- 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 4:31 pm to Robcrzy
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:31 pm to Robcrzy
Don't a lot of vets have bonus money tied to attending OTA's and a lot of guys get cut every year before OTA's because if they attended then more time on the contract will be guaranteed?
Those sound like they are just as much of a professional activity as regular training camp.
There is an easy way to decide if they were professional or not. Just ask the NFLPA if they consider if any of the players have accrued vested time for retirement with the union or if they are even considered members of the union.
Those sound like they are just as much of a professional activity as regular training camp.
There is an easy way to decide if they were professional or not. Just ask the NFLPA if they consider if any of the players have accrued vested time for retirement with the union or if they are even considered members of the union.
1
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:32 pm to lowhound
Someone got to the Duke lawyer to make him delete his tweet about the terrible SEC lawsuit.
But the internet lives forever
So if any of the LSU lawyers need any of this, here you go:
"The more I work my way through this, the more I think that this complaint is awful and subject to dismissal. The federal jurisdiction is being manufactured as a First Amendment problem. Who is forcing any association with LSU? There is no Ken Paxton letter like we had with the Big 12. A state officer threatening a conference with antitrust liability for exercising its associational rights is a First Amendment injury. I get that. That letter manufactured the controversy and the federal jurisdiction.
But, here, the First Amendment claims make no sense. Compelled association is a shield against government compulsion by force of law, and there is no law here, no order, no threat, nothing directing the SEC to seat anyone. The conference admitted LSU, retains LSU, and holds an express bylaw power to suspend it, expel it, strip its revenue, and declare the athletes ineligible. Nobody is forcing this association. The SEC is choosing it, and choosing it is not an injury a federal court can redress.
The invocation of Section 1983 and Ex parte Young is mind-boggling. Ex parte Young exists to stop state officers from enforcing unconstitutional law. It is not a vehicle for enforcing a private association's bylaws. And the complaint's pleading that "each Defendant is a person within the meaning of Section 1983" is ridiculous. LSU and its Board are arms of the State of Louisiana, and arms of a State are not persons at all under Section 1983. That's been the law for 37 years. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). The official-capacity defendants survive that, but a complaint that gets the elementary point wrong as to two of five defendants is not one that inspires confidence in the rest."
This guy here with a prior tweet
But the internet lives forever
So if any of the LSU lawyers need any of this, here you go:
"The more I work my way through this, the more I think that this complaint is awful and subject to dismissal. The federal jurisdiction is being manufactured as a First Amendment problem. Who is forcing any association with LSU? There is no Ken Paxton letter like we had with the Big 12. A state officer threatening a conference with antitrust liability for exercising its associational rights is a First Amendment injury. I get that. That letter manufactured the controversy and the federal jurisdiction.
But, here, the First Amendment claims make no sense. Compelled association is a shield against government compulsion by force of law, and there is no law here, no order, no threat, nothing directing the SEC to seat anyone. The conference admitted LSU, retains LSU, and holds an express bylaw power to suspend it, expel it, strip its revenue, and declare the athletes ineligible. Nobody is forcing this association. The SEC is choosing it, and choosing it is not an injury a federal court can redress.
The invocation of Section 1983 and Ex parte Young is mind-boggling. Ex parte Young exists to stop state officers from enforcing unconstitutional law. It is not a vehicle for enforcing a private association's bylaws. And the complaint's pleading that "each Defendant is a person within the meaning of Section 1983" is ridiculous. LSU and its Board are arms of the State of Louisiana, and arms of a State are not persons at all under Section 1983. That's been the law for 37 years. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). The official-capacity defendants survive that, but a complaint that gets the elementary point wrong as to two of five defendants is not one that inspires confidence in the rest."
This guy here with a prior tweet
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:33 pm to Harvey Vortac
quote:
So the former commissioner of the Southland Conference who made his name on NCAA compliance issues and was hired initially to the SEC to help with NCAA compliance issues, is unaware of the nuances of the NCAA rule that has captivated the college football world for the past few weeks?
That was exactly her reaction after she said what happened.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:33 pm to tigerskin
Did he think it was a bad take?
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:33 pm to tigerskin
Federal lawsuit is for show. There is no there...there.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:34 pm to tigerskin
Tiger skin---- WELL imagine that
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:35 pm to Kajuntiger121110
Wait SC violated after Tro SEC rules which they voted for???
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:35 pm to 756
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:35 pm to PUB
quote:
Wait SC violated after Tro SEC rules which they voted for???
South Carolina and OU. Today.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:37 pm to frogpond11
quote:
South Carolina and OU. Today.
They already know how this is going to go. They just don't want any of the stink on them.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:37 pm to Robcrzy
quote:
NFL CBA for Minicamps
Interesting nugget in the CBA Minicamps language:
Any “rookie player” (defined as a person who has never signed a Player Contact with an NFL Club in a prior League Year) shall receive the daily amount specified in Subsection 8(b) of this Article for each day that he attends a voluntary or mandatory veteran minicamp, in addition to payments and reimbursements provided by the Club pursuant to Article 7, Section 5(e).
So Cole Hutson got paid by the pros, and is still eligible?!?
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:39 pm to mikesliveisacheater
quote:
Just ask the NFLPA if they consider if any of the players have accrued vested time for retirement with the union or if they are even considered members of the union.
A lot of that is based on "Credited Seasons" which I believe can only be earned in the regular season, but I'm still looking at the NFL benefits book to find a definition.
ETA:
quote:
Generally, you earn a credited season if you are on the active, inactive, IR or PUP roster for three or more regular or post-season NFL games.
You also earn a Credited Season if you are released injured and receive an injury settlement or grievance for the equivalent of 3 or more regular season games.
So none of them would be considered pros if that were the criteria. But also a lot of actual pros wouldn't be considered pros by that criteria.
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 4:42 pm
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:39 pm to frogpond11
It would be phenomenal if LSU either didn't paint the logo on the field for Saturday's game or put a red circle with slash through logo on the field. I'm sure they won't do it since they could be fined $50M for that. I guess then LSU could argue that the SEC isn't be prohibited from enforcing it's rules, see.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:39 pm to tigerskin
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:40 pm to SoloTiger
The AG stated as much in her call with Moscona.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:41 pm to tigerskin
Why do we care about DavidMcKenzie?
What did I miss???
What did I miss???
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:41 pm to TigerDCC11
quote:
Ole Miss players reached out to Lane
How could they even differentiate from them just having a relationship with their former coach? That happens at every level of sports; Skip’s players had great examples of that last week. I’m sure he’d give them the best advice based on what he knew.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:41 pm to Tarheel Tiger
quote:
It would be phenomenal if LSU either didn't paint the logo on the field for Saturday's game or put a red circle with slash through logo on the field. I'm sure they won't do it since they could be fined $50M for that.
I am gonna win the lottery Saturday night and promise to pay the fine. This is binding.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:42 pm to RummelTiger
quote:
What did I miss???
He’s against the SEC in this case, so he’s our friend.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:42 pm to MintBerry Crunch
Yep and in another article that was behind a pay wall Unsigned players have to sign agreements/waivers and their pay can be somewhat negotiated
Page 56 of 62
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News