- 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: Louisiana lawsuit players not backing down
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:04 pm to Adam Banks
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:04 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
He will have to argue why some players are ineligible and some are SUPER INELIGIBLE. Specifically citing Huston and Chambliss. And it will be very difficult to have a logic based argument on that.
I think the line in the sand at signing a G-League/NFL contract to play actual games for one of those teams is simply that it is so cut and dried and clearly prohibited in the NCAA rulebook without precedent for it being crossed successfully (aside from temporary injunctions for lost cases).
It's clear from his statements/actions that Sankey is against almost all the local court rulings against NCAA determinations.
Injury related hardship / redshirt challenges have a long history with many precedents going all directions. My guess is Sankey would have loved to include it but didn't think it was airtight enough and would be a weak link in the chain.
Again, I'm basing this off simply paying attention to exactly what Sankey testified and his statements regarding the Bediako case.
Even then Sankey was specifically adamant about the no pass line of the G League contract being signed that effectively made Bediako an active member of professional US basketball team.
If Sankey has to back it up I think he will simply point to the 5 for 5 rule being put in place to fight future chaos regarding hardship waivers, redshirts, foreign pros etc.
But, he will also say that NBA/G-League//NFL pro contracts have always been a no pass line and there's no reason to mix them up with other issues that 5 for 5 is designed to address.
None of this is exactly my opinion. I think the entire thing is a complete mess.
I just think it's better to argue against something when you clearly and fairly lay out exactly what the other side is arguing.
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 1:07 pm
3
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:05 pm to Shooter
Without LSU in the SEC the conference would be severely diminished
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:05 pm to wm72
quote:
But, he will also say that NBA/G-League//NFL pro contracts have always been a no pass line and there's no reason to mix them up with other issues that 5 for 5 is designed to address. None of this is my opinion as I think the entire thing is a complete mess and but I just think it's better to argue against something when you clearly and fairly lay out exactly what the other side is arguing.
At which point he will be asked you have allowed numerous professionals from Europe and the Middle East to play in your leagues.
Do you just hate Americans?
Additionally you say oh a contract for actual games. Well that is completely different than previous precedent. How is Huston eligible other than feelings?
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:06 pm to grich31
Let's be realistic here.
The SEC will not be found in contempt. The commish is not going to be forced to testify.
The most that will happen is a more detailed and encompassing injunction.
But, also remember that most of these are failing on appeal in other states.
I think the players need to forget about playing and concentrate on collecting damages.
The SEC will not be found in contempt. The commish is not going to be forced to testify.
The most that will happen is a more detailed and encompassing injunction.
But, also remember that most of these are failing on appeal in other states.
I think the players need to forget about playing and concentrate on collecting damages.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:08 pm to KTrain915
quote:
if we dont have a team that can win with how much was spent it is a pretty poor reflection on Lane and the 100 staff members.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:10 pm to JoeENorthlando
allowed but all will not be signed
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:14 pm to 1999
How I think it plays out. Monday goes in favor of the players. Teams don’t roster them due to SEC/CFP rules. Players sue Conferences and the voting members personally (now you know LSU abstained). Players end up with more money than they would have made in the NFL.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:15 pm to SaintInBham
I would take that
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:30 pm to 1999
quote:
Attorney Tony Clayton
This dude was involved in a record jury trial in LA back in Feb 25 that came back with a $411 million award to the plaintiff. Trial was in the 19th JDC...
He is also former Asst DA in EBR and is current DA of WBR Parish or the 18th JDC.
Come on down Sankey and answer some questions... no need to bring a change of clothes.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:44 pm to Shooter
quote:
LSU is about to get kicked out the SEC
The SEC would never be that stupid. LSU is arguably the biggest brand in the conference all things considered.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:52 pm to SaintInBham
This is the more likely outcome, but the NCAA should be the defaulting party.
LSU wouldn't act and the SEC would not remove them as a member.
LSU wouldn't act and the SEC would not remove them as a member.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:02 pm to 1999
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:03 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
I'm sure these attorneys are doing this on a contingent basis and trying to affect a monetary settlement .
I’ve thought about this the past couple of days. The players’ argument is not just that they can’t play an extra year because they love playing college football (though I’m sure they do), it’s that by not playing, they aren’t being afforded the opportunity to make the NIL money that playing would allow.
Would the SEC—if they are truly trying to protect the competitive balance of their league—be willing to settle by simply paying each player in the lawsuit whatever their NIL valuation is deemed to be, but still NOT allowing them to actually play? It would be a relatively small amount.
And would the players accept it? Hell, they would probably prefer it. The NFL has already said that they can’t re-enter next year’s draft, so it’s not like they can use their potential play as a platform to increase their draft stocks. Their only path to an NFL career is as a free agent, whether that’s this year or next. Since it didn’t seem to work out for them this year already, wouldn’t most probably prefer the year off to train and not risk injury as long as they were getting their NIL equivalent in a settlement? Even if they would prefer to play, wouldn’t most settle anyway, as the money would be guaranteed, and they wouldn’t have to get tied up in court where they could potentially wind up with nothing? Who says “no?”
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:03 pm to Shooter
quote:
LSU is about to get kicked out the SEC
playoff lock every_single_year if we get to choose our own schedule
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:29 pm to wm72
quote:
None of this is exactly my opinion. I think the entire thing is a complete mess.
I just think it's better to argue against something when you clearly and fairly lay out exactly what the other side is arguing.
I think the obvious and very simple counter argument is that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of the merits of the injunction.
If a court says the NCAA has acted illegally, the NCAA and its affiliate schools and conferences should either fight that in court or accept it. Picking and choosing the injunctions to follow is an attempt to exert power you don't have. It victimizes the plaintiffs in opposition to the court. And, even if you just look at it from a competitive standpoint, you've place your finger on the scale to benefit some teams who are able to play "ineligible" players while harming others.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:35 pm to GulfSouthTiger
quote:When your job tells you that you can longer work for them and you have to go take one that pays less but the courts later said your original job had no cause to kick you out but that original job won't let you back in you might rethink what you just said.
I don't give a frick if they do or not. But it is fricking stupid that these players and attorneys are trying to dictate how college football operates. frick them. NFL players don't have this much say.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:36 pm to paulb52
quote:And you think he and LSU brass will do that? Moron.
Lane may not even make it back to Oxford to play Ole Miss. If he plays ex-NFL players against Clemson or Louisiana Tech the SEC will suspend him.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:43 pm to Fun Bunch
He’s a Hell of a prosecutor, too. He’s the DA for WBR.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:43 pm to 1999
quote:
Attorney Tony Clayton tells me he believes the conference is in violation of Louisiana law.
Was the decision based on Louisiana or federal law or both? Some of the past decisions may be overly vague outside of the listed defendants and plaintiffs.
Locals making decisions on cases solely dealing with federal law is a late 18th century to 19th century solution that needs to go away. There are too many ignorant local judges who care more about re-election than the law. I doubt many have overseen a trial solely based on federal law until these started with Ole Miss. Using a local yokel is going to get abused heavily and will start to see competing decisions in states of competitors. Next up you could see conferences and schools refusing to play teams with these players and filing suit on them breaking NCAA rules on professional athletes or other reasons.
For anyone: Outside of any reasonable extension due to residency of plaintiff or defendant what initial area would a state court’s ruling based on a federal law be binding for others including federal district courts in same district/area like is binding in it’s local district or the federal district the local court is in or further out?
For these federal law rulings by local state courts does appeal process have to exhaust the appeal process in the state courts first before the Supremes (and only the supremes) can then be involved (if asked), or is that just for state laws or decisions solely or mainly based upon a state law or issue that may not have followed constitution or applicable federal law?
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:50 pm to wm72
quote:
I think the line in the sand at signing a G-League/NFL contract to play actual games for one of those teams is simply that it is so cut and dried and clearly prohibited in the NCAA rulebook without precedent for it being crossed successfully (aside from temporary injunctions for lost cases).
It's clear from his statements/actions that Sankey is against almost all the local court rulings against NCAA determinations.
Injury related hardship / redshirt challenges have a long history with many precedents going all directions.
My guess is Sankey would have loved to include it but didn't think it was airtight enough and would be a weak link in the chain.
Again, I'm basing this off simply paying attention to exactly what Sankey testified and his statements regarding the Bediako case. Even then Sankey was specifically adamant about the no pass line of the G League contract being signed that effectively made Bediako an active member of professional US basketball team.
If Sankey has to back it up I think he will simply point to the 5 for 5 rule being put in place to fight future chaos regarding hardship waivers, redshirts, foreign pros etc.
But, he will also say that NBA/G-League//NFL pro contracts have always been a no pass line and there's no reason to mix them up with other issues that 5 for 5 is designed to address.
None of this is exactly my opinion. I think the entire thing is a complete mess. I just think it's better to argue against something when you clearly and fairly lay out exactly what the other side is arguing.
I completely agree with you. There is a difference between the situations of the 5 for 5 guys and Chambliss. A lot of people—guys like Adam—want to lump them together, but are being intellectually dishonest about why. It’s because he’s really fricking good and we play Ole Miss, who has suddenly become our biggest rival. Thats it. They have cover behind the “you can’t pick and choose” logic. Sounds reasonable. But eligibility disputes have ALWAYS been handled on a case by case basis. Like you said, that’s the precedent when you look at the history of granting medical redshirt seasons or not. We may not like it, it may seem—and probably is—inconsistent and unfair.
But if Chambliss—with the EXACT same particulars of his EXACT same situation—was the backup punter for Missouri, nobody on here would even know he exists, much less be continuing to invoke his name. Which is fine. I get it. I just wish they’d admit it. Or at least quit living in a fantasy land where Chambliss is not the starting QB of Ole Miss next Saturday barring some kind of injury. There is ZERO chance of him being ruled ineligible at this point. It may not be “fair,” but it is the absolute reality.
Hopefully they all get ruled eligible. I think people are kind of downplaying just how much better those 2 Ole Miss guys would make us. Not just for depth, either. We don’t have guys like them at their positions. They would make us much more versatile and have a much bigger cumulative impact than just their sheer production. But there’s a very strong possibility—if not probability—that they don’t play while Chambliss does. Some people need to come to terms with that, as unfair as it may seem to them.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News