3
- 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
Just to be clear if the lawsuit
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:40 pm
I used ChatGTP to basically give me a brief of the suit. Just to understand and show how stupid this really all is.
There is technically no rule against contacting professional players. That is why they are using the 1st Amendment in the lawsuit.
They are claiming “expressive association” which means the conference has control of who they are associated with (in this case professional players).
It is a fair legal argument for the players not to play. That being said in the eyes of the law it’s more muddy than ever to define what a professional player is. And its a complete farce that they have taken it this far with the threats of expulsion.
Obviously this isn’t a great look for LSU. But whoever is leading the charge on this and wanting votes to expel LSU, is nothing more than a vindictive moron. It is just as bad of a look for SEC leadership. I’m guessing it’s 1 or 2 leaders other than Sankey and this will all be something to laugh about in a week.
There is technically no rule against contacting professional players. That is why they are using the 1st Amendment in the lawsuit.
They are claiming “expressive association” which means the conference has control of who they are associated with (in this case professional players).
It is a fair legal argument for the players not to play. That being said in the eyes of the law it’s more muddy than ever to define what a professional player is. And its a complete farce that they have taken it this far with the threats of expulsion.
Obviously this isn’t a great look for LSU. But whoever is leading the charge on this and wanting votes to expel LSU, is nothing more than a vindictive moron. It is just as bad of a look for SEC leadership. I’m guessing it’s 1 or 2 leaders other than Sankey and this will all be something to laugh about in a week.
This post was edited on 9/8/26 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:44 pm to Swamp Frog x
quote:Chat said this?
nothing more than a vindictive moron
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:45 pm to Swamp Frog x
Again, the rules cannot be for thee and not for me.
Furthermore, Wright and Harris, specifically took MORE money to play for LSU. So, which is the professional sport? NIL has muddied that water tremendously.
Had the NCAA not drug their feet on the 5 for 5 rule when it was first was announced and had these players deemed eligible before UDFA or before training camps, this would be a non-issue.
And, as I'm reading how these court orders work...the SEC is supposed to abide by the policies set forth by the NCAA, a policy it itself is purposely altering. The lack of self-awareness on their part is astounding.
Because, by that ruling, wouldn't it stand to reason that Chambliss is ineligible?
And, for the record, I don't believe this will be a thing in future seasons
Furthermore, Wright and Harris, specifically took MORE money to play for LSU. So, which is the professional sport? NIL has muddied that water tremendously.
Had the NCAA not drug their feet on the 5 for 5 rule when it was first was announced and had these players deemed eligible before UDFA or before training camps, this would be a non-issue.
And, as I'm reading how these court orders work...the SEC is supposed to abide by the policies set forth by the NCAA, a policy it itself is purposely altering. The lack of self-awareness on their part is astounding.
Because, by that ruling, wouldn't it stand to reason that Chambliss is ineligible?
And, for the record, I don't believe this will be a thing in future seasons
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:48 pm to LSU4Life2021
quote:
OM, Tenn, Alabama
Honestly I don't think Bama has anything to do with this. I'd be really surprised if they did. And really I don't think Ole Miss does either.
This has Tenn written all over it. Their president was quoted last week.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 3:51 pm to BallHawk
quote:
Because, by that ruling, wouldn't it stand to reason that Chambliss is ineligible?
The SEC has taken the position that it is not bound by state court issued TROs but that it can choose to abide by them.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:11 pm to studentsect
quote:
The SEC has taken the position that it is not bound by state court issued TROs but that it can choose to abide by them.
Then where do they stand with Chambliss and the 5 for 5? We will keep our 2 off the roster if they take Chambliss off Ole Miss’s. Didn’t think so, they’ll both be on the roster in Oxford.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:16 pm to studentsect
quote:
The SEC has taken the position that it is not bound by state court issued TROs but that it can choose to abide by them.
This is even worse as it very clearly and documentable-ly is picking and choosing which one they want to allow and which ones they don’t. Based on “reasons and 1st amendment.”
In a legal sense, you’re suing a member institution over something you’re allowing other members to do under the guise that you’re a voluntary membership and you can do whatever you want. When there are billions of dollars involved and anti-trust exemptions, that doesn’t work.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 4:25 pm to elprez00
quote:
This is even worse as it very clearly and documentable-ly is picking and choosing which one they want to allow and which ones they don’t. Based on “reasons and 1st amendment.”
In a legal sense, you’re suing a member institution over something you’re allowing other members to do under the guise that you’re a voluntary membership and you can do whatever you want. When there are billions of dollars involved and anti-trust exemptions, that doesn’t work.
Yeah that's why I'm convinced that all of the people involved are just not very smart. I'm legitimately not sure that Sankey has a solid grasp of the various facts here, or what the judge has actually ordered. He definitely is not familiar with what being held in contempt means. Maybe he thinks the common definition applies and that it just means the judge will feel a lack of respect towards him.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News