- 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
re: Live hearing thread
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:29 pm to Tornado Alley
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:29 pm to Tornado Alley
quote:
I don't think signing a pro contract is an arbitrary decision point. It literally makes a player a professional rather than an amateur.
It being definitive doesn't make it non-arbitrary.
I called it that because clearly players can go and try and earn pro spots and be compensated for that--and then return. The inking of the contract was the bridge too far--that is what I called arbitrary.
If I were the rule-maker, it would be four years of eligibility. No redshirts, no medical waiver exceptions, no free transfers. Period full stop. Because playing college football is not a right. But alas I am not.
2
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:30 pm to Tornado Alley
quote:
I don't think signing a pro contract is an arbitrary decision point. It literally makes a player a professional rather than an amateur.
Define pro and amateur. Sankey couldn’t
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:30 pm to Tornado Alley
quote:
Did Chambliss sign a pro contract?
That's the focus of Wright and Harris and the LSU hearing today.
No, the focus of the hearing is whether SEC can prevent an "ineligible" player from playing if the NCAA has been enjoined from doing so. It's very relevant, because it means that the SEC is specifically permitting Chambliss to play rather than just going along with the NCAA in complying with the court order.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:30 pm to More beer please
quote:
Then why has the SEC allowed other athletes in other sports who signed professional contracts to play? If thats such an easy distinction?
because Sankey doesn’t know what “pro” means overseas.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:31 pm to Tornado Alley
quote:
Chambliss's eligibility does not violate SEC rules.
Neither did Wright and Harris. The SEC made the rule AFTER Wright and Harris initially went to court in August. SEC made the rule after the fact and as a result of what DQW and Harris did.
So it should be the same situation as Chambliss. It's about a TRO and not about a pro-athlete (tongue in cheek).
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:31 pm to Nutriaitch
quote:
because Sankey doesn’t know what “pro” means overseas.
Or amateur in any country
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:31 pm to Tigerbait2005
quote:
The commissioner's sworn testimony would also be their actual, stated, legal position on the distinction.
That would depend on the language of the question.
Either way, everyone knows that actually signing is why UT and OM are not in this mess.
Quit saying it like its a gotcha.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:31 pm to Nutriaitch
quote:
because Sankey doesn’t know what “pro” means overseas.
Ok what about the multiple other athletes who signed pro deals in the US and still were allowed to play?
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:31 pm to jmaclsu
Sankey was talking about a policy and realized he was saying too much. He said "let me stop helping you. I'll stop with that" I can't quote exactly what he was saying. It was about a policy in the manual, but this shows his agenda.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:32 pm to Tornado Alley
quote:
Did Chambliss sign a pro contract?
The NCAA ruled Chambliss ineligible.
Ole Miss coordinated a lawsuit that led to a court order granting him temporary eligibility and Ole Miss protection from penalties for playing him.
The SEC has seemingly accepted this court order.
The NCAA ruled Harris and Wright ineligible.
The players filed a lawsuit that led to a court order granting them temporary eligibility.
The SEC has sued LSU.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:32 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
If I were the rule-maker, it would be four years of eligibility. No redshirts, no medical waiver exceptions, no free transfers. Period full stop. Because playing college football is not a right. But alas I am not.
The new rule in question is basically that, except 5 years.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:32 pm to Nutriaitch
So what happens if we lose this one today with the federal court? It makes it seem REALLY aggressive by the SEC to sue a member who followed a court order and met with them about eligibility.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:32 pm to jasonbr1975
quote:
The SEC made the rule AFTER Wright and Harris initially went to court in August. SEC made the rule after the fact and as a result of what DQW and Harris did.
So it should be the same situation as Chambliss. It's about a TRO and not about a pro-athlete (tongue in cheek).
The SEC's entire argument is that it wasn't new, and just a clarification that the NCAA rule against professionalism still applied under the SEC bylaws to these guys.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:32 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Because playing college football is not a right. But alas I am not.
That's the same line of thinking for not letting blacks in restaurants during desegregation or have certain jobs.
Since this is now pay for play, the SEC will need a very compelling argument for why someone who almost made an NFL roster should be excluded from their private club.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:32 pm to b rod lsu
To me the bigger issue is did they or did they not get professional coaching.
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:33 pm to UnsureTiger
quote:
let me stop helping you. I'll stop with that
"Let me be dishonest and not forthcoming"
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:33 pm to Raging Tiger
Kiffin already said they would comply with whatever the ruling is. SEC is acting like they never heard this news.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:33 pm to Indefatigable
How is SlowFloPro not in this thread?
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:33 pm to UnsureTiger
quote:
Sankey was talking about a policy and realized he was saying too much. He said "let me stop helping you. I'll stop with that" I can't quote exactly what he was saying. It was about a policy in the manual, but this shows his agenda.
That is interesting. I'm still shocked they haven't brought up the lawsuit yet....
Posted on 9/3/26 at 1:33 pm to Raging Tiger
quote:
So what happens if we lose this one today with the federal court?
Basically this ends the same way regardless of what happens. Unless the LASC and the USSC both hear this case before tomorrow afternoon and both make determinative and final judgments that the players are eligible and/or that the federal suit is dismissed with prejudice (which isn't possible)---there is no way LSU can roster or play them.
Win or lose in court.
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 1:34 pm
Page 25 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News