- 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 7:54 am to touchdownjeebus
Posted on 9/9/26 at 7:54 am to touchdownjeebus
quote:I was thinking the same thing but the SEC was so public in their strong arm tactics, it won't matter.
Listing LSU shows the pressure levied against the university by the SEC to violate a TRO.
1
Posted on 9/9/26 at 7:54 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Is it just me or would LSU’s case look better if they were being sued as well.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 7:55 am to touchdownjeebus
quote:
TBH, they should list LSU too. Listing LSU shows the pressure levied against the university by the SEC to violate a TRO.
Procedurally suing LSU likely avoids federal removal and gets the suit clear jurisdiction/venue in LA state court.
This post was edited on 9/9/26 at 7:56 am
Posted on 9/9/26 at 7:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
LSU conspiring to sue the SEC to use a sympathetic state court to revoke the SEC's enforcement authority has always been the major issue that the SEC has singled out LSU
As opposed to Ole Miss...and Vanderbilt...and Texas? It seems odd that only NOW the SEC decides it wants to enforce...errr....create a post hoc rule...to enforce.
So why now? It's because the conferences think they have found the golden hammer solution to players seeking injunctions in the Big 12 v Sorsby lawsuit...which is the EXACT same lawsuit the SEC has filed here. It's not. Because unlike the Sorsby case where there was no precedence of the Big 12 sitting idly by while courts allowed other conference players who admitted to gambling on their team, which was clearly excluded by the bylaws, as noted above the SEC did nothing while other conference players went to favorable venues to obtain injunctions. More notably, the SEC did not sue Alabama when a "pro" was granted an injunction to join the basketball team.
The Big 12 lawsuit had more teeth because the Sorsby scenario was somewhat unprecedented. A player banned for admitting to gambling seeking to have a court rule the Big 12 and NCAA could not enforce its bylaws. That isn't the case here. Most notably illustrated by the fact the SEC had to hastily pass a rule AFTER the fact to try to establish or at least bolster the cause of action.
The antitrust lawsuits are coming. The NCAA and SEC know it. This move by the SEC has probably hastened it. Then again, that's what happens when you generate BILLIONS of dollars in revenue for decades while continuing to pretend major conference football and basketball are just "amateur sports".
Posted on 9/9/26 at 7:56 am to SlowFlowPro
The SEC’s argument is that its rules against professionalism were always inherently there because its rules say that you have to follow NCAA eligibility rules.
NCAA rules also barred Chambliss and Pavia from being eligible. NCAA rules barred all the other 5 for 5 players from being eligible. There was nothing magic in the SEC rules about joining a preseason roster versus going through the draft and going to minicamp or having JUCO years not count as part of your 4 year eligibility.
The only rule carving out Harris and Wright from these other situations was passed two weeks ago. And again no other conference has ever intervened and gotten involved like the SEC did. The SEC was not sued originally. If the Big 10 tried to intervene in the Indiana case (as they have been explicitly ordered not to do) they would be added to that lawsuit.
NCAA rules also barred Chambliss and Pavia from being eligible. NCAA rules barred all the other 5 for 5 players from being eligible. There was nothing magic in the SEC rules about joining a preseason roster versus going through the draft and going to minicamp or having JUCO years not count as part of your 4 year eligibility.
The only rule carving out Harris and Wright from these other situations was passed two weeks ago. And again no other conference has ever intervened and gotten involved like the SEC did. The SEC was not sued originally. If the Big 10 tried to intervene in the Indiana case (as they have been explicitly ordered not to do) they would be added to that lawsuit.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 7:56 am to XbengalTiger
quote:
I was thinking the same thing but the SEC was so public in their strong arm tactics, it won't matter.
It will matter in court and the cost to LSU is minuscule in the grand scheme of things.
Tactically it’s a check mate for the players and for the SEC.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 7:56 am to St Augustine
quote:
Is it just me or would LSU’s case look better if they were being sued as well.
It would be much better for the players to include LSU for a variety of reasons, from liability to jurisdiction
Posted on 9/9/26 at 7:56 am to Colonel Flagg
quote:
It all is about a perceived power shift of football and athletics to future LSU dominance/control of the league.
Yup.
Even the amount of time that Kiffin has to spend on the SEC suit eats away at his game prep time.
Out fricking rageous.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 7:56 am to Alt26
quote:
As opposed to Ole Miss...and Vanderbilt...and Texas?
Which suit was against the SEC?
Posted on 9/9/26 at 7:57 am to bstew3006
quote:
SEC schools that recruited these players after the 5/5 ruling is about to be blasted
Let all the MFing skeletons out the dam closet. Ya'll wanna play, LFG!
Posted on 9/9/26 at 7:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The only dirt they have would be on LSU/Kiffin. The discovery in this suit could severely damage the program.
Wut?
When kiffin was talking to these players it wasnt against SEC rules. Once it became a rule they werent rostered
Plus other schools were talking to them
Posted on 9/9/26 at 7:59 am to SlowFlowPro
Dude you’re being disingenuous. The SEC didn’t pass a post ex facto rule trying to get around the courts ruling in those other situations.The SEC was only added to the suit after doing so here.
If they had ever intervened similarly in those other cases they would have been added as defendants. That’s why they so specifically and explicitly carved out Harris and Wright and not any of the other players eligible via TRO or injunction.
If they had ever intervened similarly in those other cases they would have been added as defendants. That’s why they so specifically and explicitly carved out Harris and Wright and not any of the other players eligible via TRO or injunction.
This post was edited on 9/9/26 at 8:00 am
Posted on 9/9/26 at 7:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Wasn’t the most recent lawsuit originally only players vs NCAA at first, until the SEC started making moves and threats to sanction any school who rostered any 5 for 5 players that wanted to come back from the NFL? And that got the players’ attorneys to amend the suit to add the SEC as a defendant?
He sued the NCAA, not the SEC
If the SEC started threatening Ole Miss with penalties for rostering Chambliss even if the court ruled him eligible, don’t you think TC’s attorney would have added the SEC to their lawsuit too?
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:02 am to Cosmo
quote:
When kiffin was talking to these players it wasnt against SEC rules. Once it became a rule they werent rostered
Plus other schools were talking to them
It's about the lawsuit against the SEC
Nobody is going to be punished for simply taking to them during the fog of litigation.
Last night we bent the knee and the situation was basically over. A major reason why this situation was able to be settled indirectly like that is because we're operating under the ruse that the suit was of the players alone . But now if these players sue the SEC, it's going to start all over again. And that were very real consequences for LSU if certain things are revealed.
That's why the smartest move for LSU is to pay the players directly and have them sign releases against LSU and the SEC to avoid opening this Pandora's box
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:03 am to tigerfan88
quote:
. The SEC didn’t pass a post ex facto rule
The players were never eligible for the SEC
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:04 am to BasedAF
We have attorneys in here? No wonder why some on here sound so stupid. He must have a University of Phoenix degree.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:05 am to SlowFlowPro
What about the ones that are already on rosters at other SEC schools Slow Flow Brain?
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The only dirt they have would be on LSU/Kiffin.
The discovery in this suit could severely damage the program.
i hope your folks are proud of the woman you've become.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:05 am to Ebridg3
quote:
Yes. And this can and should be portrayed as a civil rights
The next step is holding the SEC in contempt of court.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
LSU has been operating under the ruse that "we" did no such thing and it was the players doing this themselves.
You have proof of this? You are just assuming Tony Clayton and the players legal team couldn't follow what was happening without LSU assisting? I mean the players sued the NCAA. The SEC stepped in and put a target on their back by issuing the "policy clarification" basically saying hey you have to go through us.
The next logical step would be to include them in the TRO.
So you think the only way the lawyers for the kids could figure out they needed to include the SEC is for Lane to call them?
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News