re: Dellenger says it is just about precedent now for SEC to be able to enforce own rules

This is common business/contract sense. Of course the SEC can enforce its rules, unless:

*They conflict with the governing State and Federal Laws.

*They’re ambiguous, generated after the fact/act, need legal interpretation.

Both of the above are true for this scenario and the SEC wishes to unilaterally enforce its ambiguous rules that conflict with a court of law’s ruling (LA). That dog ain’t gonna hunt. They aren’t God, nor are they superior to our Constitution.

Sounds scripted.

LSU agreed to play the villain to create the illusion of a conflict in order get a court to bless SEC enforcement power.

The SEC getting butt hurt, arbitrarily applying the “rules” (cough, cough) and threatening to expel LSU is not who any school wants “ governing” them.

The SEC has shown if nothing else that they cannot fairly enforce any rule.

So does the SEC ALSO want to enforce being able to punish for other injunctions and TROs?

They are, of course, not seeking to enforce their rules against Ole Miss.

quote:

---

First I hear “they are asking the court for the right to expel LSU”

Then I hear “they can expel LSU with a 2/3 majority”

These statements don’t line up

What do the bylaws say? Can they do it with a 2/3 vote or not?

---

The bylaws say:

quote:

---

3.1.5 Termination of Membership. Membership of a member may be terminated involuntarily at a meeting of the Chief Executive Officers. A vote of at least two-thirds of all the Chief Executive Officers is required to terminate membership. Any motion to terminate membership shall specify the effective date of the proposed termination. [Revised: 1/14/21]

---

So under the bylaws, yes they can do it with a 2/3 vote.

I think what the SEC wants is for a federal court to confirm, effectively, that the SEC has full authority to disassociate from any member for any reason. Regardless of any state-level injunctions etc.

The idea seems to be that it’s not a punishment handed down by the league, but a decision by the member institutions to disassociate with an institution they no longer want to be associated with. But clearly they have some concern that state courts could step in to stop that sort of action. Otherwise I don’t know why this federal lawsuit would be necessary.

Sankey is done. The SEC will go on, but not with him. This was a 1 off ruling for the class of 2022. 99% of covid players are out and the NCAA gave the 5for5. This offseason, you could have come together, all agree to decide and define what a Pro player is, especially for smaller sports such as women's basketball, women's softball, European mens basketball players, and be organized. Instead you decide to risk contempt of court as an SEC organization, file an illegal federal lawsuit (by including a state AG), get absolutely waxed under oath in a state court, defy the state court ruling, and threaten to kick out a founding SEC member after the state court ruling established very clear parameters to not allow knee jerk punishments for LSU. Sankey is done and he’s going to cost the SEC a few million in judgments while severally tarnishing the image of the SEC.

Respect SEC for trying to set the ground rules since no one else will….. HOWEVER….
This isn’t the hill to die on. It’s a one time thing due to rule change from NCAA.

quote:

---

This has always been what the federal suit was about

---

Then why the inclusion of the AG and half of Louisiana? She isn’t part of LSU.

Once I see "DELLENGER" then I ignore and move on.... I no longer read anything of his