jmaclsu

quote:

---

quote:
Also more of a fit with baseball


What?

---

ACC is more of a baseball conference than the Big 10. I didn't think it was that complicated to spell it out.

Hey Boost,

I had a 1986 GN until 2006. I hated having to let it go.

quote:

---

Because playing college football is not a right. But alas I am not.

---

That's the same line of thinking for not letting blacks in restaurants during desegregation or have certain jobs.

Since this is now pay for play, the SEC will need a very compelling argument for why someone who almost made an NFL roster should be excluded from their private club.

quote:

---

Lane has played this perfectly. Brings a bunch of transfers and new players together in an instant.

---

I had the same realization this morning. The band of NIL transfers for LSU baseball never seemed to gel with each other.

But this "everyone is against us" may cause this team to have a foxhole mentality. A common enemy is a very strong emotional tie.

LOL and our "amateur" QB is making $4M??

quote:

---

Yes! He was paid a $25,000 signing bonus and a reported $20,000 with the Browns.

Because of the specific terms of the Louisiana temporary restraining order that opened his ability to return to college, Dae'Quan Wright is required to pay back all of his NFL earnings to regain his college eligibility. You satisfied?

---

quote:

---

Wow, spoken like a Democrat.

---

Nope. Realist. This is a labor dispute. The players have way more proof of irreparable harm by lifting the restraining order against the leagues than the leagues have if it stays in place.

History, the ways it’s always been done, amateurism, etc. aren’t legal grounds to lock someone out of a job. They can’t prove any economic damage to the league by the young men playing.

If anything this whole drama has added interest to an industry which makes money based on interest.

Federal Court will clean the SECs clock. This is a Sherman act violation and RICO and anti trust collusion.

correct.

Even under CSPA guidelines, if the universities, SEC, and CFP act in unison to block an athlete's market participation without negotiating that restriction through a recognized players' union, it remains an illegal horizontal boycott under the Sherman Act.

As recent player-backed antitrust suits against CSPA/House settlement caps demonstrate, athletes can still sue athletic associations for conspiring to restrict their earning power.

If the SEC coerces LSU to drop a court-cleared player under the guise of "CSPA compliance," the player's attorneys will argue the SEC acted with willful malice—using an unbargained administrative framework to deliberately circumvent a judge's ruling and sabotage the player's career window.

Courts look harshly at athletic entities that hide behind administrative policies to enforce group boycotts against court-protected individuals.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

The worst case for the SEC and CFP is if LSU complies and the players sue the conference and CFP. The loss of income may be in the hundreds of thousands. The punitivie damages could be in the 100s of millions.

quote:

---

We're not the only ones....

---

I think Lane said that :geauxtigers:

The whole LSU drama shows how potentially screwed the NCAA and conferences and CFP actually are.

Since they refuse to recognize players as actual employees with a union contract, they don't get the labor law protections that shield pro leagues like the NFL from antitrust suits.

Now that schools are paying players directly out of revenue, any team-up by the SEC, Big Ten, or College Football Playoff to ban court-cleared players like Dae'Quan Wright is straight-up illegal collusion.

If the SEC or CFP coerces LSU into backing down and turning away these athletes, it triggers massive legal exposure—including punitive damages under state tort law for intentional interference with the players' prospective economic deals and court-granted rights. The SEC or CFP even threatening to punish LSU or lock them out of the postseason for playing guys cleared by a judge, walks right into an antitrust and tort lawsuit they will lose.