- 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: Attorney for players once bound for LSU plans legal action against SEC, Greg Sankey
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:48 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:48 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Good. Sue them into oblivion. frick Greg Sankey.
0
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:49 am to boweswi05
quote:
Define professional until two weeks ago?
It didn't need a definition prior to reliance on state courts to try to circumvent the rules.
You think that makes the SEC liable for damages to players who didn't get chosen by a non-SEC actor?
quote:
They clearly defined their rules two weeks ago. Before that was a gray area.
It's clearly not a grey area to the super majority of the SEC and college football world. It's pretty much only LSU fans who see it this way
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:50 am to SlowFlowPro
The disconnect seems to be that you think the SEC will eventually win on the merits as far as being able to enforce its “no professional players” rule. You very well may be right.
But it’s an open question and one of the reasons the conferences have held back from wading in these waters. It has yet to be fully litigated as to whether individual conferences can maintain eligibility rules that courts have struck down at the NCAA level. Particularly, as here, where all the P4 schools did.
Again let’s go to the biggies, paying players and unlimited transfers. If all the P4 conferences “clarified” that their rules have always prohibited paying players and unlimited transfers, do you think courts would uphold those rules?
But it’s an open question and one of the reasons the conferences have held back from wading in these waters. It has yet to be fully litigated as to whether individual conferences can maintain eligibility rules that courts have struck down at the NCAA level. Particularly, as here, where all the P4 schools did.
Again let’s go to the biggies, paying players and unlimited transfers. If all the P4 conferences “clarified” that their rules have always prohibited paying players and unlimited transfers, do you think courts would uphold those rules?
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:50 am to SlowFlowPro
Slow, please answer the question...what was a pro player before two weeks ago?
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't think member institutions have enforcement authority in the SEC bylaws
We as LSU wouldn't be enforcing it. We would be asking the court to compel the SEC to enforce it's own rules.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The smart play for LSU is for LSU to pay them to go away. That's the rational move.
Rationality hasn't been a big part of this on LSU's side for some time now, though.
You’re assuming there is some evidence that will come to light in discovery that shows CLK or LSU had a hand in directing these two players to sue for eligibility.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:51 am to tigerfan88
This is so stupid
LSU hypothetically saying if the rules change (or interpreted differently) and we can potentially roster you we will consider it is not something for the SEC to start shite over. This is even with the implication that the only way you can challenge the rules is through the courts.
This is an excuse for the SEC to attack LSU, Lane, and the other associate LSU ambassadors because they know LSU has positioned itself as the dominant force in the conference.
Key Examples:
- LSU is the desired/hot place for recruiting
- LSU has all the need resources (facilities, money, high profile alumni, etc.)
- LSU has all the media swag and social media influencers on board
- LSU has a strong/innovative coaching staff
LSU hypothetically saying if the rules change (or interpreted differently) and we can potentially roster you we will consider it is not something for the SEC to start shite over. This is even with the implication that the only way you can challenge the rules is through the courts.
This is an excuse for the SEC to attack LSU, Lane, and the other associate LSU ambassadors because they know LSU has positioned itself as the dominant force in the conference.
Key Examples:
- LSU is the desired/hot place for recruiting
- LSU has all the need resources (facilities, money, high profile alumni, etc.)
- LSU has all the media swag and social media influencers on board
- LSU has a strong/innovative coaching staff
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:51 am to Chicken
quote:
what was a pro player before two weeks ago?
The more pertinent question is, was a player who signed a professional contract a pro player? Yes.
That's the clear line the super majority of the SEC and basically everyone else agrees on, even with the various home cooking rulings across the country.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
LSU/Kiffin being super aggro and working in the grey areas and trying to find loopholes forced the SEC to clarify the rules.
How were they "super aggro"? Because they recruited the players? They both played for Lane at Ole Miss. The SEC came out super aggro.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's clearly not a grey area to the super majority of the SEC and college football world. It's pretty much only LSU fans who see it this way
Yes the hell it was.
Why do you think the kicker at South Carolina or the guy
at Kentucky are playing on a roster.
they got TRO from local judges to circumvent the rules
Minicamp isn't pro? Signing a waiver to tryout for an NFL team isn't pro.
Signing with an agent isn't pro.
Apparently not playing a single snap in the preseason is a pro.
In fact Greg Sankey himself could not define what a professional or amateur is these days.
So yes before two weeks ago during the NIL era was a gray area.
This post was edited on 9/9/26 at 8:55 am
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:53 am to SlowFlowPro
Yes, but what specifically differentiates mini camp from training camp? What is language in NCAA/SEC bylaws that differentiates those two contracts?
This post was edited on 9/9/26 at 8:56 am
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:54 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
quote:This guy is a cancer to this site who derails every single thread he participates in with blatant lies. Please stop engaging with this piece of garbage.
SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:54 am to tigerfan88
quote:
The disconnect seems to be that you think the SEC will eventually win on the merits as far as being able to enforce its “no professional players” rule. You very well may be right.
They will 100% win eventually. This is the only offseason where state judges can even invent BS to argue they can't. After this class of players is in year 6 post-HS, it's over for the next crop.
quote:
It has yet to be fully litigated as to whether individual conferences can maintain eligibility rules that courts have struck down at the NCAA level. Particularly, as here, where all the P4 schools did.
Yes, but that's a different argument than liability.
This is a fight that is going to keep going until Congress gets involved (which isn't optimal) or aliens invade Earth. Imagine a scenario where conferences have no power over member schools.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:54 am to Chicken
quote:
Yes, but what specifically differentiates mini camp from training camp? What is language that differentiates those two contracts?
LSU was trying to do it.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:55 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:55 am to tigerpimpbot
quote:
You’re assuming there is some evidence that will come to light in discovery that shows CLK or LSU had a hand in directing these two players to sue for eligibility.
I fear (not assume) there is that and a lot more that would be uncovered, similar to the feds wiretap investigation finding all sorts of random shite.
And I fear this would get the SEC to start going hard on LSU again, after it appears we bent the knee last night.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:56 am to BillyBobfan24_7
quote:
Because they recruited the players? T
LSU hasn't admitted to this yet. Be careful
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The more pertinent question is, was a player who signed a professional contract a pro player? Yes.
That's the clear line the super majority of the SEC and basically everyone else agrees on
Then why didn't the SEC make a move to clarify the definition after Charles Bediako played 5 SEC games in January/February.
These are long standing conference rules, after all. And it's a clear line to the super majority of the SEC. Simple fact is only one school has rostered and played someone who had previously signed professional contracts.
Ole Miss just announced the acceptance of a transfer player, from a conference school, who has previously signed an Exhibit 10 Contract. Or is that contract not a contract.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:59 am to SlowFlowPro
No fkn shite. They won that part in court already which is why they are threatening expulsion to LSU.,..LSU and the players’ attorneys knew they would and they don’t care. Why? It still has no bearing on player eligibility, but they also wanted to give the SEC enough rope to hang themselves. That ruling is most likely gonna be overturned though possibly because it’s a contradiction of the NCAA rules. The NCAA is still currently an association that regulates rules for all college athletics and their conferences, so is the SEC following NCAA rules? I already know what you’re gonna say. They don’t have to accept certain players, but where that’s gonna bite them in the arse is, they’re picking and choosing which players are eligible and which ones are not based on their own rules and not the NCAA rules. THAT is where the court order will be overturned because of all the contradictions in the SEC‘s words and actions. They are complete idiots and whoever their lawyers are need to be fired too because they’re fricking idiots too.
This post was edited on 9/9/26 at 9:03 am
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:59 am to Chicken
quote:
but what specifically differentiates mini camp from training camp? What is language in NCAA/SEC bylaws that differentiates those two contracts?
I don't think there was any, but they clearly were drawing a line in the sand at professional contract. The Hutson suit was filed way back in July, and having SEC coaches allegedly recruiting players at the end of training camp who may have made NFL rosters was too much.
Also, Hutson apparently isn't cleared to play still.
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News