2
Started By
Message
re: What’s the latest with LSU v. SEC?
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:12 pm to BigBrod81
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:12 pm to BigBrod81
quote:
the SEC had several months to reiterate their stance on their bylaws or make actual amends to those bylaws
No one here knows why the SEC/Sankey took so long to get all the 16 SEC schools together to get on the same page with how to fight the lawsuits challenging profressionalism rules.
My guess is much of it is due to waiting for the NCAA to pass the 5 For 5 rule and knowing exactly that would end up worded before they did so.
However, much of this arguing has then upshot of "we can't pass a new rule if anyone hasn't been subject to that rule in the past"
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:13 pm to DeathByTossDive226
Lane pushing it,what kind of shite is that.All he did was go by a judges ruling,followed the law,the SEC as usual was reactive not proactive.Yall are just mad because your coaches sat on their asses while LK was trying to improve his team.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:14 pm to wm72
quote:
However, they really could not punish Alabama due to the TRO.
Why not?
Not that they needed to, but they could have passed the 8/25 clarifying rule back in January and told alabama then that they would he subject to possible expulsion if they allowed him to participate in team activities following the issuance of the TRO. They instead opted to let the case play out fully in court with no threatened or actual enforcement against alabama.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:15 pm to billjamin
quote:
They're still trying to get someone to read Greg the filing.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:17 pm to wm72
quote:
However, much of this arguing has then upshot of "we can't pass a new rule if anyone hasn't been subject to that rule in the past"
The SEC claims they aren’t enforcing any new rules. The rules they allege that LSU was attempting to violate have been in place for nearly 100 years, according to the SEC’s complaint against LSU.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:20 pm to DeathByTossDive226
quote:
If the TRO was the reason they couldn’t punish Alabama, how do conference bylaws change that?
That's exactly what the current SEC litigation is about.
The are attempting to bypass the TROs regarding player eligibility by shifting the enforcement strategy from individual players to the member institutions themselves.
The NEW enforcement strategy would be that all 16 SEC schools agree as "voluntary SEC members" to a NEW set of punishments for the AD/program/coach that rosters the players in question.
Again, this may or not hold up in court in the future.
However, the first step is to simply have all 16 SEC schools agree to it.
That's where SEC and LSU are currently at such odds. LSU is the only one to not vote in support of the new punishments.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:29 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
The SEC claims they aren’t enforcing any new rules. The rules they allege that LSU was attempting to violate have been in place for nearly 100 years, according to the SEC’s complaint against LSU
What the SEC can't get LSU to agree to is the NEW mode of punishment for breaking the rule that can potentially bypass the TRO that only states the player is eligible.
That's what is new.
The idea that All 16 SEC programs can self-determine as voluntary members a set of punishments specifically for the AD/program/coach in the future.
That is new.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:33 pm to wm72
How could LSU have voted to agree to this at least at that time, as they were being constrained by the judges rulling? It seems to me that the SEC is probably right to try to get it's members to agree to that. Their timing was bad in respect to LSU. Edited to say that the federal lawsuit was laughable no matter what.
This post was edited on 10/7/26 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:34 pm to wm72
The SEC doesn’t need a unanimous vote to adopt rules.
So the SEC’s position is that member institutions must vote along with the majority or face retaliation from the conference. That’s nice.
So the SEC’s position is that member institutions must vote along with the majority or face retaliation from the conference. That’s nice.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:37 pm to BigBrod81
quote:
Again, more incorrect assumptions. There were no "laws" or rules violated. The only thing that was violated in this entire saga was the SEC blatantly violating a court order.
That's part of the issue...does a judge have jurisdiction to overrule NCAA regulations? How far do we want to push this? If a judge says anyone in the NFL with college eligibly can go back to college at any time, are we OK with that? The NCAA/SEC said the players were not eligible, LSU said "oh yeah?....Here's our local judge who says differently" and they put the players on the team anyway. Then it got into a pissing contest over who has authority, and LSU did not capitulate till the SEC threatened to kick them out. I'm sure LSU has a very different version.
I don't know how a judge got involved. This is not a legal matter, it's an internal NCAA issue. There are no damages.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:41 pm to wm72
quote:
What the SEC can't get LSU to agree to is the NEW mode of punishment for breaking the rule that can potentially bypass the TRO that only states the player is eligible.
The lawyers for LSU advised them abstain from voting in the event LSU ended up being included in the players lawsuit against the NCAA & SEC which they were. That's why the player's legal representation has LSU along with the SEC included in their contempt of court filings.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:44 pm to PGJ
quote:
That's part of the issue...does a judge have jurisdiction to overrule NCAA regulations?
Is Trinidad Chambliss playing for Ole Miss? The answer to that question just goes to show how stupid & uninformed the average person is.
quote:
If a judge says anyone in the NFL with college eligibly can go back to college at any time, are we OK with that?
More stupidity. All this revolves around the 5 for 5 ruling. Nothing else.
quote:
The NCAA/SEC said the players were not eligible, LSU said "oh yeah?....Here's our local judge who says differently" and they put the players on the team anyway.
Again, more stupidity. First off, there were 40 something ATHLETES from a variety of sports who were originally included in the PLAYERS lawsuit. ATHLETES who were NOT going to play any sport at LSU. They would be playing at other universities including other universities in the SEC. People like to assume this lawsuit was strictly concerning football players but it was NOT.
Secondly, LSU NEVER rostered any football players in question who are involved in this lawsuit. It's why LSU is now included as a defendant the contempt of court filings along with the SEC.
quote:
Then it got into a pissing contest over who has authority, and LSU did not capitulate till the SEC threatened to kick them out. I'm sure LSU has a very different version.
Yet Kiffin made it clear to the media on Aug. 31st that he & LSU had been in constant contact with the SEC concerning the eligibility of the players.
The SEC despite the communication with LSU & Kiffin still filed a federal lawsuit in Alabama the same day (Sept. 3) Sankey testified in a Baton Rouge court room in the lawsuit filed by the players.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. You are talking out of your arse just like the rest of the buffoons like yourself.
This post was edited on 10/7/26 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:47 pm to PGJ
quote:
That's part of the issue...does a judge have jurisdiction to overrule NCAA regulations?
Yes. If the courts holds that such rules are against the law. Depending on the circumstances, a court may enter a temporary restraining order against an organization (like the NCAA) from enforcing the rules in question until the matter is fully adjudicated.
quote:
The NCAA/SEC said the players were not eligible, LSU said "oh yeah?....Here's our local judge who says differently"
The problem is that this has happened multiple times in the recent past and the SEC took essentially no further action in those cases. In the instant case the SEC went from 0-100 immediately and sued LSU and threatened to expel them from the conference for actions that didn’t even rise to the level of another member institution’s actions just 8 months prior.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:49 pm to wm72
quote:
However, they really could not punish Alabama due to the TRO.
Yet they threatened LSU with expulsion with an existing TRO in place by a judge.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:50 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
The SEC doesn’t need a unanimous vote to adopt rules.
So the SEC’s position is that member institutions must vote along with the majority or face retaliation from the conference. That’s nice.
Think about it for a second.
The SEC is attempting to argue -- because this will challenged in court by players -- based on all 16 members unanimously agreeing to something as voluntary members.
And, they have one of the 16 members fighting it.
That's the heart of the dispute currently.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:53 pm to wm72
But we didn’t fight it. We abstained from the vote on advice of counsel due to the existing TRO against the NCAA and SEC.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:57 pm to wm72
quote:
The NEW enforcement strategy would be that all 16 SEC schools agree as "voluntary SEC members" to a NEW set of punishments for the AD/program/coach that rosters the players in question.
Again, this may or not hold up in court in the future.
It won’t. The SEC is putting itself in a very precarious position here IMO.
The argument is basically that the conference members should be able to vote to impose harsh sanctions or exclusionary measures without evidence or arbitration.
The problem is that there are now severe economic consequences associated with those kinds of penalties for a member institution & in the case of the eligibility TROs potential conflict with the Sherman act / free trade issue regarding individual players.
They’re getting overconfident and going to wind up with a permanent injunction forcing a rewrite of bylaws if they don’t wise up soon.
Going against antitrust on two fronts arguing that their rulemaking authority supersedes it. They are getting some really bad advice.
This post was edited on 10/7/26 at 2:00 pm
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:05 pm to BigBrod81
quote:
The lawyers for LSU advised them abstain from voting in the event LSU ended up being included in the players lawsuit against the NCAA & SEC which they were. That's why the player's legal representation has LSU along with the SEC included in their contempt of court filings.
I believe you.
And then assume LSU is privately making it clear to Sankey and other 15 SEC schools that they are all on the same page in trying to prevent these cases (like Bediako/RJ Luis etc etc etc etc) from continuing into infinity.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:07 pm to BigBrod81
quote:
More stupidity. All this revolves around the 5 for 5 ruling. Nothing else.
You are one hostile Mo-fo...
Like I said...LSU has it's own version of the story.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:13 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
We abstained from the vote on advice of counsel due to the existing TRO against the NCAA and SEC.
Along with LSU being added as defendants in the player's lawsuit which happened. Now, if the judge finds the NCAA, SEC & LSU in contempt of court, all 3 parties will liable to fork out compensation to the players. It's amazing how some don't get this.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News