Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:13 pm to paperwasp
quote:
I'm sure if we had continued to go about this like the Louisiana governor, the LSU administration, and the LSU head coach, we would've been threatened with punishment.
But we didn't.
Mostly because you were never threatened with punishment by the conference even after playing your pro, much less, before it even happened.
Jesus, this isn't THAT hard to comprehend.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:15 pm to Lg
quote:
Apparently not, since there are EuroPros playing all over CBB. Either you're a pro or you aren't. That's the ONLY distinction that needs to be made.
Did you not actually read what you quoted in this response, or anything else I posted in that response?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:16 pm to paperwasp
quote:
He was deemed not eligible to play, and Alabama stopped playing him. LSU is continuing to challenge that their players in question should play. They're not stopping. So the conference is continuing to escalate their stance. Is it really that difficult?
He was deemed “ineligible” to play by the NCAA BEFORE Alabama played him. He then got a TRO from an Alabama judge and Alabama played him against the direction of the NCAA/SEC. (Sound familiar?). And there was ZERO consequences for Alabama doing so.
It wasn’t until after an appeal of the Alabama’s judges ruling was successful, that Alabama stopped playing him.
The current 2022 players in question are currently under the same type of TRO and there has been no successful appeal against it yet. So why should LSU or any other team be punished for playing them if Alabama wasn’t?
Is it really that difficult?
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:17 pm to LSUtigerNVegas9
quote:
Yall went about playing him for 5 games after the SEC told you no. It took the SEC getting it overturned for yall to stop.
So the SEC is trying to do the same thing in regard to these players, correct? But Bama never got involved in Bediako's case. He sued and was eventually denied.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:18 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
The SEC wasn't a named defendant in this case either. Until they took an action that they didn't in the Bediako case.
And why do we think the SEC had to take this new action to amend the bylaws? I can assure you the answer isn't "because it is LSU".
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 3:18 pm
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:18 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
And why do we think the SEC had to take this new action? I can assure you the answer isn't "because it is LSU".
What is the answer?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:19 pm to Lg
The only suit LSU was named in was the suit the SEC brought on LSU.
LSU is also not a plaintiff in any suit.
LSU is also not a plaintiff in any suit.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:20 pm to Lg
quote:
So the SEC is trying to do the same thing in regard to these players, correct? But Bama never got involved in Bediako's case. He sued and was eventually denied.
Wrong. The SEC hasn’t even appealed the players’ injunction yet. LSU isn’t involved as a plaintiff in any suit either.
They filed a lawsuit directly aimed at LSU’s leadership though.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:20 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
And why do we think the SEC had to take this new action to amend the bylaws? I can assure you the answer isn't "because it is LSU".
I’m not sure you mind telling us? The players weren’t rostered while Bama had their player rostered and playing in games. So what is the reason?
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:22 pm to Lgrnwd
quote:
The current 2022 players in question are currently under the same type of TRO and there has been no successful appeal against it yet.
The season was already in full swing with Bediako, correct? When did the rule 5 for 5 come out?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:22 pm to Lg
quote:
But Bama never got involved in Bediako's case. He sued and was eventually denied.
The players are the ones who filed suit here also.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:22 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
What is the answer?
Because the NCAA's rules around professional eligibility are continuing to get challenged and rendered ineffective via TRO's, so the conferences have to act in order to put their own rules in place.
The Bediako case, they let the courts decide the outcome. Right or wrong in the assumption, they believed that would put an end to future challenges on professionals coming back to college. Since it didn't, they've had to take additional action, thus the new bylaws.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 3:24 pm
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:24 pm to vidtiger23
quote:
Huh? That’s exactly the route LSU is taking except they haven’t been ruled ineligible lol. It’s the exact same scenario.
Bama isnt poor
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:26 pm to Lg
quote:
So the SEC is trying to do the same thing in regard to these players, correct?
The SEC filed an affadavit in the Bediako case, that's all. And that's after he'd played multiple games.
LSU's guys haven't even played yet and the SEC has already either created a new rule or amended its bylaws, depending on who you ask, created very stifff penalties, and directly sued the member institution and Lane Kiffin.
That's a pretty big difference in reaction.
quote:
But Bama never got involved in Bediako's case
There's currently no proof that LSU is involved in these cases any more than Bama was involved in Bediako's.
Everything is unsubstantiated rumors. Tom Mars seems to believe the SEC hasn't even investigated those rumors yet.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:27 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Because the NCAA's rules around professional eligibility are continuing to get challenged and rendered ineffective via TRO's, so the conferences have to act in order to put their own rules in place.
The Bediako case, they let the courts decide the outcome. Right or wrong in the assumption, they believed that would put an end to future challenges on professionals coming back to college. Since it didn't, they've had to take additional action, thus the new bylaws.
Fair enough, and I tend to agree with you.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:29 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
The Bediako case, they let the courts decide the outcome. Right or wrong in the assumption, they believed that would put an end to future challenges on professionals coming back to college. Since it didn't, they've had to take additional action, thus the new bylaws.
A direct example to same result and different reactions which you just admitted are the case here. Glad we got you to agree on that because others kept saying the situations were different. And they are not.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:31 pm to vidtiger23
quote:
A direct example to same result and different reactions which you just admitted are the case here. Glad we got you to agree on that because others kept saying the situations were different. And they are not.
Nope. Not what I said.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:32 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Nope. Not what I said.
Well then we’re back to square one here of trying to explain in an elementary way pretty straight forward concepts lol.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:33 pm to vidtiger23
Yes exactly. Saying the Bediako thing was somehow “different” and “not as bad” is mental gymnastics at its best
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News