1
- 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
Posted on 10/7/26 at 10:50 am to Buryl
My big question is, how is LSU in contempt for not rostering a player? Just because they were ruled eligible? That means we HAVE to roster them? I don’t understand that. LSU has the right to refuse to roster anyone for any reason I thought? Unless they deny someone because of a federally protected status, right? None of this makes any sense.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 10:50 am to TigerFanFromBama
quote:
Basically LSU wanted to follow the court's rulings but wasn't allowed by Sankey/SEC's lawsuit and threats.
They won't, but almost seems like LSU should sue them.
Crazy the mess the SEC made over all this.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 10:51 am to nicholastiger
quote:
nicholastiger
Good god you’re such a fricking idiot
I don’t think I’ve ever disliked a poster on TD as much as I dislike you…
You’re in the same tier as semjase FFS… how about a little self reflection??
Posted on 10/7/26 at 10:52 am to Sleepy_Tiger
quote:
Seriously, do you have mental issues? shut the frick up with this stupid shite. Every day you seem to come up with new stupid statements....
The SEC isn't kicking out a founding member, Sankey will be removed before LSU removed from the SEC.
I really don't know why that poster said that. The idea that LSU is done in the SEC is still absurd. The SEC's leadership is what needs to be removed.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 10:53 am to BigTigerJoe
quote:
Make Sankey resign. He screwed the pooch literally and figuratively.
He needs to lose his position over this.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 10:54 am to bluestem75
quote:
The ruling on 9/4/26 specifically told LSU to roster the players and also prevented the SEC from imposing any penalties on LSU for rostering the players.
But Rousse's letter says the decision was made on September 4 by LSU not to roster them. I think only the initial federal suit had been filed by that date.
On September 8, the SEC amended the federal complaint and scheduled the meeting (potentially with expulsion on the table).
LSU had already the decision prior to this date. Once LSU decided not to roster the players, the injunction was effectively moot as to those players. That was September 4, per LSU's President Rousse. You can't argue interference after that date.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 10:54 am to beauchristopher
I am sure TOM MARS is talking shite on X about how LSU FAFO and His Excellency Sankey expelling LSU from the league is right and just. So sick of that dude talking out of his arse like Sankey/Finebaum's butt plug.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 10:56 am to abellsujr
quote:
We were forced by the SEC to not roster them. We will easily be ruled exempt from liability. Or we will have grounds to sue the SEC for getting sued.
Correct. They were literally threatening punishment and even filed a lawsuit against LSU over it. With talks of expulsion. Absolutely insane talk.
I'm not legal expert, but I almost wonder if LSU should straight up sue Sankey for forcing them to ignore the court order and putting them through all this. Of course I don't expect them to do this.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 10:57 am to nicholastiger
Hopefully you're done with your dumbass takes.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 10:57 am to SlowFlowPro
If push comes to shove I’m sure there are way more internal records of back channeling about what the SEC was threatening to do if we went through with this.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 10:57 am to abellsujr
quote:
My big question is, how is LSU in contempt for not rostering a player? Just because they were ruled eligible? That means we HAVE to roster them? I don’t understand that. LSU has the right to refuse to roster anyone for any reason I thought? Unless they deny someone because of a federally protected status, right? None of this makes any sense.
I don't think LSU is under threat, but I also don't think the injunction said they HAD to roster them.
Also I just read the judge ruled the actions prior to the 9/3 ruling weren't contempt, so the "SEC passed a rule on August 25" argument can't be contempt now.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 10:59 am to tigerfan88
quote:
If push comes to shove I’m sure there are way more internal records of back channeling about what the SEC was threatening to do if we went through with this.
It's possible. That's why I go back to my initial comment about the details of this report being inadequate
Posted on 10/7/26 at 11:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think only the initial federal suit had been filed by that date.
The Federal suit was filed at the exact same time league officials were testifying in the district court.
The argument in favor of the intent of the SEC to circumvent the ruling and pressure LSU with penalties is a pretty strong one.
The Federal case is all about the league’s ability to enforce its rules as a private organization that has first amendment rights which is pretty weak on its surface. However, if a court rules that enforcement of league rules violate a player’s Constitutional rights, said rule is illegal.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 11:04 am to bluestem75
quote:
The Federal suit was filed at the exact same time league officials were testifying in the district court.
Then it was before the injunction was issued and it would be hard to argue it's contempt.
quote:
The argument in favor of the intent of the SEC to circumvent the ruling and pressure LSU with penalties is a pretty strong one.
But the case (a) hasn't been decided yet and (b) preempts the state court ruling (if the SEC wins)
Rousse's letter really hurts the players' claims here. I said it in real time and I stand by that. Now it may get LSU into hot water, but that's a separate argument.
This post was edited on 10/7/26 at 11:05 am
Posted on 10/7/26 at 11:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But before the final ruling
But after the TRO was issued.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 11:05 am to XbengalTiger
quote:
But after the TRO was issued.
LINK
quote:
The judge declined to impose contempt sanctions against either the NCAA or SEC, finding that neither organization had taken a sufficiently concrete action violating his previous temporary restraining order.
Already effectively ruled on (I didn't have this reference with the initial comment).
Posted on 10/7/26 at 11:06 am to Celery
quote:
SEC rule only applies to former NFL, NBA and G league. Doesn’t apply to soccer, baseball, softball, etc
WHUT???
That means it has nothing to do with the prinicple involved - just targeted the LSU football activity.
>>> Assuming that sports like soccer are actually playing under SEC jurisdiction and not just LSU officials.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 11:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Sankey is only doing what the other member-schools want him to do.
I don't think LSU is under any threat of expulsion due to votes by those schools, but why would Sankey be fired for doing what they want him to do?
you sure?
the schools voted to drop the federal lawsuit
sankey decided he want LSU to issue an apology and kiffin suspended
and we already knew this filing was coming and the players will win. it was bound to happen immediately upon them issuing out the vote to not allow it as soon as the original lawsuit was ruled upon.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 11:09 am to lsu777
quote:
the schools voted to drop the federal lawsuit
link?
Page 4 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News