- 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
Here is copy of Amended Complaint. All 55 pages.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 12:35 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 12:35 pm
Download from my Dropbox.
Dropbox.
Ran it through Gemini for analysis and summary:
The SEC’s amended federal complaint seeks to protect its right to hold a September 10 meeting where the league’s presidents will consider kicking LSU out of the conference.
The dispute stems from LSU’s efforts to add former NFL-contracted players despite SEC/NCAA rules barring players who have signed professional contracts or appeared on professional rosters from returning to college competition.
After a Louisiana court blocked the SEC and NCAA from penalizing LSU or the players, the other 15 SEC presidents met and concluded LSU had demonstrated a “fundamental lack of institutional control.”
The SEC now argues in federal court that the First Amendment gives it the right of expressive association—including the right to disassociate from LSU. It contends that expelling LSU would be an exercise of the conference’s membership authority, not a “penalty” prohibited by the Louisiana court order.
The SEC is asking the federal court to prevent LSU officials, Louisiana AG Liz Murrill and others from interfering with or delaying Thursday’s meeting and potential vote to terminate LSU’s SEC membership.
Under the SEC Constitution, removing LSU would require a two-thirds vote of the conference presidents.
Dropbox.
Ran it through Gemini for analysis and summary:
The SEC’s amended federal complaint seeks to protect its right to hold a September 10 meeting where the league’s presidents will consider kicking LSU out of the conference.
The dispute stems from LSU’s efforts to add former NFL-contracted players despite SEC/NCAA rules barring players who have signed professional contracts or appeared on professional rosters from returning to college competition.
After a Louisiana court blocked the SEC and NCAA from penalizing LSU or the players, the other 15 SEC presidents met and concluded LSU had demonstrated a “fundamental lack of institutional control.”
The SEC now argues in federal court that the First Amendment gives it the right of expressive association—including the right to disassociate from LSU. It contends that expelling LSU would be an exercise of the conference’s membership authority, not a “penalty” prohibited by the Louisiana court order.
The SEC is asking the federal court to prevent LSU officials, Louisiana AG Liz Murrill and others from interfering with or delaying Thursday’s meeting and potential vote to terminate LSU’s SEC membership.
Under the SEC Constitution, removing LSU would require a two-thirds vote of the conference presidents.
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 1:23 pm
13
Posted on 9/8/26 at 12:36 pm to prplhze2000
Give us the AI summary? lol
Posted on 9/8/26 at 12:36 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
Download from my Dropbox.
Need the lawyer cliffs
Posted on 9/8/26 at 12:36 pm to prplhze2000
Thanks for posting. I am going to print it out so I can wipe my arse with it.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 12:37 pm to White Tiger
We hate LSU.
—— tSEC
—— tSEC
Posted on 9/8/26 at 12:38 pm to canyon
Hahahahahaaaa
Posted on 9/8/26 at 12:42 pm to prplhze2000
LINK to the docket.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 12:47 pm to Decatur
yeah but you have to have a PACER account to actually look at documents.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 12:48 pm to prplhze2000
You can usually view most documents on CourtListener without a PACER account.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 12:50 pm to prplhze2000
I wonder whether Scott Woodward's involved with any of this pot-stirring.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 12:52 pm to prplhze2000
AI Summary
The SEC’s amended complaint asks a federal court in Alabama to protect its claimed First Amendment right to remove LSU from the conference without interference from Louisiana officials or state-court proceedings.
### Central dispute
The conflict concerns LSU’s alleged effort to add former NFL players to its 2026 football roster. The SEC maintains that its longstanding “Professionalism Rules” prohibit athletes from returning to college competition after they have entered a professional draft, signed a professional contract, or appeared on a professional roster.
According to the complaint:
* LSU and head coach Lane Kiffin recruited several former college players who had signed with or appeared on NFL rosters.
* At least two—Zxavian Harris and Dae’Quan Wright—enrolled at LSU and began practicing with its football team.
* LSU left two roster positions open after the September 4 deadline, allegedly so the players could be added later.
* Kiffin repeatedly stated publicly that LSU intended to recruit and potentially play these athletes.
* LSU President Wade Rousse had voted on August 25 to support an SEC policy reaffirming the Professionalism Rules, but LSU subsequently continued pursuing the players.
### The Louisiana litigation
The former players filed a Louisiana lawsuit challenging the NCAA’s new “5-for-5” eligibility system and seeking permission to compete during the 2026–27 season.
A Louisiana state judge issued temporary and preliminary relief that, as characterized by the SEC, prevents the NCAA, SEC, member institutions, and coaches from imposing rules or penalties against:
* The players;
* Any institution or coach for whom they play; and
* Institutions or coaches that compete against them.
Louisiana Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill supported the players’ case. The SEC accuses her, LSU officials, and other Louisiana actors of coordinating an effort to prevent the conference from enforcing its rules. The complaint also cites Murrill’s public criticism of the SEC and its lawsuit.
### Why the SEC claims a constitutional violation
The SEC does not frame the case primarily as a dispute over whether the players are eligible. Instead, it argues that it is an “expressive association” protected by the First Amendment.
Its theory is that:
* The SEC expresses educational and competitive values through its membership rules.
* LSU’s conduct contradicts the conference’s position that college and professional sports must remain distinct.
* Forcing the SEC to continue associating its competitions, championships, name, and reputation with LSU’s conduct violates the SEC’s freedom not to associate.
* LSU officials are state actors because LSU is a public institution.
* Louisiana officials therefore cannot use governmental authority to compel the SEC to remain associated with LSU.
The SEC claims LSU’s actions also create an unfair competitive advantage, threaten to displace current college athletes, undermine public confidence, and damage the conference’s identity and reputation.
### Possible removal of LSU
On September 4, the presidents and chancellors of the other 15 SEC schools met informally without LSU. No official action or penalty was imposed, but the complaint says they reached a consensus that LSU’s continued membership might be inconsistent with the conference’s values.
The SEC scheduled a formal meeting for September 10, 2026, to consider terminating LSU’s membership. Under the SEC Constitution:
* Removal requires approval by at least two-thirds of all SEC chief executives.
* The motion must specify when the termination would take effect.
* The SEC argues that terminating membership is an associational right—not a penalty for violating an eligibility rule.
Significantly, the complaint says the SEC may consider removing LSU even if LSU ultimately decides not to play the former professionals. It cites LSU’s alleged lack of institutional control, Kiffin’s public statements, and the broader conflict with conference leadership.
### The two legal claims
1. **Declaratory relief under the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983:**
The SEC wants the court to declare that it has a constitutional right to disassociate from LSU and the conduct of LSU officials.
2. **Temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief:**
The SEC wants an order preventing the defendants—and people acting with them, including the former players—from interfering with its associational rights.
### What the SEC wants the court to prohibit
The requested injunction would prevent LSU officials, the Louisiana attorney general, and associated parties from:
* Compelling the SEC to associate with conduct it opposes;
* Punishing or coercing the SEC for exercising its First Amendment rights;
* Blocking, delaying, or preventing the September 10 meeting;
* Using other court proceedings to stop consideration of LSU’s removal; and
* Undermining a decision to remove LSU, except through a challenge or counterclaim filed in this particular federal case.
The SEC also requests attorney’s fees and court costs.
### Bottom line
This is not simply an eligibility lawsuit. The SEC is attempting to transform the dispute into a constitutional freedom-of-association case. Its immediate objective is to ensure that conference leaders can meet and potentially expel LSU without being stopped by LSU, Louisiana officials, the players, or the Louisiana court proceedings.
These are the SEC’s allegations and legal theories—not findings that LSU or any individual defendant actually violated the law. Several potentially disputed issues remain, including whether the SEC qualifies for the asserted constitutional protection, whether the defendants caused a constitutional injury, whether an Alabama federal court has authority over all the Louisiana defendants, and whether the sweeping requested injunction could lawfully restrict parties from seeking relief in other courts.
The SEC’s amended complaint asks a federal court in Alabama to protect its claimed First Amendment right to remove LSU from the conference without interference from Louisiana officials or state-court proceedings.
### Central dispute
The conflict concerns LSU’s alleged effort to add former NFL players to its 2026 football roster. The SEC maintains that its longstanding “Professionalism Rules” prohibit athletes from returning to college competition after they have entered a professional draft, signed a professional contract, or appeared on a professional roster.
According to the complaint:
* LSU and head coach Lane Kiffin recruited several former college players who had signed with or appeared on NFL rosters.
* At least two—Zxavian Harris and Dae’Quan Wright—enrolled at LSU and began practicing with its football team.
* LSU left two roster positions open after the September 4 deadline, allegedly so the players could be added later.
* Kiffin repeatedly stated publicly that LSU intended to recruit and potentially play these athletes.
* LSU President Wade Rousse had voted on August 25 to support an SEC policy reaffirming the Professionalism Rules, but LSU subsequently continued pursuing the players.
### The Louisiana litigation
The former players filed a Louisiana lawsuit challenging the NCAA’s new “5-for-5” eligibility system and seeking permission to compete during the 2026–27 season.
A Louisiana state judge issued temporary and preliminary relief that, as characterized by the SEC, prevents the NCAA, SEC, member institutions, and coaches from imposing rules or penalties against:
* The players;
* Any institution or coach for whom they play; and
* Institutions or coaches that compete against them.
Louisiana Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill supported the players’ case. The SEC accuses her, LSU officials, and other Louisiana actors of coordinating an effort to prevent the conference from enforcing its rules. The complaint also cites Murrill’s public criticism of the SEC and its lawsuit.
### Why the SEC claims a constitutional violation
The SEC does not frame the case primarily as a dispute over whether the players are eligible. Instead, it argues that it is an “expressive association” protected by the First Amendment.
Its theory is that:
* The SEC expresses educational and competitive values through its membership rules.
* LSU’s conduct contradicts the conference’s position that college and professional sports must remain distinct.
* Forcing the SEC to continue associating its competitions, championships, name, and reputation with LSU’s conduct violates the SEC’s freedom not to associate.
* LSU officials are state actors because LSU is a public institution.
* Louisiana officials therefore cannot use governmental authority to compel the SEC to remain associated with LSU.
The SEC claims LSU’s actions also create an unfair competitive advantage, threaten to displace current college athletes, undermine public confidence, and damage the conference’s identity and reputation.
### Possible removal of LSU
On September 4, the presidents and chancellors of the other 15 SEC schools met informally without LSU. No official action or penalty was imposed, but the complaint says they reached a consensus that LSU’s continued membership might be inconsistent with the conference’s values.
The SEC scheduled a formal meeting for September 10, 2026, to consider terminating LSU’s membership. Under the SEC Constitution:
* Removal requires approval by at least two-thirds of all SEC chief executives.
* The motion must specify when the termination would take effect.
* The SEC argues that terminating membership is an associational right—not a penalty for violating an eligibility rule.
Significantly, the complaint says the SEC may consider removing LSU even if LSU ultimately decides not to play the former professionals. It cites LSU’s alleged lack of institutional control, Kiffin’s public statements, and the broader conflict with conference leadership.
### The two legal claims
1. **Declaratory relief under the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983:**
The SEC wants the court to declare that it has a constitutional right to disassociate from LSU and the conduct of LSU officials.
2. **Temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief:**
The SEC wants an order preventing the defendants—and people acting with them, including the former players—from interfering with its associational rights.
### What the SEC wants the court to prohibit
The requested injunction would prevent LSU officials, the Louisiana attorney general, and associated parties from:
* Compelling the SEC to associate with conduct it opposes;
* Punishing or coercing the SEC for exercising its First Amendment rights;
* Blocking, delaying, or preventing the September 10 meeting;
* Using other court proceedings to stop consideration of LSU’s removal; and
* Undermining a decision to remove LSU, except through a challenge or counterclaim filed in this particular federal case.
The SEC also requests attorney’s fees and court costs.
### Bottom line
This is not simply an eligibility lawsuit. The SEC is attempting to transform the dispute into a constitutional freedom-of-association case. Its immediate objective is to ensure that conference leaders can meet and potentially expel LSU without being stopped by LSU, Louisiana officials, the players, or the Louisiana court proceedings.
These are the SEC’s allegations and legal theories—not findings that LSU or any individual defendant actually violated the law. Several potentially disputed issues remain, including whether the SEC qualifies for the asserted constitutional protection, whether the defendants caused a constitutional injury, whether an Alabama federal court has authority over all the Louisiana defendants, and whether the sweeping requested injunction could lawfully restrict parties from seeking relief in other courts.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 12:53 pm to White Tiger
quote:
Give us the AI summary
Come on SFP give us your summary
Posted on 9/8/26 at 12:59 pm to Deadmanshand
quote:
The SEC argues that terminating membership is an associational right—not a penalty for violating an eligibility rule. Significantly, the complaint says the SEC may consider removing LSU even if LSU ultimately decides not to play the former professionals. It cites LSU’s alleged lack of institutional control, Kiffin’s public statements, and the broader conflict with conference leadership.
So it's not actually about rules that other schools have also tried to circumvent. It's completely personal at this point.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:05 pm to Deadmanshand
quote:
These are the SEC’s allegations and legal theories—not findings that LSU or any individual defendant actually violated the law. Several potentially disputed issues remain, including whether the SEC qualifies for the asserted constitutional protection, whether the defendants caused a constitutional injury, whether an Alabama federal court has authority over all the Louisiana defendants, and whether the sweeping requested injunction could lawfully restrict parties from seeking relief in other courts.
They set a ridiculously high bar for themselves to clear.
And the SEC does not have a Constitutional right to encourage member institutions to ignore court orders.
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:05 pm to prplhze2000
Dumped into Claude, without context...
Bottom line: The SEC just built itself an off-ramp. The Louisiana injunction blocks it from penalizing LSU, so the conference is reframing expulsion as "expressive disassociation" — a right, not a penalty — and asking a federal judge to stop anyone from blocking the Thursday vote. It's a leverage play far more than an expulsion plan.
What's new versus the Sept 3 complaint
-Names only individuals in official capacity (Rousse, Ausberry, Kiffin, all 18 Board members) plus AG Murrill — sidesteps LSU's sovereign immunity via Ex parte Young.
-Formally notices a Section 3.1.5 termination vote for Sept 10; two-thirds of 16 CEOs (11 votes) required.
-Seeks a TRO barring defendants "and persons in active concert" (explicitly the Pyburn plaintiffs) from suing to block or unwind that vote — essentially trying to pre-empt the 19th JDC.
Core theory: expulsion isn't rule enforcement (which the Louisiana court enjoined), it's a First Amendment right to disassociate under Roberts and Boy Scouts v. Dale.
The tell
¶94 says the meeting happens "whether LSU renounces its intention to roster... or not." That's a negotiating posture, not a settled intent to expel. Every outlet reporting on it — ESPN, for one — says the SEC is not expected to actually take such action.
¶87–88 confirms LSU held two roster spots open and can still add Harris and Wright post-deadline. The whole thing turns on whether Kiffin plays them Saturday.
Where the SEC's case is weak
It's asking a federal court in Alabama to restrain parties from litigating in a Louisiana state court that already has jurisdiction. That's an Anti-Injunction Act problem the complaint doesn't address, and federal judges dislike that request.
The Dale theory treats a 93-year business relationship among public universities as a Boy Scout troop. Novel, and a nine-figure media contract makes "expressive association" a harder sell.
Rousse voted for the policy statement on Aug 25. The SEC is using that against LSU (lack of institutional control), but it also undercuts the claim that LSU as an institution is forcing anything on the conference — it's Kiffin.
What to watch Thursday
Whether the 19th JDC enters the written PI order today and whether it expands scope to cover the vote itself.
Whether Judge Axon rules on the TRO before Thursday morning.
Whether the "vote" becomes a probation/conditions resolution instead — that's the most likely landing spot.
Bottom line: The SEC just built itself an off-ramp. The Louisiana injunction blocks it from penalizing LSU, so the conference is reframing expulsion as "expressive disassociation" — a right, not a penalty — and asking a federal judge to stop anyone from blocking the Thursday vote. It's a leverage play far more than an expulsion plan.
What's new versus the Sept 3 complaint
-Names only individuals in official capacity (Rousse, Ausberry, Kiffin, all 18 Board members) plus AG Murrill — sidesteps LSU's sovereign immunity via Ex parte Young.
-Formally notices a Section 3.1.5 termination vote for Sept 10; two-thirds of 16 CEOs (11 votes) required.
-Seeks a TRO barring defendants "and persons in active concert" (explicitly the Pyburn plaintiffs) from suing to block or unwind that vote — essentially trying to pre-empt the 19th JDC.
Core theory: expulsion isn't rule enforcement (which the Louisiana court enjoined), it's a First Amendment right to disassociate under Roberts and Boy Scouts v. Dale.
The tell
¶94 says the meeting happens "whether LSU renounces its intention to roster... or not." That's a negotiating posture, not a settled intent to expel. Every outlet reporting on it — ESPN, for one — says the SEC is not expected to actually take such action.
¶87–88 confirms LSU held two roster spots open and can still add Harris and Wright post-deadline. The whole thing turns on whether Kiffin plays them Saturday.
Where the SEC's case is weak
It's asking a federal court in Alabama to restrain parties from litigating in a Louisiana state court that already has jurisdiction. That's an Anti-Injunction Act problem the complaint doesn't address, and federal judges dislike that request.
The Dale theory treats a 93-year business relationship among public universities as a Boy Scout troop. Novel, and a nine-figure media contract makes "expressive association" a harder sell.
Rousse voted for the policy statement on Aug 25. The SEC is using that against LSU (lack of institutional control), but it also undercuts the claim that LSU as an institution is forcing anything on the conference — it's Kiffin.
What to watch Thursday
Whether the 19th JDC enters the written PI order today and whether it expands scope to cover the vote itself.
Whether Judge Axon rules on the TRO before Thursday morning.
Whether the "vote" becomes a probation/conditions resolution instead — that's the most likely landing spot.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:13 pm to TigerDeBaiter
more...This is mostly posturing — but posturing with a live gun on the table. Expulsion this week is a low-single-digit outcome; something real coming out of Thursday is not.
My odds
Outright expulsion on Sept 10: ~5%. Every credible source is signaling the SEC won't pull the trigger. The reason is math, not sentiment: Texas/Oklahoma just got added to fill an expanded ESPN deal, and cutting a top-five brand mid-contract exposes every member to media-rights renegotiation. The SEC also needs LSU on the schedule this weekend. Note, though, that CBS reported the votes were believed to be there if LSU refused to de-escalate — so it's not a bluff with no bullets.
A formal vote with a suspended or conditional outcome (probation, forfeiture triggers, tied to LSU never rostering Harris/Wright): ~50%. This is the most likely landing. It lets the presidents put a real consequence on paper, gives Rousse and Ausberry political cover to rein in Kiffin, and stays outside the Louisiana injunction because it's framed as association terms, not a penalty.
Meeting happens, strong statement, no binding action, dispute drags into the courts through October: ~40%. Also very plausible. The federal TRO alone gives the SEC most of what it wants: a ruling that Louisiana courts can't stop the SEC from governing itself.
Meeting gets enjoined by the 19th JDC before Thursday: ~5–10%. Murrill and the Pyburn lawyers might try, but a Louisiana judge enjoining a private association's membership meeting in Alabama is a big overreach even for a home-cooking court.
What breaks the stalemate
-Kiffin already blinked once — he held Harris and Wright out of Clemson "in the best interests of the team." That's the tell that LSU's leadership can still find the brake pedal when it counts.
-The real variable is Landry. As long as the governor treats this as a Louisiana-vs-the-establishment fight, Rousse can't fully de-escalate without political cost. If Landry's rhetoric cools this week, expect a quiet resolution.
-If Kiffin actually rosters the two players before Saturday, all of the above shifts hard — expulsion moves from 5% to something real.
What it means for you
Nothing structural changes for Baton Rouge in the near term — LSU is playing SEC football this fall regardless. The lasting damage is reputational and governance-related: LSU has spent a lot of institutional capital with fifteen peer presidents over a tight end and a defensive tackle, and Rousse is a new president who now looks like he can't control his coach. That's the story that outlasts this week.
Short answer: no — and it's the one motive that would actually hurt them.
Why the incentive runs the other way
-LSU makes the other 15 schools money. It's a top-five brand, a guaranteed sellout road game, and a strength-of-schedule asset for playoff seeding. Kicking it out shrinks the pie for everyone; nobody's athletic department gets richer.
-The media deal is priced on 16 members including LSU. ESPN would have a renegotiation opening, and the presidents know it.
-Louisiana is a top recruiting state. Alabama, Texas A&M, and Ole Miss want LSU in-conference precisely so they can keep raiding it on the recruiting trail with SEC branding.
Why they legally can't even hint at it
-The whole complaint is built on the First Amendment "expressive association" theory specifically to keep this out of commercial territory. Post-Alston, the moment a conference vote looks like a commercial decision to eliminate a competitor, it's a Sherman Act counterclaim — and Murrill would file it before the meeting adjourned. Any president who said "vote them out, it clears our path" on the record would be handing LSU the case.
-That's also why the complaint repeats "lack of institutional control" and "values" so many times. It's not rhetoric; it's the antitrust shield.
Where competitive self-interest does show up
-Not in removing LSU, but in stopping the tactic. If Kiffin's NFL-returnee pipeline works, every other coach has to match it next year or lose ground. The presidents are protecting themselves from an arms race, not from LSU.
-The grudge factor is real — Ole Miss watched Kiffin walk out the door and then poach two of its former players via lawsuit — but grudges get expressed as harsh probation terms, not expulsion.
If anything, the competitive angle points toward a firm slap and a fast reconciliation. They need the Tigers on the schedule more than they need to make a point.
My odds
Outright expulsion on Sept 10: ~5%. Every credible source is signaling the SEC won't pull the trigger. The reason is math, not sentiment: Texas/Oklahoma just got added to fill an expanded ESPN deal, and cutting a top-five brand mid-contract exposes every member to media-rights renegotiation. The SEC also needs LSU on the schedule this weekend. Note, though, that CBS reported the votes were believed to be there if LSU refused to de-escalate — so it's not a bluff with no bullets.
A formal vote with a suspended or conditional outcome (probation, forfeiture triggers, tied to LSU never rostering Harris/Wright): ~50%. This is the most likely landing. It lets the presidents put a real consequence on paper, gives Rousse and Ausberry political cover to rein in Kiffin, and stays outside the Louisiana injunction because it's framed as association terms, not a penalty.
Meeting happens, strong statement, no binding action, dispute drags into the courts through October: ~40%. Also very plausible. The federal TRO alone gives the SEC most of what it wants: a ruling that Louisiana courts can't stop the SEC from governing itself.
Meeting gets enjoined by the 19th JDC before Thursday: ~5–10%. Murrill and the Pyburn lawyers might try, but a Louisiana judge enjoining a private association's membership meeting in Alabama is a big overreach even for a home-cooking court.
What breaks the stalemate
-Kiffin already blinked once — he held Harris and Wright out of Clemson "in the best interests of the team." That's the tell that LSU's leadership can still find the brake pedal when it counts.
-The real variable is Landry. As long as the governor treats this as a Louisiana-vs-the-establishment fight, Rousse can't fully de-escalate without political cost. If Landry's rhetoric cools this week, expect a quiet resolution.
-If Kiffin actually rosters the two players before Saturday, all of the above shifts hard — expulsion moves from 5% to something real.
What it means for you
Nothing structural changes for Baton Rouge in the near term — LSU is playing SEC football this fall regardless. The lasting damage is reputational and governance-related: LSU has spent a lot of institutional capital with fifteen peer presidents over a tight end and a defensive tackle, and Rousse is a new president who now looks like he can't control his coach. That's the story that outlasts this week.
quote:
is there a chance they vote out of the interest of eliminating competition?
Short answer: no — and it's the one motive that would actually hurt them.
Why the incentive runs the other way
-LSU makes the other 15 schools money. It's a top-five brand, a guaranteed sellout road game, and a strength-of-schedule asset for playoff seeding. Kicking it out shrinks the pie for everyone; nobody's athletic department gets richer.
-The media deal is priced on 16 members including LSU. ESPN would have a renegotiation opening, and the presidents know it.
-Louisiana is a top recruiting state. Alabama, Texas A&M, and Ole Miss want LSU in-conference precisely so they can keep raiding it on the recruiting trail with SEC branding.
Why they legally can't even hint at it
-The whole complaint is built on the First Amendment "expressive association" theory specifically to keep this out of commercial territory. Post-Alston, the moment a conference vote looks like a commercial decision to eliminate a competitor, it's a Sherman Act counterclaim — and Murrill would file it before the meeting adjourned. Any president who said "vote them out, it clears our path" on the record would be handing LSU the case.
-That's also why the complaint repeats "lack of institutional control" and "values" so many times. It's not rhetoric; it's the antitrust shield.
Where competitive self-interest does show up
-Not in removing LSU, but in stopping the tactic. If Kiffin's NFL-returnee pipeline works, every other coach has to match it next year or lose ground. The presidents are protecting themselves from an arms race, not from LSU.
-The grudge factor is real — Ole Miss watched Kiffin walk out the door and then poach two of its former players via lawsuit — but grudges get expressed as harsh probation terms, not expulsion.
If anything, the competitive angle points toward a firm slap and a fast reconciliation. They need the Tigers on the schedule more than they need to make a point.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:20 pm to TigerDeBaiter
Cancelling games opens the league and schools to class action lawsuits from ticket holders.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:21 pm to TigerDeBaiter
Chambliss is a non-starter. He never went pro. His fight was with the NCAA over a medical redshirt for a sixth year — a Mississippi judge ruled he clearly met the criteria for a medical redshirt and that the NCAA ignored medical evidence in denying his waiver. That's an eligibility-clock dispute, not a professionalism-rule dispute. The SEC's rule is about signing a contract or appearing on a pro roster; Chambliss did neither. LSU fans keep raising it, but even Ole Miss's own media had to explain the difference to Landry.
ESPN
Hutson is the real gray area — and it's narrower than it looks. He went undrafted, was invited to Cowboys minicamp but did not land a contract, and also had a brief stint with the Browns. His return came through a lawsuit against the NCAA in Travis County and a federal judge's class ruling on fifth-year eligibility. Now read the SEC's own trigger language from the Aug 25 policy statement (¶62 of the complaint): declared and didn't withdraw, signed a contract, or listed on a roster. Tryout invitees aren't on the 90-man roster and Hutson never signed. Harris and Wright signed contracts and were rostered. As written, Texas is inside the line and LSU is outside it.
That said, LSU's lawyers should absolutely use Hutson. Two reasons:
-The complaint's own summary (¶4, ¶43) describes the rules as covering anyone who "entered a professional draft," and Hutson was draft-eligible and worked out for two teams. The SEC is being precise when it needs to be and loose when it helps.
-Texas's president voted yes on Aug 25 with Hutson already on his roster and nobody in Birmingham said a word. That's the fact pattern that makes "we're just protecting our values" look like "we're protecting our values from LSU."
So why LSU? Not because of who's on the roster — because of how it was done. Texas quietly kept a fifth-year lineman after a class-action ruling. Kiffin publicly recruited players under NFL contract, allegedly solicited the lawsuit that freed them, announced a "poster child," and mocked the rule on national TV during a game. The 15 presidents aren't reacting to a roster spot; they're reacting to a member's coach openly working to dismantle a rule they'd just unanimously reaffirmed, with the governor and AG backing him.
That's not a great legal answer to selective enforcement, but it's the true one. And it's why I'd expect Thursday to land on conduct and institutional control rather than the professionalism rule itself — because on the rule alone, Hutson makes the SEC's position uncomfortable.
ESPN
Hutson is the real gray area — and it's narrower than it looks. He went undrafted, was invited to Cowboys minicamp but did not land a contract, and also had a brief stint with the Browns. His return came through a lawsuit against the NCAA in Travis County and a federal judge's class ruling on fifth-year eligibility. Now read the SEC's own trigger language from the Aug 25 policy statement (¶62 of the complaint): declared and didn't withdraw, signed a contract, or listed on a roster. Tryout invitees aren't on the 90-man roster and Hutson never signed. Harris and Wright signed contracts and were rostered. As written, Texas is inside the line and LSU is outside it.
That said, LSU's lawyers should absolutely use Hutson. Two reasons:
-The complaint's own summary (¶4, ¶43) describes the rules as covering anyone who "entered a professional draft," and Hutson was draft-eligible and worked out for two teams. The SEC is being precise when it needs to be and loose when it helps.
-Texas's president voted yes on Aug 25 with Hutson already on his roster and nobody in Birmingham said a word. That's the fact pattern that makes "we're just protecting our values" look like "we're protecting our values from LSU."
So why LSU? Not because of who's on the roster — because of how it was done. Texas quietly kept a fifth-year lineman after a class-action ruling. Kiffin publicly recruited players under NFL contract, allegedly solicited the lawsuit that freed them, announced a "poster child," and mocked the rule on national TV during a game. The 15 presidents aren't reacting to a roster spot; they're reacting to a member's coach openly working to dismantle a rule they'd just unanimously reaffirmed, with the governor and AG backing him.
That's not a great legal answer to selective enforcement, but it's the true one. And it's why I'd expect Thursday to land on conduct and institutional control rather than the professionalism rule itself — because on the rule alone, Hutson makes the SEC's position uncomfortable.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:23 pm to prplhze2000
paragraphs 44-45 go to the heart of it.
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:23 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
The dispute stems from LSU’s efforts to add former NFL-contracted players despite SEC/NCAA rules barring players who have signed professional contracts or appeared on professional rosters from returning to college competition.
Are any of those players on the roster??
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News