- 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 8:23 am to BillyBobfan24_7
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:23 am to BillyBobfan24_7
quote:
They all see the writing on the wall. They are about to get their teeth kicked in and be his cannon fodder for the foreseeable future.
0
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:23 am to SlowFlowPro
You said it’s all over if we set our roster at 105
We did that
But now you have an “oh wait LSU is still fricked” post
You know you were dead fricking wrong last night and are trying to wiggle out of it because you don’t want to simply admit the SEC is the rogue actors not lsu
We did that
But now you have an “oh wait LSU is still fricked” post
You know you were dead fricking wrong last night and are trying to wiggle out of it because you don’t want to simply admit the SEC is the rogue actors not lsu
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:23 am to SlowFlowPro
I understand that part of the reason the SEC is pissed is because it got dragged into court.
My point is unless they have proof that we were involved in specifically adding them to the lawsuit, as opposed to just the initial NCAA suit, then they really only have themselves to blame. Because if the SEC had decided to make “clarifying rules” about Cole Huston, Chambliss, Pavia, Bediako (could go on) explicitly designed to circumvent a state court ruling they would have been added as defendants there.
In all of those cases the actions by the school was essentially the same. Coordinate with a player on filing a lawsuit in a local state court against the NCAA to get a TRO declaring you eligible. The only reason this has blown up on the SEC compared to those other cases is they decided to draw a bright line and make this issue their rubicon, not because LSU did anything more egregious than any of these other schools.
At the end of the day maybe that doesn’t matter as far as if the other SEC schools are pissed. But it’s kind of absurd that they’re mad at getting dragged into player eligibility litigation when they, for the first time ever, affirmatively decided to get involved in player eligibility disputes in lieu of the NCAA.
My point is unless they have proof that we were involved in specifically adding them to the lawsuit, as opposed to just the initial NCAA suit, then they really only have themselves to blame. Because if the SEC had decided to make “clarifying rules” about Cole Huston, Chambliss, Pavia, Bediako (could go on) explicitly designed to circumvent a state court ruling they would have been added as defendants there.
In all of those cases the actions by the school was essentially the same. Coordinate with a player on filing a lawsuit in a local state court against the NCAA to get a TRO declaring you eligible. The only reason this has blown up on the SEC compared to those other cases is they decided to draw a bright line and make this issue their rubicon, not because LSU did anything more egregious than any of these other schools.
At the end of the day maybe that doesn’t matter as far as if the other SEC schools are pissed. But it’s kind of absurd that they’re mad at getting dragged into player eligibility litigation when they, for the first time ever, affirmatively decided to get involved in player eligibility disputes in lieu of the NCAA.
This post was edited on 9/9/26 at 8:26 am
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:25 am to FredbullTN
quote:
Could the plaintiffs not add other SEC schools who initially contacted them to the lawsuit?
They could. I don't think that would be fruitful.
They didn't take steps to be eligible to play for those schools, either, like enrolling, etc.
quote:
In this scenario it’s a “how can you punish LSU when other schools did/are doing the same thing” type of deal.
This is discussing a lawsuit against the SEC by these players, not the SEC punishing LSU specifically.
When we bent the knee last night I have to imagine any punishment (if there even was any) was part of the deal. That was pre-player lawsuit, though.
This post was edited on 9/9/26 at 8:25 am
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:25 am to tigerfan88
quote:even if they have proof, so what? Is it against the law or SEC bylaws for a coach, AD or University President to advise a 3rd party in legal matters against the SEC or NCAA?
My point is unless they have proof that we were involved in specifically adding them to the lawsuit, as opposed to just the initial NCAA suit, then they really only gave themselves to blame.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:27 am to lsupride87
quote:
You said it’s all over if we set our roster at 105
We did that
Yes and I don't think we will face any punishment from the SEC.
quote:
But now you have an “oh wait LSU is still fricked” post
Well this is a different scenario that would re-engage the issues we had hopefully put to bed last night.
This scenario didn't exist last night to discuss, so how could I be wrong about something that didn't exist and hadn't been discussed?
quote:
You know you were dead fricking wrong last night
About what?
quote:
the SEC is the rogue actors not lsu
How is a scenario where players sue the SEC showing the SEC is a rogue actor?
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:27 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Yep. This opens the find out phase for the SEC.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:27 am to drizztiger
No and actually when it comes to legal matters, that’s what you’re supposed to do instead of giving legal advice when you don’t have a license to do so…
Y’all are giving way too much credit to the SEC for making those claims. They had nothing else to use so their attorneys in Gumpville had to find something as a scare tactic and hope it sticks. Even if they have knowledge of a supposed conversation between players and Kiffin the nature of the conversation is considered meaning they have to prove intent that this was done intentionally to hurt the SEC.
Y’all also keep forgetting Tony Clayton said publicly Kiffin had nothing to do with this. He knew exactly what tricks those attorneys were trying to play and shut it down yet y’all keep resurrecting it and giving it some clout because some idiot supposed to be attorney is acting like he has some smoking gun. He doesn’t. He needs to get off this board and go ask Gordon how to chase ambulances then contribute to LSU’s NIL fund. Otherwise, he’s pretty Fkn useless around here.
Y’all are giving way too much credit to the SEC for making those claims. They had nothing else to use so their attorneys in Gumpville had to find something as a scare tactic and hope it sticks. Even if they have knowledge of a supposed conversation between players and Kiffin the nature of the conversation is considered meaning they have to prove intent that this was done intentionally to hurt the SEC.
Y’all also keep forgetting Tony Clayton said publicly Kiffin had nothing to do with this. He knew exactly what tricks those attorneys were trying to play and shut it down yet y’all keep resurrecting it and giving it some clout because some idiot supposed to be attorney is acting like he has some smoking gun. He doesn’t. He needs to get off this board and go ask Gordon how to chase ambulances then contribute to LSU’s NIL fund. Otherwise, he’s pretty Fkn useless around here.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:27 am to SlowFlowPro
That would be very stupid of everyone involved if they thought plaintiffs attorneys would walk away from free money just because LSU didn’t roster them.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:28 am to tigerfan88
quote:
My point is unless they have proof that we were involved in specifically adding them to the lawsuit, as opposed to just the initial NCAA suit, then they really only have themselves to blame.
I don't think the SEC and a super majority of SEC schools see it that way.
quote:
Because if the SEC had decided to make “clarifying rules” about Cole Huston, Chambliss, Pavia, Bediako (could go on) explicitly designed to circumvent a state court ruling they would have been added as defendants there.
This is something I posted in another thread
quote:
I'm explaining why the SEC and the members of the SEC see this situation differently. There's two components. First, clearly signing a professional contract is a brightline that they believe should not be crossed. Second, they believe suing the SEC is a big deal
It's not about hating LSU or Sankey being embarrassed or the SEC fearing LSU with Kiffin. It's those 2 things
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They could. I don't think that would be fruitful.
They didn't take steps to be eligible to play for those schools, either, like enrolling, etc.
Every TRO in the SEC is taking a step to circumvent the rules.
The SEC only chose to fight this TRO.
Every other TRO has been granted and upheld by the conference members
Except this one.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:29 am to tigerfan88
quote:
That would be very stupid of everyone involved if they thought plaintiffs attorneys would walk away from free money just because LSU didn’t roster them.
Their real cause of action is against LSU. Any duty to the players was via LSU. Any agreement that was breached was with LSU.
I don't think the SEC cared much about that scenario.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's my fear/point.
Do we REALLY want a motivated SEC digging ?
Does it matter at this point? If they can just decide willy nilly to put the other members to heel to get us out. And apparently they do have the votes. They don't need evidence. They just vote us out.
We followed the rules. Called them for advice and didn't roster the players. They decided back in July this is what they wanted to do.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Their real cause of action is against LSU. Any duty to the players was via LSU. Any agreement that was breached was with LSU.
I disagree. The SEC Is making a point that its not up to LSU, its up to the SEC. They have gone out of their way to flex that they are the ultimate authority on the issue, not LSU.
So if they are the ultimate authority on it, and decide if these players are on a roster or not, are eligible or not, then their case is ultimately against the SEC.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:32 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 just finished drawing up succession paperwork for a single widow with 1 child. Harvey Specter in Suits was based on me”
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:32 am to Meauxjeaux
Wright himself said that 4 other SEC teams recruited him heavily. No names but it's easy to pick 1-2.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:32 am to BillyBobfan24_7
quote:
Does it matter at this point?
Uh, yeah.
As of last night, we bent the knee and it was basically done and we could move onto football.
Having the SEC have the ability to subpoena our records and the texts of the players to get information that could damage LSU and invalidate this season (and get future punishment) matters.
quote:
We followed the rules. Called them for advice and didn't roster the players.
And when we made it official last night we would never roster them, bending the knee, it was over between LSU and the SEC.
That's why maintaining that status is the +EV play for LSU.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:33 am to BillyBobfan24_7
Yeah same here. Something snapped in the conference rooms and I want to know.
Because it happened it can happen again to any school.
Because it happened it can happen again to any school.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:33 am to SlowFlowPro
It’s impossible to say for sure without the facts but I sincerely doubt it. First of all I doubt there was any written or official agreement in place. Wright and Harris said under oath on the stand that they had no NIL deals in place with LSU.
Secondly to the extent any discussions were had, it would have been contingent on the players gaining regaining eligibility which they did not do on account of the actions of the SEC and NCAA.
Secondly to the extent any discussions were had, it would have been contingent on the players gaining regaining eligibility which they did not do on account of the actions of the SEC and NCAA.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 8:35 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
The SEC Is making a point that its not up to LSU, its up to the SEC. They have gone out of their way to flex that they are the ultimate authority on the issue, not LSU.
Their argument would be that the SEC somehow caused damages by following the long-standing policies of the SEC.
quote:
and decide if these players are on a roster or not, are eligible or not, then their case is ultimately against the SEC.
This would mean any player who is ineligible has a cause of action against a conference enforcing that rule.
Page 8 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News