- 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
1
Posted on 8/25/26 at 7:06 pm to CWILKS3
It’s an interesting development that the two largest NIL possible conferences made rules after the fact on the same day.
I wonder if Sherman antitrust issues come into play.
I wonder if Sherman antitrust issues come into play.
Posted on 8/25/26 at 7:09 pm to LSBoosie
So, Texas loses their DT, I assume. Or, are they immune?
Posted on 8/25/26 at 7:12 pm to ItTakesAThief
quote:
Right but if they had known at the time they could play another year of college ball they may have not signed the contract.
The NCAA late rule change caused harm to them. Had the rule change happened before they made the decision this would not be an issue.
And that's fine. Those players can still play at any college that will take them. But for example, if that college takes them, they will be fined and their coach will be suspended for half of the season.
Posted on 8/25/26 at 7:29 pm to ItTakesAThief
quote:
Sounds like collusion by the schools to disenfranchise the affected players.
This is what's going to happen in the end.
Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:15 pm to Chalkywhite84
quote:
This is what's going to happen in the end.
Then this is probably going to cost the SEC and it's member schools a lot of money when the lawsuits finally end.
This is collusion against a few specific players.
Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:19 pm to LSBoosie
quote:
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but the league policies will be enforceable because they are not directly punishing the players, just the schools. Basically saying you can have the players on your roster but you will be punished. Suspending the coach, fining the school, etc. I suppose the schools could sue the conference, but that seems unlikely since the schools were the ones who agreed to this. Am I off base here?
I was long wondering who would be the first SOB to get thrown in jail for a Sherman Act violation. With each passing chess move the odds swing just a little bit.
Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:19 pm to Mobiletiggah
This won't happen against the conference. And your Top donors aren't stupid. They know to cut bait. They won't take action against your own conference.
I know this to be true.
I know this to be true.
Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:20 pm to CWILKS3
quote:
The issue isn’t with the 5 for 5, it’s that these players signed pro contracts
Who even gives a frick anymore ? Why are we still pretending amateur status matters now ? It’s such a dumb charade now anyway
Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:20 pm to CWILKS3
quote:
The issue isn’t with the 5 for 5, it’s that these players signed pro contracts
That’s because the NCAA made them think they were out of eligibility, and then changed the rules a couple of months later. Those 2022 players got screwed. They wouldn’t have entered the draft if they had known they would have another year of eligibility.
This post was edited on 8/25/26 at 8:21 pm
Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:21 pm to Jack Crevalle
Why shouldn't it? NCAA was already in motion with this ruling when they did it. The players couldn't wait around because the NCAA was intentionally dragging their feet. Likely for this reason.
Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:21 pm to BilJ
Because there is a differece baw.
Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:26 pm to LVag1997
quote:
I know this to be true.
Ok, aggy.
Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:28 pm to LVag1997
What? LSU has every right to test the SEC in this situation. They can kick rocks because then it shows they have favoritism for the situations while targeting schools like LSU. You're looking at a lawsuit at that point. They can easily point to pretty much any school in the SEC right now and say, "why didn't you put rules in place to stop them despite complaining about it". Looks awfully suspicious especially considering how much stink they made about Chambliss getting another year but doing absolutely NOTHING to remedy it against Ole Miss.
So because LSU loopholed your shortsighted rules just like the other schools did you decided to screw the players and LSU over? I don't think so. They can sue just like Florida State did.
I'd love to see LSU drop their nuts on the SEC because it's going to make them look bad when you actually evaluate it objectively. It will make them as enemies going against the players and it show conference favoritism collusion on the rules. Where is the SEC making rules to target Ole Miss lie on Chambliss getting a local judge to allow him to play? If you're going to make our players ineligible then all the other universities should be hit too with their current loopholes.
So because LSU loopholed your shortsighted rules just like the other schools did you decided to screw the players and LSU over? I don't think so. They can sue just like Florida State did.
I'd love to see LSU drop their nuts on the SEC because it's going to make them look bad when you actually evaluate it objectively. It will make them as enemies going against the players and it show conference favoritism collusion on the rules. Where is the SEC making rules to target Ole Miss lie on Chambliss getting a local judge to allow him to play? If you're going to make our players ineligible then all the other universities should be hit too with their current loopholes.
This post was edited on 8/25/26 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:31 pm to Northeast_beast
quote:
I fear this is heading down the same path as the Sorsby and Texas Tech debacle, where the conference and its member schools sue and LSU along with other “rule breakers” are ultimately forced to comply.
As it should. These NFL guys being eligible was always fricking retarded.
Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:36 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Sounds like collusion by the schools to disenfranchise the affected players.
quote:
Yes. It is. So what
quote:
Fun Bunch
Oh look. It’s you. With your bitchass takes as usual.
Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:42 pm to Fun Bunch
Sounds like a great collusion, Rico, anti-trust, restriction of trade lawsuit
Stand in front of a jury and say kids making millions are not professionals paid to play.
Stand in front of a jury and say kids making millions are not professionals paid to play.
Posted on 8/25/26 at 11:02 pm to LSBoosie
Bama had a G-league player play in league games and never had to forfeit the games he suited out for
Posted on 8/25/26 at 11:04 pm to John_V
quote:
Bama had a G-league player play in league games and never had to forfeit the games he suited out for
No one is saying anyone is going to have to forfeit games…
Posted on 8/25/26 at 11:09 pm to LSBoosie
It’s certainly a bad antitrust look that all 4 power conferences had meetings on this the same seemingly leading to the same outcome. If there are any talks with NCAA found in discovery it’s going to be tough to defend the SEC position.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News