re: Players file motion for contempt against Sankey, SEC, and LSU

Bro scone doesn't know shite.

quote:

---

We were not threatened by the SEC for playing a soccer player. Only football and I think basketball. The distinction matters.

---

FTR, no idea how all this works out legally. But I think abellsujr is correct: the SEC's rules only restrict football and basketball, no other sports. So I don't think the soccer thing is a factor at all.

I don't think the injunction mandated we ROSTER the two players. Rather, I think they probably have some documentation showing we would roster them contingent upon the SEC backing down. Their primary gripe is not with us. I assume LSU is named in the motion to force this to play out.

As for expulsion, it only takes 2/3's (11) of the conference presidents. That now includes Mizzou, UTX, Aggie, Okie (who have scant SEC founding loyalty), an aggrieved OM and UTenn, and the UGA president was already on record. IDK where others stood but it wasn't as far-fetched as it seems. The fact that this was even floated is a disgrace.

Finally, I hope this explodes (kaboom) in Sankey's face.

quote:

---

Looks like LSU is a defendent in this case.

---

In the state court case in BR? I thought they weren’t a party to that case. People are downvoting me so maybe I’m wrong. IDK.

Expulsion was arguably not on the table at the time lsu made the decision not to roster them (although again think Dellinger was hinting at expulsion threats well before the official amended lawsuit, so if this fully blows up I would be shocked if there isn’t stuff out there implicating the SEC).


Regardless, the threat of severe financial punishments and suspensions were very real per the rules passed by the SEC. The federal lawsuit was a clear attempt by the SEC to circumvent the result of the state court ruling. Even if filed prior to the contempt order, it was not withdrawn after the final ruling and in fact it was escalated.

I don’t think the SEC will be able to dodge on some sort of temporal technicality when it’s clear they went to federal court to circumvent state court and try to enforce penalties on LSU that the state court had prohibited. And the fact that federal court case had not been decided won’t protect them. They were relying on the open status of that case to coerce LSU into making a decision before we knew how the federal court would rule.

quote:

---

Regardless, the threat of severe financial punishments and suspensions were very real per the rules passed by the SEC.

---

But those rules were passed prior to the 9/3 ruling and the judge said they didn't rise to contempt. That can't be contempt, now, in hindsight.

quote:

---

The federal lawsuit was a clear attempt by the SEC to circumvent the result of the state court ruling.

---

As is their right. If the SEC wins the federal suit, the state court injunction is preempted. It's still an ongoing suit, too, so I don't see how the litigation prior to September 4 can in any way be contempt. Also, allegedly it was filed prior to the ruling on 9/3, so if that's true, it truly can't violate an order that didn't exist.

Anything after 9/4 should not be relevant, for the SEC at least.

quote:

---

Bro scone doesn't know shite.

---

the fact yall think that

quote:

---

The players would not be able to play. LSU maxed out its roster spots at 105 before the Clemson or La Tech game.

---

That’s an SEC rule. I would think anything could be subject to change if legally ruled upon, especially if the players win again in court. Maybe they won’t be able to play but I bet they win a big monetary award.

quote:

---

That can't be contempt, now, in hindsight.

---

The passing of the rule prior to the TRO? Sure.

But the enforcement or threatened enforcement after the order was issued can certainly be contempt, no?

quote:

---

So we played a soccer player, but denied the football players?

---

Huh?

We are playing a football player too. He was on the field last week.

quote:

---

Perhaps a bigger anti-trust lawsuit can be filed at the federal level later as well since there is no collective-bargaining in place.

---

The West Coast federal courts have given tech firms hell in recent years over similar issues. They have started broadening what they consider to be a monopoly position and they look very unfavorably on internal rules and regulations that hamper competition and commerce.

They basically consider Apple and Google a duopoly in the phone space now and that having only 2 competitors with heavy lock-in is no longer cover for the two to do whatever the hall they please. Their platform lock-ins have come under fire and some of their internal rules for their own systems, notably Apple’s payment requirements and fee structures for their App Store, have been disallowed and/or re-structured.

It wouldn’t be that difficult to paint the SEC and Big 10 as a duopoly in college athletics today. If a good case can be made that they are making punitive rules that harm athletes’ ability to move and make money with a valid court order in-hand, then they are suddenly in the same boat as the NCAA- fricked, powerless and in need of legislation to put them back on solid ground.