play loophole.
And where the SEC has more leeway is they only represent 16 schools, you can't claim they have a monopoly.
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:12 pm to Boom33
quote:
I just answered your question.
You didn't answer my question. You answered a totally different question.
Answer the question I posed. I'll repost it:
quote:
Is it your legal opinion that the NCAA could implicitly enforce its anti-labor, anti-trust rules (Pay for Play, NIL, etc.) if all it did was kick teams out of the NCAA that tried to pay those players?
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:18 pm to Boom33
quote:
I just answered your question.
No you didn’t, and you still haven’t.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:21 pm to moneyg
quote:
You didn't answer my question. You answered a totally different question.
Answer the question I posed. I'll repost it:
Ok fine, I'll go even further since you are incapable of following it out. I thought 1 sentence was enough, but I need to spell out the entire process.
The NCAA would punish those teams. If those teams refused to accept the punishment of the NCAA, then they could would and should be removed from the orgnization.
Beyond that, what you asked was a bullshite question that refused proper context on what the team had done and what previous actions were taken. If you want a simple yes or no question, then YES the NCAA has every right to remove a member if that member doesn't meet the requirements and guidelines set forth by the NCAA.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:22 pm to Marlboro Smooth
You keep saying this but you are actually a Kentucky fan….if it weren’t for bball yall would be a MAC team
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:24 pm to Boom33
Lmao you have absolutely zero idea what you are talking about. Quit cosplaying and post less.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:26 pm to DeathByTossDive226
LOL, you guys thinking Sankey is in some kind of trouble. Dang delta rubes.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:29 pm to DeathByTossDive226
quote:
Lmao you have absolutely zero idea what you are talking about. Quit cosplaying and post less.
LSU fans have been saying this over and over for the past few weeks now.
And every day I am proven right more and more. What I just described is exactly what the SEC is doing.
You guys are just emotional snowflakes and want to lash out at anyone who doesn't accept your narrow scope narratives.
LSU fan 2 weeks ago:
LSU fans now:
me:
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:31 pm to DeathByTossDive226
From what I believe was said, was that if the players in question would have returned to their former schools they would have been within league rules after the NCAA judgement
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:33 pm to NytroBud
What it said was that the NCAA’s 5-for-5 rule did not explicitly exclude the 2022 class in writing, and uniquely disadvantaged them by timing of its implementation.
State injunctions followed.
LA’s is not the first.
State injunctions followed.
LA’s is not the first.
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:35 pm to Boom33
quote:
And every day I am proven right more and more.
If losses in courts are proving you right, sure buddy lol.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:41 pm to DeathByTossDive226
quote:
If losses in courts are proving you right, sure buddy lol.
I've never argued about the outcome of a court case. I've said LSU was fricking up with the overall thing and that Kiffins attention seeking behavior has made LSU the poster boy of the issue, good or bad. It's looking like it's mostly bad.
I pointed out over and over that if push came to shove, they could just kick LSU out of the conference.
LSU fans pivoted from showing their arse and talking about how nobody could do anything to now crying about how unfair things are.
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:42 pm to DeathByTossDive226
None of it matters. You can't sue a state. LSU is an arm of the state. Federal or not, can't happen.
They CAN sue Lane and Verge.
They CAN sue Lane and Verge.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:58 pm to Boom33
quote:
Ok fine, I'll go even further since you are incapable of following it out. I thought 1 sentence was enough, but I need to spell out the entire process.
The NCAA would punish those teams. If those teams refused to accept the punishment of the NCAA, then they could would and should be removed from the orgnization.
quote:
YES the NCAA has every right to remove a member if that member doesn't meet the requirements and guidelines set forth by the NCAA.
The NCAA already agreed to a 2B+ settlement for restricting NIL and player compensation. Suggesting the NCAA could implement punishment for teams that offer NIL and player compensation without getting sued into oblivion is retarded.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News