Started By
Message
re: Where was the lawsuit against Alabama?
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:35 pm to vidtiger23
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:35 pm to vidtiger23
quote:
Well then we’re back to square one here of trying to explain in an elementary way pretty straight forward concepts lol.
Well, you failed to comprehend what my last post said, so I have little hope for you going forward understanding the differences between the cases.
1
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:38 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Well, you failed to comprehend what my last post said, so I have little hope for you going forward understanding the differences between the cases.
Yep it’s a lost cause lol. It’s just different “cause it is”
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:41 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
That's a pretty big difference in reaction.
Not really since basketball season was in full swing. This is right before the season starts and I think that's why Sankey tried to squash this immediately. What's to keep others in the 2022 class, that have actually made a roster now decide, after a few games of not playing, they want to return to get more than a rookie base pay.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:41 pm to graves1
He was ruled ineligible before the games and took it to court. Clear bias here.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:43 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.
Honestly, I tend to agree with you here.
However, the SEC has always had the power to rule players ineligible for competition, especially players that aren't eligible by NCAA standards. There was really no need for a bylaw to be created or amended for that instance.
They haven't taken those proactive actions in the past so, in my opinion, as a responsible conference, you can't go max level 10 all of a sudden and sue members right out the gate while threatening massive financial penalties, especially when your rule hasn't even been violated yet, and especially when you haven't taken really any action in similar cases in the past.
If we're at a place where the conference feels they have to get involved, state your position, explain why you're choosing to get involved now, and leave it at that. And wait until the rule has been actually violated before you throw a member under the bus. This is like being pulled over because an officer thought you were about to speed.
And if you're going to get involved in eligibility, you have to handle it all. You can't blame a medical farce like Chambliss on the NCAA while you're trying to come down as hard as you possibly can on LSU.
At the end of the day, it's a voluntary organization and the SEC has a ton of latitude to do whatever it wants, but the conference just looks extremely incompetent in all of this, and I'm trying my hardest to be objective.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:43 pm to JTA1985
Basketball
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:43 pm to vidtiger23
quote:
ep it’s a lost cause lol. It’s just different “cause it is”
Well, technically everything that is different is different "cause it is".
One was a clear cut case of voluntary professionalism and one is a very gray area eligiblity case centered around NCAA offseason rule changes. One is an individual player lawsuit vs one that is alleged to have direct involvement and recruitment from the coach and university.
If you just want to make the simple argument that they are the same because they are eligiblity cases, that's fine but a gross oversimplification when trying to make the argument around the SEC's actions being deliberately targeted at one institution vs the other.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:43 pm to Lg
quote:
Not really since basketball season was in full swing. This is right before the season starts and I think that's why Sankey tried to squash this immediately. What's to keep others in the 2022 class, that have actually made a roster now decide, after a few games of not playing, they want to return to get more than a rookie base pay.
They wouldn't meet the enrollment deadline.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:47 pm to stopitnow1
I get you’re a fan and that is all you will see. The rule was challenged in the Alabama basketball case. He lost his case. Ineligible. Why keep challenging the same rule over and over? And some fans of college football see this as harmful to the game.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:52 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Well, legally, they couldn't...
But but they can legally against LSU.
fricking talking in circles.
That's because they didn't push the issue legally because they are fricking biased
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:54 pm to SidewalkTiger
Just looked it up to see, but LSU’s final enrollment date for fall was September 2.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:55 pm to graves1
quote:
The rule was challenged in the Alabama basketball case. He lost his case. Ineligible. Why keep challenging the same rule over and over?
Because this case was functionally different with the 5 for 5 rule and players who had never appeared in pro games.
Bediako was a pro for 3 years, that's more flagrant than someone getting injured on the first day of their first ever training camp.
I don't think pros should return either, but these kids had a better case than Bediako.
quote:
And some fans of college football see this as harmful to the game.
It is, emotionally and tradition wise. Functionally, it doesn't really change much, if we're all being honest. Everyone is paid and has agents now. These aren't seasoned NFL veterans.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:55 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
One was a clear cut case of voluntary professionalism and one is a very grey area eligiblity case centered around NCAA offseason rule changes. One is an individual player lawsuit vs one that is alleged to have direct involvement and recruitment from the coach and university.
Ok, man let’s try this one more time:
2021-2023 Biedko plays for Bama. He then leaves after the 2023 season. He gets undrafted and spends 3 years in the G-League (btw a much more egregious violation of the rules)
January 2026- he gets a TRO granted ruling him now eligible and agreed to play for Bama
Mark this point: this is the point in LSU’s case where the SEC throws a hissy fit about it and they did not in Bama’s case)
January 2026- he suits up
January 2026- the judge removes himself because he is a donor of Bama
February 2026- the new judge rejects the TRO therefore ending his season.
Then there’s more lawsuits after but they don’t do much. He’s eventually just denied in March.
You can try the mental gymnastics until you turn blue, but the overall premise is the same. It sounds like you’re saying the difference is Bama had no involvement with Biadko’s case because why? He played a game 3 days after the first ruling lol. Both initial cases were the players without the school named. Both cases were held in the town the college resides in. Both both both.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:56 pm to boweswi05
quote:
But but they can legally against LSU.
Yes...
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:56 pm to boweswi05
Or they are upset that another school is doing it after the ruling on the Alabama case. Not biased just irritated.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:58 pm to graves1
quote:
No. That case shows there is a rule that they can’t play former pro players.
Sankey testified under oath if they went through the draft process they are done and can’t come back,
Why is Texas and Missouri not getting sued? They have professional players on the team by his own court testimony.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:58 pm to vidtiger23
Yea, i should have stuck with my original assumption about you.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 3:58 pm to graves1
quote:
I get you’re a fan and that is all you will see. The rule was challenged in the Alabama basketball case. He lost his case. Ineligible. Why keep challenging the same rule over and over? And some fans of college football see this as harmful to the game.
Most including LSU fans do as well. I hate it tbh. Which is why they should have just ruled all those who attended or received any compensation from professionals (as stated in bylaws) are ineligible. Not just try to fit the line where you see fit with no reasoning behind it.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:02 pm to graves1
quote:
Or they are upset that another school is doing it after the ruling on the Alabama case. Not biased just irritated.
Could be very possible and I agree probably has something to do with it. Major even the majority of it. But just goes to lack of leadership in just assuming that it’ll never come back up while also “doing nothing about it”. If it was a big deal now it should have been a big deal then.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 4:04 pm to vidtiger23
I get it. And let’s be honest, the two players are not game changers. I don’t mean to demean them. Just extra asses. So it’s not some great advantage for LSU. Other than getting to add depth after signing day and the transfer portal is closed. So maybe a little bit of an advantage.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News