LSU, Alabama, others inquired about hiring Freeze, were shut down by Stankey

But Troy! Rabble Rabble!

Am I first???

(no message)

If true, this presents some interesting legal arguments. In essence, the SEC is preventing Freeze from being employed not by the league, but by one of their member schools.

The SEC bylaw referenced in the article states:"...President or Chancellor of that member institution is expected to consult directly with the Commissioner prior to offering
employment to the individual." The bylaw does not say that it's mandatory a school do so (i.e. "shall"), only that the school is "expected" to consult with the Commissioner. No where does it say a school "can't" hire Freeze, only that the league expects to be consulted if a school wants to.

So what if a school decides they want to hire Freeze and doesn't feel they owe the SEC any deference in that decision? Arguably, they don't. But does that mean the SEC then has a basis to become vindictive to said school?

Also, pretty interesting quote from the legal expert consulted for the story:

quote:

---

Roger I. Abrams, the Richardson Professor of Law at Northeastern University, says the SEC bylaw doesn't legally prevent a school from hiring someone like Freeze -- a school could have its president make a case to Sankey on why it wants to hire him -- but "it's exactly what the SEC wanted to happen."

"We have seen especially in basketball that coaches who get their programs into NCAA hot water, if they are a good coach, they'll get another job fairly quick," Abrams said. "What the SEC is saying is 'Not in our conference.' I think it makes a lot of sense. Like everything else, the effect of the consultation with the commissioner depends on the personalities involved. Not all universities are equal within any conference."

---

Obviously Freeze, Saban, etc. did not want to press the issue. However, it sounds like the legal expert is implying that the more clout you have in the league, the more favoritism you can gain.

Certainly Saban is the top in coach in the league without question. So is the implication that Saban could likely get the blessing of the league to do something like this whereas Jeremy Pruitt, Derrick Mason, etc. couldn't?

quote:

---

That’s what happens when you beat bama twice.

Your career gets destroyed.

---

But the story is about Alabama wanting to hire Freeze, but essentially being told no by the SEC.

The story is in an Alabama paper, so the narrative is that the league is screwing Bama.

Yep. Obviously we therefore HAD to hire Ensminger instead. O/Joe/King are completely off the hook.

quote:

---

That’s how this works. If your first option is unavailable, you must promote a position coach.

---

"Oh damn, the store's out of my favorite ice cream."

"I'll just eat out of the garbage instead."

we heard that LSU Admin blocked CEO from making an offer to freeze so i doubt that LSU's interest got to the league office level. Bama however probably did try to hire freeze and the League office stepped in and "advised" against it

quote:

---

well then they obviously had to pick ensminger

---

I’m not saying that. I’m just referring to the
“OMG WHY DIDNT O LOOK AT FREEZE” and “I DONT CARE ABOUT MY COACH’S MORALS”

I think we could have and should have done better with the OC hire, but I understand why O would choose Ensminger.

Saban sure as Hell didn't want him working elsewhere. shite, he would've paid him 1M/yr to pass Gatorade.