1
Started By
Message
re: What’s the latest with LSU v. SEC?
Posted on 10/6/26 at 9:43 pm to geauxbrown
Posted on 10/6/26 at 9:43 pm to geauxbrown
Has anybody been able to explain why the SEC did next to nothing in response to Alabama recruiting, rostering and playing a 3 year G-league veteran on their basketball team?
I saw some weak rationale that it "technically wasn't against the rules" by some alabama fans online, but the SEC's own complaint filed against LSU hammers the point that that type of behavior has always been in violation of the SEC's rules and that the "new" rule they passed in response to the Pyburn plaintiffs is simply a clarification of such rule and isn't new at all.
So if even the SEC states emphatically that it was against the rules last year, then why was there virtually no action by the SEC to penalize alabama for their infringement?
I saw some weak rationale that it "technically wasn't against the rules" by some alabama fans online, but the SEC's own complaint filed against LSU hammers the point that that type of behavior has always been in violation of the SEC's rules and that the "new" rule they passed in response to the Pyburn plaintiffs is simply a clarification of such rule and isn't new at all.
So if even the SEC states emphatically that it was against the rules last year, then why was there virtually no action by the SEC to penalize alabama for their infringement?
Posted on 10/6/26 at 10:06 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Has anybody been able to explain why the SEC did next to nothing in response to Alabama recruiting, rostering and playing a 3 year G-league veteran on their basketball team?
Honestly, I think this all has to do with the Louisiana court case. Even though neither LSU nor Kiffin were a part of it, I can’t help but think the SEC either believes or has proof that LSU/Kiffin encouraged the athletes to file their suit in Baton Rouge. I think the conference believed that LSU would roster the players once they had a favorable judgement.
The SEC stood firm and LSU backed down. In my opinion, that should have been the end of it.
But the conference decided to still have a vote/meeting about expelling LSU from the conference, and for some reason believed LSU would take measures to block that meeting from taking place. LSU didn’t take the bait, and the case was tabled.
If LSU had tried to prevent that meeting from happening, they would no doubt be embroiled in a massive suit against the SEC.
As I mentioned, I don’t understand the purpose of adding the AG and Governor to their suit. It seems to me that once the conference decided to move forward, they had to know the AG would be involved.
Posted on 10/6/26 at 10:36 pm to geauxbrown
quote:
Honestly, I think this all has to do with the Louisiana court case.
Sure. But why wasn't the same treatment given to Alabama, who got a state court in Tuscaloosa to issue a TRO? If anything that was slightly more egregious, as Alabama was actively fighting the NCAA for eligibility reinstatement. To my knowledge, LSU never actually went to the NCAA and appealed for any of the pyburn plaintiffs to be granted eligibility.
As far as the pyburn plaintiffs amending their suit to include the SEC, this was done in response to the SEC passing their "new" rule specifically aimed at them after the TRO was granted against the NCAA.
If the SEC had treated the pyburn plaintiffs the same way they treated Bediako, the pyburn plaintiffs never add the SEC to the suit.
There's this narrative online and in the SEC's complaint that attempts to paint the picture that the Pyburn plaintiffs went out and preemptively requested a TRO against the SEC out of the blue at the direction of LSU. That's not correct. They amended their suit to include the SEC only AFTER the SEC took (indirect) action against them. Actions the SEC inexplicably declined to take in prior similar cases.
Has anyone been able to come up with an answer as to why the SEC declined to take any steps to prevent Alabama from recruiting, rostering and playing Bediako? Has Sankey or anyone in SEC leadership explained why the conference's longstanding rules (as they claim in the suit against LSU) were not enforced? They did not threaten alabama with sanctions, fines, competion forfeiture or expulsion. In fact, the SEC essentially did nothing and let the case flow through the courts until the TRO expired and Bediako wasn't granted any further relief. In the meantime, Bediako played in several SEC games.
This post was edited on 10/6/26 at 10:45 pm
Posted on 10/6/26 at 10:37 pm to ToldYouSo1
The SEC filed suit, and then could not believe the defendants had the audacity to respond to said suit.
Page 4 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News