
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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

Gemini's take on the SEC's stance against LSU
Posted on 9/7/26 at 6:31 pm
Posted on 9/7/26 at 6:31 pm
A bit long winded but pretty accurate.
The NCAA’s legal strategy has repeatedly backfired because they continue to defend a traditional definition of "amateurism" that federal and state courts has consistently rejected. By drawing this strict line in the sand—arguing that a preseason contract or hiring an agent permanently strips a player of eligibility—the NCAA is repeating the exact same errors that led to their landmark losses in the Alston NIL case and subsequent transfer portal injunctions.
The Shifting Legal Landscape:
When the NCAA tries to enforce these inconsistent rules, they often end up worse off than if they had just compromised, creating precedents that dismantle their own authority
The Anti-Trust Trap:
Ever since the Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling in NCAA v. Alston, judges have viewed almost all NCAA eligibility and compensation restrictions through an antitrust lens. When the NCAA claims that merely signing a rookie minicamp agreement destroys amateurism, courts increasingly see it as an illegal, anticompetitive restraint on an individual's right to work and earn a living.
The "Pandora's Box" Precedent:
By forcing Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill to take them to court, the NCAA risks a ruling that could completely strip conferences of their power to regulate roster composition altogether. Instead of maintaining control, the NCAA's rigidness frequently invites judges to rewrite the collegiate sports rulebook from the bench.
The Employee Conundrum:
Legal experts point out that by heavily policing what kind of contracts players can sign outside of college, the NCAA inadvertently strengthens the argument that student-athletes are actually employees who should be protected by labor laws—the ultimate outcome the NCAA is desperate to avoid.
Louisiana’s argument is that the NCAA cannot celebrate a progressive rule like "5-for-5" on one hand, while using outdated, pre-NIL standards to punish players who briefly explored their options when they thought their college careers were over.
The NCAA’s legal strategy has repeatedly backfired because they continue to defend a traditional definition of "amateurism" that federal and state courts has consistently rejected. By drawing this strict line in the sand—arguing that a preseason contract or hiring an agent permanently strips a player of eligibility—the NCAA is repeating the exact same errors that led to their landmark losses in the Alston NIL case and subsequent transfer portal injunctions.
The Shifting Legal Landscape:
When the NCAA tries to enforce these inconsistent rules, they often end up worse off than if they had just compromised, creating precedents that dismantle their own authority
The Anti-Trust Trap:
Ever since the Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling in NCAA v. Alston, judges have viewed almost all NCAA eligibility and compensation restrictions through an antitrust lens. When the NCAA claims that merely signing a rookie minicamp agreement destroys amateurism, courts increasingly see it as an illegal, anticompetitive restraint on an individual's right to work and earn a living.
The "Pandora's Box" Precedent:
By forcing Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill to take them to court, the NCAA risks a ruling that could completely strip conferences of their power to regulate roster composition altogether. Instead of maintaining control, the NCAA's rigidness frequently invites judges to rewrite the collegiate sports rulebook from the bench.
The Employee Conundrum:
Legal experts point out that by heavily policing what kind of contracts players can sign outside of college, the NCAA inadvertently strengthens the argument that student-athletes are actually employees who should be protected by labor laws—the ultimate outcome the NCAA is desperate to avoid.
Louisiana’s argument is that the NCAA cannot celebrate a progressive rule like "5-for-5" on one hand, while using outdated, pre-NIL standards to punish players who briefly explored their options when they thought their college careers were over.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 6:34 pm to Sailin Tiger
quote:
By forcing Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill to take them to court,
When did this happen??
Posted on 9/7/26 at 6:44 pm to JayVegas702
I saw some article that loosely implied the AG may get involved. I assume it's algorithm pulled that in haphazardly. The shite about the NCAA repeating old mistakes rings solid though.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 6:45 pm to JayVegas702
Two weeks ago, maybe last week. It was recent.
This post was edited on 9/7/26 at 6:46 pm
Posted on 9/7/26 at 6:47 pm to chryso
As far as I know, and I followed this whole thing pretty closely. The SEC sued LSU in federal Court. A group of players sued the NCAA in state court, and the AG submitted a brief explaining the potential impact the SEC penalties would have on the state. She certainly never forced or took anyone to court
Posted on 9/7/26 at 6:50 pm to chryso
This is why the SEC has such a weak case vs LSU and Lane. They refuse to admit its member institutions and their athletes engage in the same exact behavior that NFL teams do to build a roster.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 6:57 pm to Sailin Tiger
My understanding is that the NCAA has a "Restitution Rule" that provides that if an "ineligible player" is allowed to play via court order, but said order is later reverse, then the NCAA has leave to vacate victories, erase stats and the like. Bylaw 12.11.4 for those interested.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 7:05 pm to White Tiger
quote:
My understanding is that the NCAA has a "Restitution Rule" that provides that if an "ineligible player" is allowed to play via court order, but said order is later reverse, then the NCAA has leave to vacate victories, erase stats and the like. Bylaw 12.11.4 for those interested
It’s a rule they’ve chosen not to apply despite several program rostering and playing ineligible players.
It’s one of the reasons they keep getting their asses handed to them in court. They can’t (won’t really) apply their rules across the board. It’s selective enforcement.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 7:08 pm to RB10
quote:
It’s selective enforcement.
Which explains why Chambliss is playing the Wright and Harris are not. The situations are identical.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 7:09 pm to Sailin Tiger
quote:Alston was not even an NIL case. Gemini is stupid.
the NCAA is repeating the exact same errors that led to their landmark losses in the Alston NIL case
Posted on 9/7/26 at 7:14 pm to Sailin Tiger
This is why I hate AI. It's always full of inaccuracies. AI needs to die.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 7:26 pm to Sailin Tiger
quote:
By forcing Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill to take them to court
What????
And this AI slop keeps referencing LSU and NCAA
It is the SEC that is taking action vs LSU not the NCAA
Posted on 9/7/26 at 7:36 pm to Sailin Tiger
quote:
Gemini's take
Why the frick do you guys keep doing this
Posted on 9/7/26 at 7:42 pm to Sailin Tiger
quote:
When the NCAA tries to enforce these inconsistent rules
Arbitrary enforcement, especially against nonblue bloods, is the reason the NCAA has been shite for 50 years and needs to be dismantled.
Posted on 9/7/26 at 8:23 pm to Sailin Tiger
Downvote for using the absokute worst AI for this
Posted on 9/7/26 at 10:26 pm to White Tiger
quote:The preliminary injunction specifically nixes the Restitution Rule. It's highly unlikely that the preliminary injunction gets reversed prior to the end of the season, at which time the Louisiana state case will be voluntarily dismissed by the players, so the preliminary injunction cannot be reversed.
My understanding is that the NCAA has a "Restitution Rule" that provides that if an "ineligible player" is allowed to play via court order, but said order is later reverse, then the NCAA has leave to vacate victories, erase stats and the like. Bylaw 12.11.4 for those interested.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 12:41 pm to White Tiger
quote:Nothing in the Louisiana litigation to stop them from playing them.
Then why not play them?
The federal court action presents more of an unknown. Legal uncertainty tends to generate hesitancy. I don't think the SEC even knows what they are doing.

Popular
Back to top
8













