Started By
Message
will the TRO against the SEC matter?
Posted on 8/27/26 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 8/27/26 at 5:48 pm
Too early to tell, but I am curious how a key difference between this case and other previous cases will play out.
Usually, it is a player suing the NCAA for an extra year, a TRO postpones the actual case until after the season at which point the player is gone and the case is moot so it never actually goes to trial.
In this case, the players will be gone next year, but the schools are still in the SEC and subject to its rules if they end up losing the case. It won’t be moot just because the players leave next year. I’m curious if schools are confident enough in a total victory to still play the players or decide it isn’t worth future punishment
Usually, it is a player suing the NCAA for an extra year, a TRO postpones the actual case until after the season at which point the player is gone and the case is moot so it never actually goes to trial.
In this case, the players will be gone next year, but the schools are still in the SEC and subject to its rules if they end up losing the case. It won’t be moot just because the players leave next year. I’m curious if schools are confident enough in a total victory to still play the players or decide it isn’t worth future punishment
2
Posted on 8/27/26 at 5:50 pm to Dixie.Reb
The TRO will prohibit the conferences from retroactively punishing the schools, just like they do now.
The only thing that will happen is prevention moving forward.
The only thing that will happen is prevention moving forward.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 5:55 pm to RB10
But the NCAA has been winning appeals and tossing them out. Local judges can’t make up laws.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 5:59 pm to RB10
quote:
The TRO will prohibit the conferences from retroactively punishing the schools, just like they do now.
It won't last a day though. It'll be handled before season I bet
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:01 pm to JayAg
quote:
But the NCAA has been winning appeals and tossing them out. Local judges can’t make up laws.
Sure. After the players are done and they can’t levy any penalties.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:02 pm to Dixie.Reb
LSU has a career Louisiana politician, a petulant teenage head coach, McNeese State’s former university president and an AD who enabled rape and sexual assault in charge of things.
What could possibly go wrong.
What could possibly go wrong.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:02 pm to HailToTheChiz
quote:
It won't last a day though. It'll be handled before season I bet
The lawyers and judges will tie this up for as long as needed to have the players play.
Again, just like they already do.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:02 pm to RB10
Not a lawyer, but don’t think that is how TROs work. The punishment has already been announced, a TRO just means it is temporarily unenforceable. If the ultimate case is lost, it would become enforceable again and since it was passed before the violation occurred the sanctions would kick in
Again this doesn’t matter because usually the plaintiff (players) is out of the NCAA before a trial ever occurs. Unless I missed something and LSU is suing the SEC, they don’t have any protection against a future enforcement of an existing rule.
Again this doesn’t matter because usually the plaintiff (players) is out of the NCAA before a trial ever occurs. Unless I missed something and LSU is suing the SEC, they don’t have any protection against a future enforcement of an existing rule.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:05 pm to Dixie.Reb
quote:
Not a lawyer, but don’t think that is how TROs work. The punishment has already been announced, a TRO just means it is temporarily unenforceable. If the ultimate case is lost, it would become enforceable again and since it was passed before the violation occurred the sanctions would kick in
It’s exactly how TRO’s work.
Chambliss was ruled ineligible. The punishment for playing an ineligible player is already clear and known.
Chambliss is going to play because the TRO explicitly prohibits the NCAA from levying punishments until it is resolved, and from retroactively levying them.
That’s the whole reason Chambliss is playing.
quote:
If the ultimate case is lost, it would become enforceable again and since it was passed before the violation occurred the sanctions would kick in
Wrong.
quote:
Again this doesn’t matter because usually the plaintiff (players) is out of the NCAA before a trial ever occurs. Unless I missed something and LSU is suing the SEC, they don’t have any protection against a future enforcement of an existing rule.
The SEC is not going to levy sanctions against anyone when it is made clear that it’s against the law to do so.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:05 pm to RB10
quote:
Sure. After the players are done and they can’t levy any penalties.
It took 5 games, less than a month, for the Bediako mess to be resolved.
Luckily for Alabama fans the school’s leadership had the sense to not try to fight the organization they are a voluntary member of.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:07 pm to captdalton
So dumb 
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 6:08 pm
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:07 pm to RB10
quote:
The TRO will prohibit the conferences from retroactively punishing the schools, just like they do now.
If the TRO is truly temporary or a stay is placed on the ruling, there's nothing stopping the NCAA or SEC from retroactively punishing a member school for violating its rules. The NCAA's rules specifically allow them to punish a member school for rules violated during a TRO's active period. Also, if the stay that is granted strikes down the retroactive portion of the TRO, the NCAA and SEC can do whatever they want
The question is will the NCAA and SEC do so in that event.
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 6:09 pm
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:08 pm to captdalton
quote:
It took 5 games, less than a month, for the Bediako mess to be resolved.
If the players lose in a month, they won’t play after that.
But guess what? Any games they DO play in won’t be punishable, just like the games Bediako played in weren’t punishable even though he was ruled ineligible.
quote:
Luckily for Alabama fans the school’s leadership had the sense to not try to fight the organization they are a voluntary member of.
LSU isn’t fighting against anyone. This is a large group of players fighting the conferences, not LSU.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:08 pm to captdalton
quote:
It took 5 games, less than a month, for the Bediako mess to be resolved.
Luckily for Alabama fans the school’s leadership had the sense to not try to fight the organization they are a voluntary member of.
There was no reason to fight the conference because the conference didn't block Bediako.
The court did.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:08 pm to JayAg
Courts don’t make up the laws, they interpret the laws
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 6:09 pm
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:09 pm to RB10
The SEC and Playoffs Committee aren’t going to do whatever a local judge says and school breaking their rules (not laws) and fans of those schools say.
Why are you jumping through hoops trying to argue in favor of no control, no rules, and pro players in college sports? Just bc your school can’t compete without them?
Why are you jumping through hoops trying to argue in favor of no control, no rules, and pro players in college sports? Just bc your school can’t compete without them?
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 6:10 pm
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:10 pm to RB10
quote:
LSU isn’t fighting against anyone. This is a large group of players fighting the conferences, not LSU.
Kiffin and Landry have been very vocal and visible in their criticism of the SEC in all of this.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:12 pm to captdalton
They were cited as the source of the law suit by ESPN and CBS.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:15 pm to RB10
quote:
But guess what? Any games they DO play in won’t be punishable, just like the games Bediako played in weren’t punishable even though he was ruled ineligible.
When a player sues the NCAA, they get a TRO preventing the NCAA from declaring them ineligible. Once the season is over, it doesn’t matter whether they are eligible so the case becomes moot.
The SEC isn’t declaring players ineligible, they are saying schools will be punished for playing a player who has signed an NFL deal.
The players can get a TRO that prevents the SEC from suspending Kiffin for the Clemson game, but even after the player is gone, the rule enforcement question will be ripe. I guess the SEC could back down, but if they push it to trial and win, the TRO only protects the plaintiff players, not the schools.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:17 pm to JayAg
quote:
The SEC and Playoffs Committee aren’t going to do whatever a local judge says and school breaking their rules (not laws) and fans of those schools say.
Yes, they will.
quote:
Why are you jumping through hoops trying to argue in favor of no control, no rules, and pro players in college sports? Just bc your school can’t compete without them?
That’s fricking rich coming from a fan of a school who actually signed a former pro player.
Newsflash scooter, LSU hasn’t signed these guys yet.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News