Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

LSU wins either way

Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:53 pm
Posted by birdboy
Utah
Member since Aug 2013
494 posts
Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:53 pm
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
Posted by burke985
UGANDA
Member since Aug 2011
29672 posts
Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:55 pm to
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
Posted by GeauxLaneTrain
Coastal Empire
Member since Aug 2026
789 posts
Posted on 8/25/26 at 8:56 pm to
I’m fine with them being ineligible if Chambliss is also ineligible. There is no difference between the two
Posted by friendlyobservation
Member since Mar 2024
6164 posts
Posted on 8/25/26 at 9:05 pm to
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
Posted by The Blue Stuff
Member since Oct 2015
2692 posts
Posted on 8/26/26 at 5:45 am to
quote:

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


Exactly. So they listen to one judge but not the other. No way Chambliss should be playing. Whats makes his fake illness any better than a player spending a few weeks in training camp. None of them should be allowed to play.
Posted by GeauxLaneTrain
Coastal Empire
Member since Aug 2026
789 posts
Posted on 8/26/26 at 6:05 am to
quote:

Exactly. So they listen to one judge but not the other. No way Chambliss should be playing. Whats makes his fake illness any better than a player spending a few weeks in training camp. None of them should be allowed to play.


Exactly. I’m not a big lawsuit guy but I hope these players sue the SEC into oblivion
Posted by Big4SALTbro
Member since Jun 2019
26500 posts
Posted on 8/26/26 at 6:06 am to
A real huge win would have been getting chambliss rules ineligible coming out of this
Posted by Raging Tiger
Teedy Town
Member since Jun 2023
1662 posts
Posted on 8/26/26 at 6:06 am to
I would love if the SEC donated money towards our future NIL or to help pay off an old coach lol.
Posted by jasonbr1975
Lafayette, LA
Member since Sep 2024
2851 posts
Posted on 8/26/26 at 6:28 am to
quote:

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

There is a difference. Period. Chambliss is playing his six year and these guys only want to play for five. Yes, being sarcastic. Just a ridiculous situation. Anyone in the league right now that is playing their six year should be removed from the team.
This post was edited on 8/26/26 at 6:29 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

Facebook•X•Instagram