re: As SEC threatens to kick out LSU, it adds Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill to lawsui

quote:

---

and the basis for in personam jurisdiction is??????

---

she said geaux tigers, and she correctly stated the Federal case was garbage. His is an emotional little liberal, acting like Liz Cheney.....he really is. That's sad for our conference.

She laughed when Newell Normand asked her about the report that said her name was added to the lawsuit earlier today. She said their lawsuit was garbage to begin with.

Read only if interested in facts by Chatgbt:

Oklahoma is actually a very interesting example in this situation.

As of today, Sept. 8, 2026, Oklahoma has at least two players returning to the Sooners after NFL-related activity, but there is an important distinction:

Braxton Fely — former Boise State defensive lineman. He was invited to an NFL minicamp, but never signed an NFL contract. He has a temporary restraining order allowing him to pursue a fifth year and transfer to Oklahoma. OU expects to add him.
Jaydon Southard — former Stephen F. Austin linebacker. He participated in NFL rookie minicamps with the Chiefs and Bears after going undrafted. He is now enrolled at Oklahoma and reportedly is transferring to OU.

And here's the key distinction for your LSU question:

Neither Fely nor Southard signed an NFL contract. Oklahoma head coach Brent Venables has specifically said:

“We're not adding any players that signed a pro contract.”

OU's official 2026 roster currently lists Danny Saili, another fifth-year player covered by the eligibility litigation, and Fely was expected to be added.

So yes — Oklahoma has players coming back from NFL minicamp/rookie-camp participation, but OU is drawing the line at signing an actual NFL contract.

That is a very important distinction from LSU's Dae'Quan Wright and Zxavian Harris, who actually signed NFL contracts and then returned after being waived.

If you want, I can also dig into exactly when the SEC rule was written to distinguish “NFL minicamp” from “signed an NFL contract”—because that may be very relevant to what you're investigating about Harden/SMU.

but when was that SEC rule actually announced and doesn't that have a strong bearing on this lawsuite to expel LSU from the SEC? What is LSU guilty of?

Yes — the timing is extremely important to the LSU case, and I think there is a distinction here that makes the SEC's position much more complicated than simply saying "LSU violated an existing SEC rule."

The critical date: August 25, 2026

The SEC's new rule was adopted August 25, 2026, only about 10 days before LSU's season opener. Reuters reports that the SEC and Big Ten adopted rules on that date barring athletes with prior professional experience from returning to college football. The SEC vote was 15–0, with LSU abstaining.

That's important because the Louisiana court's eligibility litigation was already underway, and the SEC rule appears to have been adopted specifically in response to the court rulings opening the door for these players to return.

So your question is exactly the right one:

Can the SEC expel LSU for violating a rule that didn't exist when LSU began pursuing these players — particularly when a court subsequently ordered that the players could return?

That's a much stronger legal issue than the SEC's public description makes it sound.

What does the SEC say LSU did wrong?

The SEC's federal lawsuit says LSU violated its longstanding "Professionalism Rules." The SEC argues that athletes who have signed professional contracts, entered professional drafts, or been rostered by professional teams cannot return to college competition.

The SEC's position is that this wasn't simply a new August 25 rule; rather, the August 25 rule codified/reinforced a longstanding principle that professional athletes couldn't come back.

But there is a major problem with that argument:

The NCAA changed the eligibility landscape. The new 5-for-5 eligibility system gave certain players another year, and then Judge William Jorden issued an injunction allowing the affected athletes—including Wright and Harris—to compete. His ruling affects approximately 42 athletes.

And that's where LSU has a legitimate defense.

What exactly is LSU "guilty" of?

Based on what has happened so far, I would NOT characterize LSU as having been found guilty of violating an SEC rule.

The SEC is accusing LSU of violating conference rules and is asking a federal court for relief. That's very different from a finding that LSU actually violated the rules.

The SEC's present case is essentially:

LSU knew the SEC's position.
LSU recruited/accepted two former NFL players.
Those players had signed NFL contracts.
LSU intended to put them on its roster.
Doing so would violate the SEC's Professionalism Rules.
LSU therefore undermined the conference's governance and integrity.
The SEC says that gives it grounds to remove LSU from the conference.

But LSU's counterargument is powerful:

"You cannot punish us for following a federal/state court order that says these players are eligible."

And there's another fact that I think is potentially very important in the expulsion fight:

LSU DIDN'T EVEN PLAY THE TWO PLAYERS

LSU ultimately left Dae'Quan Wright and Zxavian Harris off its official roster for the Clemson game, despite the court injunction.

So the SEC is now seeking to expel LSU over conduct that, at least for the opening game, did not actually result in LSU putting either player on the field.

And today's development is significant: the SEC has scheduled a vote for Thursday, September 10, on whether to expel LSU, requiring a two-thirds vote of the conference's presidents/chancellors. The SEC amended its lawsuit today to seek a temporary restraining order concerning that meeting.

And this is where Oklahoma becomes VERY interesting

You asked me about Oklahoma before this question.

If Oklahoma has a player who attended an NFL minicamp/rookie camp but never signed an NFL contract, that's materially different from Wright and Harris.

The SEC rule apparently distinguishes between someone who merely participated in an NFL camp and someone who actually signed a professional playing contract or was on a professional roster.

Wright and Harris are in the latter category.

So I would not say Oklahoma proves LSU is innocent. But Oklahoma could be important evidence regarding how the SEC itself interpreted the rule and what conduct it actually intended to prohibit.

And I think there is an even bigger question we should investigate:

Exactly what did the SEC's August 25 resolution say, word-for-word, and what was the effective date?

Because if the actual resolution says something materially different from the SEC's current lawsuit—particularly if it wasn't retroactive or if it applies only to players who had signed professional contracts—that could be very important to LSU's defense against expulsion.

quote:

---

the SEC cannot be this stupid

---

You forget that they sent their commissioner to testify in court and he said

1. He hadn't read the 5 for 5 rule until that morning
2. He doesn't know what a Pro Athlete is right now.

I didn't read through all of that.

But,

Didn't the Judge say you can't hurt the players that fall under this ruling? So therefore, the SEC will get sued to hell and back, and they have to know this. If they are trying to destroy the SEC, they are doing a great job. This sounds like the work of a complete mentally ill nut job.

quote:

---

the basis for in personam jurisdiction is??????

---

I just got a flashback to 1L year Pannoyer v. Neff

quote:

---

As SEC threatens to kick out LSU, it adds Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill to lawsui

---

Good. She's a fricking bulldog who doesn't back down from shite.

If you're hoping we get kicked out - like I am - this is about some of the best fuel you can add to the fire.

Go ahead and mess with that fricking bitch. She’ll burn the good old boy network down in a second. don’t frick with my girl.

but that's still my point

Is this all a scam to make congress act, and LSU is playing along. Otherwise, the SEC is in for multiple lawsuits from impacted players and LSU.

quote:

---

I just got a flashback to 1L year Pannoyer v. Neff

---