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.
2
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?
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News