However this shot turns out, we win. CLK saw that these guys might be able to come back, was proactive and recruited them and encouraged them to come to BR. That is his job isn’t it?

However, if they are not eligible to play then by taking action as publicly as we did and causing others to react, we then made it so we don’t have to play against any of these kids as well. Either way we win.

Additionally, maybe just maybe it will be the wake-up call to get all this NIL free agency addressed and under control

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by burke985

UGANDA

Member since Aug 2011

29069 posts

Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:55 pm to birdboy

They were in a class that was ruled eligible, the SEC is wrong here and probably will lose any lawsuit. They may not play here but the SEC will most likely pay

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by GeauxLaneTrain

Coastal Empire

Member since Aug 2026

162 posts

Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:56 pm to birdboy

I’m fine with them being ineligible if Chambliss is also ineligible. There is no difference between the two

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by friendlyobservation

Member since Mar 2024

5496 posts

Posted on 8/25/26 at 9:05 pm to GeauxLaneTrain

This is my entire issue with this! I have zero problem with this. In fact, it should like this to control the sport. However, you can't make apply these rules only to LSU and not Ole Miss. That just looks like conference favoritism at that point and is borderline illegal at that for collusion. Spare me "they signed NFL deals". Chambliss is on his 6th year and was denied multiple attempts from the NCAA for a fake medical condition just to get another year of eligibility. I'm hoping this is what comes from the situation LSU complains about it and the SEC takes further action. How can you yourself complain about it and then not put enforceable rules on Ole Miss but threatening to penalize LSU just because they got a bigger competitive advantage?

This post was edited on 8/25/26 at 9:07 pm

Page 1