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
re: Players file motion for contempt against Sankey, SEC, and LSU
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:42 pm to SloaneRanger
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:42 pm to SloaneRanger
quote:
In the state court case in BR? I thought they weren’t a party to that case.
Look at the title...
quote:
Players file motion for contempt against Sankey, SEC, and LSU
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:42 pm to DeathByTossDive226
quote:
Why are you collapsing an entire timeline to the date of the meeting?
It's the event people keep going back to
quote:
The federal suit was filed the day of the injunction.
The original complaint, which may have been filed before the ruling was even handed down (so cannot be contempt of that ruling in that case)
quote:
The federal suit sought pre-textual relief explicitly spelling out that the conference wanted protection should it decide to remove LSU.
Which is their right, not improper, not without merit, not without prior acts of other conferences, and would be a ruling superseding to the state court home cooking.
Trying to form that into contempt is a stretch that would breatk Stretch Armstrong.
quote:
The date of the meeting is irrelevant.
Coming after Septemer 4, when LSU made the decision, makes anything AFTER that decision, relevant if they're used to formulate a contempt argument. The contempt was moot against the SEC once LSU made that decision on its own.
quote:
They broadcasted their pressure campaign and underlined their intent in a documented federal filing.
A ruling that still hasn't been adjudicated and which the original complaint likely cannot be contempt (due to being filed prior to the ruling which is alleged to have been violated).
How can an inferior state court argue that litigation (in a superior court attempting to achieve a ruling from that superior court, that can neuter the entire ruling of the state court) be contempt?
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:43 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:
But didn't they leave the roster spots open?
Nope. That's the September 4 decision, per Rouse's letter.
Once LSU did that, the issue for those 2 players became moot (against the SEC, but possibly ripe against LSU).
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
After LSU had already made the decision not to roster the players
LSU's decision was September 4
The SEC meeting/threats were September 8
You are conveniently forgetting that LSU left 2 roster spots open on their final roster in the chance they were able to add them at another date (assuming that they were already enrolled). Greg Sankey did the TRO on Sept 8th to prevent LSU from stopping the Thursday meeting. LSU added Reliford and Anding back to the final roster that night to lock in their final roster. The next day the SEC revised the agenda of the Thursday meeting.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:44 pm to BhamTigah
quote:
So we played a soccer player, but denied the football players? That seems pretty stupid. Let's risk it for a sport no one cares about but back off for football. All the soccer thing did was give evidence to the football players that LSU treated them unfairly; otherwise, we may have been left out of it. At the very least, we would have had a stronger defense.
The soccer player in question hasn't played in a game since September 6. The SEC wasn't suing LSU or threatening expulsion from the conference over having played the soccer player.
On September 8, the SEC called the meeting to decide on whether to vote on expelling LSU from the conference. I believe it was this same day that LSU added the 2 injured players to the football roster to fill the 2 open roster spots and finalize the roster.
So it appears that LSU backed down on playing the soccer player also once the SEC started with expulsion threats. I don't see how this changes anything for the football players situation. LSU was trying to comply with the court order and once the SEC put the gun to LSU's head, then LSU backed off with the soccer player at the same time as they backed off the 2 football players.
This post was edited on 10/7/26 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:45 pm to Piece
quote:
You are conveniently forgetting that LSU left 2 roster spots open on their final roster in the chance they were able to add them at another date
LSU informed the SEC on September 4 that they would not roster the 2 players. It's specifically stated in Rouse's letter.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Supremacy Clause may not be in effect here since the SEC:
1- Lost its appeal to the injunction
2- Complied with all other TROs regarding other eligibility issues
3- Admitted, in court, that the players are eligible under the new rule
4- Filed in a separate circuit while testifying in a related manner in a state court which could be a violation of the Anti-Injunction Act
5- Filed in Federal Court prior to the state decision being rendered which could mean that no harm had been done at the time of filing
None of this changes the fact that the SEC clearly pressured LSU not to roster on threat of expulsion after the LA district court specifically told them not to penalize LSU for rostering the players.
This doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the fact that Ole Miss and South Carolina had both reached out to Wright to recruit him after he failed to make an NFL team. There’s a lot of moving pieces going on here. I think the SEC made this a lot harder on themselves than it had to be.
I find it laughably ironic that the SEC is running to a Federal Court claiming it’s dubious First Amendment rights are being violated while running roughshod over the Constitutional rights of these players.
This post was edited on 10/7/26 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:47 pm to GetmorewithLes
I saw the title. Here’s my question: How does a person/university get held in contempt if they aren’t a party to the case. You know the judge can’t enjoin a non-party, right? Is LSU a defendant in the BR case or not?
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:50 pm to Celery
How is Sankey not on the hot seat for his anti-LSU, anti-player, and anti-court stance given the precedence that he already set with Ole Miss and Vandy?
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:51 pm to bluestem75
quote:
Supremacy Clause may not be in effect here since the SEC:
1- Lost its appeal to the injunction
2- Complied with all other TROs regarding other eligibility issues
3- Admitted, in court, that the players are eligible under the new rule
4- Filed in a separate circuit while testifying in a related manner in a state court which could be a violation of the Anti-Injunction Act
These are all arguments potentially about the merits of the federal suit and aren't really applicable to contempt allegations
quote:
5- Filed in Federal Court prior to the state decision being rendered which could mean that no harm had been done at the time of filing
If this is true, THIS is very relevant to contempt allegations
quote:
None of this changes the fact that the SEC clearly pressured LSU not to roster on threat of expulsion after the LA district court specifically told them not to penalize LSU for rostering the players.
The expulsion threats came after September 4, right? Did the original federal complaint reference expulsion?
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
LSU informed the SEC on September 4 that they would not roster the 2 players.
.....because Sept 4 was the deadline to submit the roster. LSU only submitted a roster with 103 players and left the 2 open spots because of the loophole that would allow Wright and Harris to be added later since they were already enrolled as students prior to the roster submission deadline. LSU didn't officially close the book on adding them until Sept 8 when they added Reliford and Anding to fill the 2 spots that were left open.
Its obvious that LSU was trying to wait for another court ruling that would allow Wright and Harris to be added, but the pressure and threats from the SEC league office became an untenable situation.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:52 pm to Tiger Prawn
Rousse should have never written that letter stating that.
It guts the contempt claims and potentially puts LSU in the cross hairs.
LSU should have paid these guys a measly settlement when this all blew up to make this go away and avoid all of this and just focus on the SEC
It guts the contempt claims and potentially puts LSU in the cross hairs.
LSU should have paid these guys a measly settlement when this all blew up to make this go away and avoid all of this and just focus on the SEC
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Which was not novel. The Big12 had already done this, to great success.
Big 12 had significantly different leverage with the stupidity of Paxton threatening to sue any programs that refused to play Texas Tech. That was outright collusion and threat from the state government representative. LSU was not in any way, shape or form in a similar position.
The difference is going to be whether they are forced release any and all communication from the SEC and LSU during the time after the injunction was put in place.
Sure, Rousse's comment on the date of when the decision was made could hamper the admissibility of things post 9/4, but if documentation after 9/4 showing threats were made to LSU and that Rousse publicly made that statement out of duress to protect LSU, then things change.
I hope this shite hits the fan and it forces discovery. The fact that outside of Vandy, all schools are public institutions also opens them up to FOIA and thus records being produced that otherwise would not for public institutions.
Blow this whole mess up in my opinion, because otherwise this will do the exact opposite of what people are claiming is the problem with the NCAA. SEC nor Big Ten should be granted any form of anti-trust exemption, period.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
These are all arguments potentially about the merits of the federal suit and aren't really applicable to contempt allegations
Which, if ruled against or dismissed (likely), puts the SEC and Sankey squarely in the crosshairs of Judge Jorden.
Again, what was the intent of the expulsion threat? To get LSU to comply with what the SEC wanted and allow it to enforce its eligibility rules? That could be ruled contempt.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's the event people keep going back to
Quit being disingenuous. People are not pointing to “an event”.
People are pointing to a sustained pressure campaign and threats from the conference to expel LSU. The meeting was scheduled before the day it occurred. The threat was made clear prior to the meeting.
quote:
The original complaint, which may have been filed before the ruling was even handed down (so cannot be contempt of that ruling in that case)
A. You aren’t sure of your own argument?
B. The TRO that became the injunction was already in place. Filing an optics lawsuit the day of the hearing where you have additionally been asked to defend yourself against contempt… where your lawsuit asks a higher court to let you ignore that same court is pretty strong evidence of contempt.
Instead of dropping the suit after the injunction ruling, they doubled down. If the SEC is to be believed, LSU having open roster spots suggested the issue was not moot.
quote:
Coming after Septemer 4, when LSU made the decision, makes anything AFTER that decision, relevant if they're used to formulate a contempt argument. The contempt was moot against the SEC once LSU made that decision on its own.
So the meeting had not been scheduled, the itinerary not known, and expulsion from the conference was not mentioned prior to 9/4? Might want to check again.
LSU doesn’t make the decision at all without pressure from the SEC. Are you suggesting LSU had a change of heart after a favorable court ruling, for no reason?
This post was edited on 10/7/26 at 1:10 pm
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:59 pm to Geauxgurt
The NCAA always had a weird status because they were so far removed from players, but if conferences are no longer permitted to create rules for members (who voluntarily join the conference and benefit greatly from the association), I don't know where college football goes.
LSU fans are wrapped up in this because we engaged in risky behavior and it's gotten full of ego and emotions and I get that, but the next incident likely will be our opponent, and it may be giving the opponent an unfair advantage.
I just don't know if it would be a good long-term strategy, as fans, to push for elimination of conference rules.
LSU fans are wrapped up in this because we engaged in risky behavior and it's gotten full of ego and emotions and I get that, but the next incident likely will be our opponent, and it may be giving the opponent an unfair advantage.
I just don't know if it would be a good long-term strategy, as fans, to push for elimination of conference rules.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:59 pm to SloaneRanger
quote:
How does a person/university get held in contempt if they aren’t a party to the case. You know the judge can’t enjoin a non-party, right? Is LSU a defendant in the BR case or not?
Because the Judge TOR was against the SEC and members from preventing these guys from exercising their rights. LSU under gun from SEC pulled the rug out from under them
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
LSU informed the SEC on September 4 that they would not roster the 2 players. It's specifically stated in Rouse's letter.
Can you show me on the Sept 9th letter where it states that they let the SEC know on Sept 4th that they wouldn't be on the "final" roster? All it says it that they wouldn't be on the roster submitted on Sept 4th and they weren't on the roster submitted Sept 4th. Why would LSU wait 4 days to add to injured players to the lock the roster if they didn't think that they would have an opportunity to possibly add them. Or the other scenario is that since LSU still had 2 spots open the SEC continued their pursuit of them thinking they would try to add them at a later date since the roster wasn't locked. Either way LSU was forced to make a move on Sept 8th to avoid a meeting with agenda topice of punishment and possible expulsion.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:00 pm to bluestem75
quote:
Which, if ruled against or dismissed (likely), puts the SEC and Sankey squarely in the crosshairs of Judge Jorden.
I'm talking about teh current motion, of at least what we can conceptualize about it without any details.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 1:05 pm to GetmorewithLes
Judge can’t enjoin anyone not a party. Hell has he even entered a written order yet?
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News