- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Maason Smith suspended Game 1 VS FSU according to Wilson Alexander
Posted on 8/24/23 at 8:42 am to DecaLsuFan9
Posted on 8/24/23 at 8:42 am to DecaLsuFan9
We got Arch Manning making $29 million this year off of NIL. And they’ve decided to suspend Maason for one of the biggest CFB games of the year.
I for one totally believe every cent of that $29 million for Arch is 100% by the books and can be accounted for….
I for one totally believe every cent of that $29 million for Arch is 100% by the books and can be accounted for….
1
Posted on 8/24/23 at 9:03 am to Methuselah
quote:
Wasn't the whole NIL thing brought about because of a court ruling that it was unconstitutional or illegal to deny players the ability to benefit from their name, image and likeness? If it was unconstitutional, how can they use it against Smith?
I’m assuming (like in criminal cases) whatever was “the rule” at the time is what it goes by. You can’t retroactively apply a “new law” to someone for something that happened years ago and vice versa. Meaning if tomorrow they made “eating Burger King” against the law and you “ate Burger King” today, you could not be arrested for the crime of “eating Burger King” because at the time you did it, it wasn’t against the law.
Posted on 8/24/23 at 9:04 am to Klark Kent
I think perhaps you got confused somewhere along the line. Arch Manning isn't making $29M off NIL. Not even remotely that much.
Posted on 8/24/23 at 9:08 am to DecaLsuFan9
What an odd flex by the NCAA. Looks like Smith will go down in history as the last player suspended due to impermissible benefits. They sign autographs and moments later NIL is rolled out.
Players making hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions this year in college football and the NCAA decides to bring the hammer down on Smith for some autograph money. Manziel was making big money selling autographs and what was his suspension? Oh yeah, the first half against Rice. What a joke.
Players making hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions this year in college football and the NCAA decides to bring the hammer down on Smith for some autograph money. Manziel was making big money selling autographs and what was his suspension? Oh yeah, the first half against Rice. What a joke.
Posted on 8/24/23 at 9:19 am to BillF
Ain't no way he's making anywhere near that 
Posted on 8/24/23 at 9:24 am to DecaLsuFan9
This is complete bullshite.
This post was edited on 8/24/23 at 9:30 am
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:19 am to WackyChris
11 days before NIL kicked off, sumpin sketchy fish sht here boyz
Posted on 8/24/23 at 11:30 am to DecaLsuFan9
Don’t believe it will affect us that much. Between last year’s injury and now the ankle, he’s probably 80% at best. Let him continue to heal. Just hold him out until MSST.
Posted on 8/24/23 at 12:13 pm to DecaLsuFan9
Suspension for something that happened in 21 is absurd since that "behavior" is now legal. I suspect that he is not completely healthy and Kelly sees this as a blessing in disguise. Still, I guess LSU is the only school with such problems. It stands to reason. No?
Posted on 8/24/23 at 12:45 pm to J2thaROC
quote:
I’m assuming (like in criminal cases) whatever was “the rule” at the time is what it goes by. You can’t retroactively apply a “new law” to someone for something that happened years ago and vice versa. Meaning if tomorrow they made “eating Burger King” against the law and you “ate Burger King” today, you could not be arrested for the crime of “eating Burger King” because at the time you did it, it wasn’t against the law.
I thought about that, but this seems like one of those times when the ruling would be retroactive. If the rule is invalid or unconstitutional for the person that filed the original case it should be equally invalid for Smith.
Also, I'm not sure of the exact timing. It seems like the autograph session may have been after the court ruling but before the NCAA had formally implemented it. If that is the case, it was not retroactive to the court ruling. Of course, the ruling itself may have specified when it took effect.
Posted on 8/24/23 at 12:58 pm to Captain Crown
Exactly, name a benefit not allowed in NIL. It's high time LSU told the NCAA to frick off. We need to stop taking the shite they hand down. What some booster bought him lunch, handed him money. So what? Such bullshite.
Posted on 8/24/23 at 1:00 pm to DecaLsuFan9
And why game 1? Why not game 2 or 3? And what is the benefit? What did he get? The NCAA will never say and LSU will go along with not saying what it is because they know it would be a big joke and a bunch of bullshite.
Posted on 8/24/23 at 1:23 pm to Captain Crown
You can take a million but watch out if a coach paid for a hamburger.
Posted on 8/24/23 at 1:26 pm to rar
Its just crazy to me that this can be enforced retroactively when the NCAA allowed NIL because they knew they didn’t have a legal leg to stand on enforcing that rule in the first place.
Posted on 8/24/23 at 1:27 pm to DecaLsuFan9
quote:
Apparently received an illegal benefit. Will return week 2
why can't he sit out against Grambling?
total BS
Posted on 8/24/23 at 2:21 pm to Methuselah
quote:
I thought about that, but this seems like one of those times when the ruling would be retroactive. If the rule is invalid or unconstitutional for the person that filed the original case it should be equally invalid for Smith. Also, I'm not sure of the exact timing. It seems like the autograph session may have been after the court ruling but before the NCAA had formally implemented it. If that is the case, it was not retroactive to the court ruling. Of course, the ruling itself may have specified when it took effect.
I don’t know. That was just the only thing I could come up with that could somewhat explain it. I guess one could make a case for either argument. Personally it’s crazy to me we didn’t say “he’s ready to play” in the bowl game but “sit him sue to suspension” even if he “technically” wasn’t “healthy enough” to play. As far as I know, the NCAA has no say so on when a player is “healthy enough to play” from an injury like he had. In essence, the NCAA has no guild line saying if a player suffers this specific injury, they are deemed ineligible due to injury for “X amount of time”. The only reason I can come up with that we would not have done what I mentioned above is if we either A: did not know this was coming (which I can’t imagine) or B: thought we would be allowed to select which game he was to sit out.
Posted on 8/24/23 at 2:43 pm to DecaLsuFan9
This feels too dumb to be real. Still waiting for a clarification that actually there's an appeal and he'll sit for Grambling instead.
Posted on 8/24/23 at 2:45 pm to DecaLsuFan9
How does this happen? This is crazy!
Posted on 8/24/23 at 2:58 pm to DecaLsuFan9
It seemed like the staff could have said he was ready to go at the end of last season only then to enforce the suspension in the final game last year… all while knowing it was just a way to get him on the field for game one of this year.
I bet in the history of sports larger misdeeds have been carried out in the pursuit of finding a way to play
I bet in the history of sports larger misdeeds have been carried out in the pursuit of finding a way to play
Posted on 8/24/23 at 3:08 pm to TIGRLEE
quote:
TIGRLEE
Terrible poster
Page 11 of 13
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News