Started By
Message
So really this Kiffin LSU thing is to keep college coaches from setting up shop at NFL,
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:25 pm
training camp.... why recruit HS kids when you can recruit kids that the NFL experts thought were good enough for a second look.... probably still the top 2% of college players.....
Seems amazingly sleazy, our courts are anything goes everywhere it seems.
Seems amazingly sleazy, our courts are anything goes everywhere it seems.
3
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:49 pm to lewis and herschel
I haven't bene keeping up with it much because it's all just so tiresome, but my understanding is this is a one year only sort of situation. The NCAA instituted the "5 years to play 5" thing but only did so after the class of 2022 would have moved on, then a judge said hey that's not fair so some of those 2022 dudes that had gone pro then tried to come back.
Since the 5 for 5 thing is now in place I don't think we're going to see this shitstorm again. I could be very wrong though and don't really know the deatils, that's just what I think is the very big picture situation
Since the 5 for 5 thing is now in place I don't think we're going to see this shitstorm again. I could be very wrong though and don't really know the deatils, that's just what I think is the very big picture situation
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:11 pm to WG_Dawg
So I think those who leave for the NFL in 3-4 years moving forward are the problem... Why bother for the one off year....
Once you have taken an NFL paycheck, that's it for college.
Once you have taken an NFL paycheck, that's it for college.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:14 pm to lewis and herschel
The players in question, all from the class of 2022, were denied eligibility under the new 5 for 5 rule. Players from classes of 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2023, 2024, 2025, and every future player, all received a 5th year. The class of 2021 didn't get an auto 5th year, but that's more complicated because they were outside the 5 year window and thus ineligible under 5 for 5 when it was passed. 2022, on the other hand, was specifically excluded in the wording of the new rule passed in June even though they mostly were and still are in that 5 year window. In August, the courts said they were unfairly denied the extra season, and I think that ruling has merit.
There was even a preceding lawsuit, asking for 5 for 5, filed by a group of players last September, and the NCAA fought it. Then, in April the NCAA did an about face and decided to implement 5 for 5, but they made 2022 grads ineligible. And then they didn't hold a vote until late June, making it almost impossible for those players to wait without blowing a chance at ANY football, college or NFL, in the 2026 season. If the NCAA had acted sooner and included the class of 2022,, some or maybe even most, would've chosen to remain in college. Since they weren't given that choice, most reasonably decided to pursue a career in the NFL. Some were more successful than others, but virtually all of them tried to go pro.
Then, after the August court rulings, the NCAA and the SEC started making new rules to exclude those players who pursued an NFL career, even though NCAA actions forced the players to make that choice. First, they said trying to get drafted made them ineligible. Then it was attending a camp. Then it was signing a contract, or maybe signing a contract that paid you money. The governing bodies of college football have never acknowledge that it was their delays that forced those players to make career choices. As far as I know, none of those players ever made a final NFL roster, so trying to influence opinions by calling them "former NFL players" is simply a public relations maneuver..
So what have now is a clusterfrick of muddled statements and rulings and lawsuits that could've been completely avoided by just acting fairly and in a timely manner to pass the rule and include everyone. Or, after the courts ruled, they should've ceded the point and said everyone in the 5 year rule window is eligible to rejoin NCAA football for the next month, with the transfer portal available. Instead they chose chaos at every opportunity. I'm as disgusted as anyone about some of the ways our judicial system has meddled in cfb but, IMO, this particular mess is on the NCAA and the SEC, not the courts.
There was even a preceding lawsuit, asking for 5 for 5, filed by a group of players last September, and the NCAA fought it. Then, in April the NCAA did an about face and decided to implement 5 for 5, but they made 2022 grads ineligible. And then they didn't hold a vote until late June, making it almost impossible for those players to wait without blowing a chance at ANY football, college or NFL, in the 2026 season. If the NCAA had acted sooner and included the class of 2022,, some or maybe even most, would've chosen to remain in college. Since they weren't given that choice, most reasonably decided to pursue a career in the NFL. Some were more successful than others, but virtually all of them tried to go pro.
Then, after the August court rulings, the NCAA and the SEC started making new rules to exclude those players who pursued an NFL career, even though NCAA actions forced the players to make that choice. First, they said trying to get drafted made them ineligible. Then it was attending a camp. Then it was signing a contract, or maybe signing a contract that paid you money. The governing bodies of college football have never acknowledge that it was their delays that forced those players to make career choices. As far as I know, none of those players ever made a final NFL roster, so trying to influence opinions by calling them "former NFL players" is simply a public relations maneuver..
So what have now is a clusterfrick of muddled statements and rulings and lawsuits that could've been completely avoided by just acting fairly and in a timely manner to pass the rule and include everyone. Or, after the courts ruled, they should've ceded the point and said everyone in the 5 year rule window is eligible to rejoin NCAA football for the next month, with the transfer portal available. Instead they chose chaos at every opportunity. I'm as disgusted as anyone about some of the ways our judicial system has meddled in cfb but, IMO, this particular mess is on the NCAA and the SEC, not the courts.
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:25 pm to wdhalgren
No it is about conference rules. What happens when a player plays 4 years and gets cut and has a year of eligibility left and some SEC teams says just sue and we will let you play and you have a judge just like the one from louisiana that says yeah that is legal where does the bullshite end.
It is worth it to me for the conferences to be able for every team abide by the same rules and compete on an even playing field. But no you are always going to have a dbag like Lane Kiffin promoing going to court to get an advantage.
It is worth it to me for the conferences to be able for every team abide by the same rules and compete on an even playing field. But no you are always going to have a dbag like Lane Kiffin promoing going to court to get an advantage.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:46 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
In August, the courts said they were unfairly denied the extra season, and I think that ruling has merit
So the conference isn't allowed to enforce conference rules without judge approval?
The ncaa isn't allowed to enforce rules without a judge approval?
This is no different than a judge telling the referee that they can't kick a player out for targeting because it is unfair to the kid's chance at making money.
It is effing ridiculous.
There was a day when 1 snap burned a redshirt year.
And then they were given 4 games. No one bitched retroactively.
Judges are completely out of control.
If you ask me, they are bought and paid for and should be impeached. Throw them in jail for fraud (acting on behalf of law and order on the bench despite conflicts of interests)
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:57 pm to howieshoodlums
quote:
No it is about conference rules. What happens when a player plays 4 years and gets cut and has a year of eligibility left and some SEC teams says just sue and we will let you play and you have a judge just like the one from louisiana that says yeah that is legal where does the bullshite end.
Do you really need for me to explain the difference between your hypothetical and this current case? I already explained it above, but I'll do it again.
First, of all, your hypothetical isn't even talking about conference rules, it's addressing the NCAA eligibility rules. That point aside, under the NCAA 5 for 5 rule, if your hypothetical player has one year of eligibility left and declares for the draft, that player is ineligible to come back to college. He made a decision. That is the same as it always been under 5 to play 4 rule.
In this case, the players left because the NCAA told them they had used up their eligibility. They didn't choose to leave; they were not given a choice because the NCAA intentionally fought against implementing 5 for 5 until they had already started trying to make it to the NFL.
All this talk about the NFL, contracts, getting cut, min-camps, the draft, etc., is secondary to the unwillingness of the NCAA, and now the SEC to give those players an opportunity to choose. That's what the court did when it granted them an opportunity to return. The court was correct, IMO.
quote:
It is worth it to me for the conferences to be able for every team abide by the same rules and compete on an even playing field. But no you are always going to have a dbag like Lane Kiffin promoing going to court to get an advantage.
You talk about "the same rules", but in this case the SEC is using rules that they just invented. What's the applicable rule here that makes these players ineligible despite the court rulings in their favor? Is there a public record of the rule in question? Is it an NCAA rule or an SEC rule, or both? When was this rule passed? Is this a rule that applies only to this particular offseason and this particular group of plaintiffs?
What's the line of no return, as recorded in some public list of SEC regulations, so that prospective athletes would've had some way of knowing the rule before violating it? At first it seemed to hinge on being available for the 2026 draft, but that seems to no longer matter. Pre-draft workouts with scouts present? Interviews with NFL teams? What about mini-camps? Are those okay or not? Contracts? Money? Contracts with money. Contracts without money but other services of value? Contracts with no terms specified? Pre-season camp? Final Roster? Pizza in the lunchroom? You could say any of those, or pick and choose which ones you like, I guess, but when you have to explain the fact that those violations only occurred due to NCAA dawdling, you end up with legal issues.
Lane Kiffin didn't take the NCAA or the SEC to court. Did he suggest to some players they had a case? I don't know, but it doesn't matter because they did have a case. Did Ole Miss tell Chambliss he had a case against the NCAA ruling? What about Vanderbilt and Pavia? I'm pretty confident they did, and so do other schools. We've had programs and states sue the NCAA directly and nobody kicked them out of the conference. Now you want blood because Kiffin presumably "promoted" suing the NCAA?
I'm not a lawyer but if opposing the NCAA and winning, either directly or by proxy, was grounds for expulsion, Georgia could've been booted a long time ago. Vanderbilt could've been booted a year and a half ago. Ole Miss could've been booted last spring. Tennessee could've been booted 3 or 4 years ago. The SEC needs to be very careful about exerting their power in such an inconsistent fashion. The downside of this lawsuit can be very painful.
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 5:06 pm to meansonny
quote:
So the conference isn't allowed to enforce conference rules without judge approval?
What conference rule? Specifically what conference rule are we discussing? When was it implemented? Where is it recorded?
quote:
The ncaa isn't allowed to enforce rules without a judge approval?
Everything is reviewable by the courts. Anyone can sue anyone for some real or perceived injustice. I've already explained above why I think the court ruled as they did for these 5 for 5 plaintiffs (one of whom played last night for Louisville). The ruling was a good one, IMO.
The NCAA ruled against Chambliss. He fought it in court, probably with the encouragement of Ole Miss, and won. Are we kicking them out of the SEC? Vanderbilt? Tennessee?
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 5:46 pm to wdhalgren
What I am trying to tell you is if a conference can't expect it's members to follow its rules and every damn school in your conference can judge shop anything and everything will be acceptable.
Hell just get a judge to rule right before the SEC championship game to declare 15 pros who are ineligible to declare them eligible.
Where does it end ? I will tell you it won't so you believe whatever you want to but judges and lawyers are going to be involved from here on out.
Hell just get a judge to rule right before the SEC championship game to declare 15 pros who are ineligible to declare them eligible.
Where does it end ? I will tell you it won't so you believe whatever you want to but judges and lawyers are going to be involved from here on out.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 6:25 pm to howieshoodlums
quote:
What I am trying to tell you is if a conference can't expect it's members to follow its rules and every damn school in your conference can judge shop anything and everything will be acceptable.
I can't tell what rule the SEC is trying to enforce. The court said the players are eligible because the NCAA rule was faulty. If the SEC disagrees with that, they should challenge that court ruling. Punishing teams to circumvent the court is not a good strategy IMO. If the SEC has an applicable rule that LSU violated, I've yet to hear it or see it linked.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 6:30 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
Everything is reviewable by the courts.
Not everything; the court has to have subject matter jurisdiction before it can hear a matter.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 6:38 pm to FaCubeItches
quote:
Not everything; the court has to have subject matter jurisdiction before it can hear a matter.
If the SEC thinks the Louisiana court had no jurisdiction, why not challenge that directly instead of threatening to punish teams who honor the ruling?
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 6:39 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 7:07 pm to wdhalgren
Frankly think the judiciary has far exceeded it's authority and needs to be reeled back in nationwide at all levels.... Activists judges will stick their nose in anything.
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 7:15 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 7:18 pm to lewis and herschel
quote:
Frankly thank the judiciary has far exceeded it's authority and needs to be reeled back in nationwide at all levels.... Activists judges will stick their nose in anything.
I agree, but that doesn't mean every judicial ruling is wrong. I honestly don't see how the Louisiana (or Colorado) ruling could be considered activist. It seems very fair to me and, contrary to popular opinion on the rant, doesn't open the door to a flood of future NFL players in college. Maybe there are facts I don't know, but the ones I do know support the ruling. I understand the suspicion about friendly courts and judges, but litigants frequently try to game the system with their choice of venues, and I suspect the SEC has done the same. That still doesn't mean the ruling is a bad one.
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 7:19 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 7:20 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
If the SEC thinks the Louisiana court had no jurisdiction, why not challenge that directly instead of threatening to punish teams who honor the ruling?
The court may have jurisdiction under employment law or government codes or something. The question of whether court's ruling would be binding outside of Louisiana/that particular district could also be challenged.
As for what the SEC's legal strategy is - I don't know. Presumably, they have some well-considered reasons for proceeding the way that they are, but there's no shortage of institutional incompetence out there.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 7:31 pm to wdhalgren
The entire concept of student athlete was destroyed by the judiciary as well....
Trading skills for education was the right way.... Don't mind if they get paid a stipend, even a large one... but college football is NFL junior thanks to the courts .....
Trading skills for education was the right way.... Don't mind if they get paid a stipend, even a large one... but college football is NFL junior thanks to the courts .....
Posted on 9/8/26 at 7:41 pm to lewis and herschel
I think the threat to expel LSU is actually about the SEC’s endgame goal of self-governance.
Which means the part they have no patience for is not whether or not LSU’s playing NFL players. It’s whether or not they will abide by SEC rules without taking them to court to try to gain a competitive advantage. And whether or not the President and A.D. are actually running the football program.
At this point, the NFL players are just the canvas that this shitstorm is being painted on.
Which means the part they have no patience for is not whether or not LSU’s playing NFL players. It’s whether or not they will abide by SEC rules without taking them to court to try to gain a competitive advantage. And whether or not the President and A.D. are actually running the football program.
At this point, the NFL players are just the canvas that this shitstorm is being painted on.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 7:51 pm to lewis and herschel
quote:
The entire concept of student athlete was destroyed by the judiciary as well....
I argued against NIL on this board years ago, said it would corrupt the sport and the institutions, and I was in the minority. What I didn't foresee is that it would also corrupt the concept of amateurism further down the chain to the high school level, maybe even lower. The negative consequences of that may be worst of all.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 7:59 pm to FaCubeItches
quote:
Presumably, they have some well-considered reasons for proceeding the way that they are, but there's no shortage of institutional incompetence out there.
My guess is that, as some have suggested, they are attempting to establish self-rule in anticipation of the post-NCAA era. Sankey sees himself in ascendancy. And they don't mind if they have to pay some players for their lost year of eligibility in the process. If that's all that happens, and LSU backs down, they win. I can see a devastating, asymmetrical downside if they lose.
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 8:10 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 8:01 pm to wdhalgren
The original NIL… allowing kids to make a few bucks legally being on truck billboards and selling jerseys was closer to where is needed to be in my opinion. They deserve some $$$ for what they provide to the school.
Once that was allowed it released an arms race that is still being fought. Some governing body needs to somehow step up and make and enforce rules before this thing ruins the sport.
Once that was allowed it released an arms race that is still being fought. Some governing body needs to somehow step up and make and enforce rules before this thing ruins the sport.
Page 1 of 2
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News