0
- 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 2:02 pm to nicholastiger
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:02 pm to nicholastiger
quote:
SEC will go after FSU Clemson or North Carolina as replacement
Florida will do everything in its power to never allow that to happen and people have been saying “fsu should come to the SEC” for years. I don’t think they want to be a part of the SEC.
Clemson belongs in the SEC as they fit the mold when it comes to culture and history.
North Carolina is not a fit. And they would be against such a move.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:02 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.
It's exactly the opposite.
This is now a gambit the SEC may not be able to win, shy of them getting a corrupt judge.
By playing the soccer player and the SEC no longer voting to expel LSU, or engage in any disciplinary action because of said soccer player, there is now tangible evidence that the SEC was targeting some very specific players.
The SEC is now in.a pinch and the evidence of their own actions demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt (not the standard here, but still) that the SEC was specifically violating the right to work of two specific players.
If there's any spite with these players and their attorneys, they won't settle and this will get UGLY for the SEC, and potentially( (less likely though) the member universities who pressured for this course of action.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:The first meeting was August 25
The SEC meeting/threats were September 8
quote:There are no "timing issues"
This is ignoring the timing issues, mind you.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:I don't know why you're saying this. This was all completely predictable and I'm pretty sure I discussed this in the big legal thread
Trying to form that into contempt is a stretch that would breatk Stretch Armstrong
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Why are you mistakenly thinking the SEC didn't issue any threats prior to that?
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 2:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Still incorrect
The expulsion threats came after September 4, right?
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:You are drawing the 180 degree wrong conclusion. It explicitly states LSU was coerced by the SEC and he's exactly right in that statement. The SEC was very public about it. Somehow you missed all that
Rousse should have never written that letter stating that. It guts the contempt claims and potentially puts LSU in the cross hairs
quote:Why? LSU had done nothing wrong.
LSU should have paid these guys a measly settlement
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:I discussed this at length in my legal thread. The NCAA/conferences are trying to operate like it's 1975.
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.
quote:Following a judge's order is "risky"?
we engaged in risky behavior
quote:Who is advocating for this? No one.
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 2:15 pm to DeathByTossDive226
quote:
Not because LSU tried to sign a couple class of ‘22 depth guys who went to camps — but because the SEC showed how easily its bylaws can be abused to suppress free trade & threaten severe economic consequences to a member school.
I think you can add to this how the SEC randomly applied it's bylaws by not attempting to discipline other players who have received TRO's to play, when those same players were ruled ineligible by the NCAA.
This screams of a personal vendetta that turns into a Pyrrhic victory.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:I couldn't care less about freaking hypocrites like the Tennessee chancellor who fought the NCAA as an "intellectually bankrupt" cartel for investigating Tennessee’s NIL collective over the Nico Iamaleava recruitment. She went to federal court, filed an antitrust lawsuit alongside the state of Virginia, and broke the NCAA’s NIL restrictions wide open to protect her own football program. Then she wants to go scorched earth on LSU?
Why do you think basically EVERYONE else took the side opposing LSU this time
Why would you care what those people think?
quote:It's because LSU did something crafty and beat everybody to the punch
It's not because LSU is some villain
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:17 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
September 4 (Afternoon): LSU President Wade Rousse calls SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey to give advance notice that LSU will not place Wright and Harris on the 105-man roster. LSU formally submits its locked roster that evening.
LSU also could state simply that they had submitted the roster without them on September 4th as per conference rules, with those 2 spots open, but had no plans to roster the players for the Clemson game, which was true.
It wasn't until September 8th that they removed any possibility by locking the full roster.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why do you think basically EVERYONE else took the side opposing LSU this time
Because continued legal action could cause the league and its members to redefine “student athlete” to something that activates the very collective bargaining agreements they’re trying to avoid.
That’s what this is ultimately about.
This post was edited on 10/7/26 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
As a settlement for litigation? Doubtful it could be spun that way
Why do you say that? It could easily be attempted to be spun by some of these morons that way, and plenty of BS court decisions have been made on not even 1/10th of that type of assumption.
The SEC has not acted logically to avoid hurting itself in this mess. You think they care? It's a dick-measuring contest at this point and a power trip.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The specific lines of professionalism with these specific NFL guys were always a more bright line rule
No, its not. The rules were expressly clear for Chambliss. He was ineligible in every aspect, including his former school, which outright stated his claims were false. You think having a former assistant AD from Ferris State magically stating the exact opposite of the entire university's claims is more accurate?
You also have to use the logic that Ferris State had anything to gain by preventing a former player from getting a free year. The reality is they were honest, and the judge ignored that.
Furthermore, where was that line when Bediako actually played in professional games and not practice, yet the SEC didn't decide to magically make up rules last second to fight that TRO?
Why is a kid that got paid to try out for a pro team any different from a kid that got less than 10% of that money because he signed a deal but was injured and never spent time with the team.
It was clear there wasn't some bright line like you said, because of the Bediako and other players being allowed to return. That double standard is the issue.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:33 pm to bluestem75
quote:
Because continued legal action could cause the league and its members to redefine “student athlete” to something that activates the very collective bargaining agreements they’re trying to avoid.
I'm not talking about the SEC and LSU. I mean EVERYONE, from the media to other schools/conferences, etc.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
All media outlets have major contracts with these sports leagues and say what the leagues tell them to say?
Note: CBS has been much more critical of the SEC on this issue. Wonder why? Could it be their contract with the B10?
Note: CBS has been much more critical of the SEC on this issue. Wonder why? Could it be their contract with the B10?
Posted on 10/7/26 at 2:47 pm to SloaneRanger
quote:
LSU isn’t even a party, right?
Looks like they are NOW. LSU tried to gain a good favor with athletes in this situation by pushing the envelopes. They were hoping they would stay clean on the law suits but people just want their pay days. Hopefully LSU gets left out of the carnage.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 3:03 pm to bluestem75
To me, these are just steps in the process for the players which will eventually lead to them getting some compensation
Posted on 10/7/26 at 3:04 pm to 6R12
pushing the envelopes
Really.
the NCAA pushed and the SEC pulled and LSU is in the middle.
Really.
the NCAA pushed and the SEC pulled and LSU is in the middle.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 3:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The specific lines of professionalism with these specific NFL guys were always a more bright line rule
Whatever “bright” line existed was contingent upon players forgoing eligibility to test the professional waters.
That has always been the exception that applies to these players.
These players did not forego eligibility, in fact many applied for additional eligibility because they wanted to stay in college because they knew they would make more money through NIL than their limited draft capital would provide. The same reason Chambliss wanted to stay in college for a sixth year and make eight figures compared to what he would have made as a rookie.
But the NCAA denied their request, said they had no more eligibility, only to then institute the 5 for 5 rule that would have granted them the eligibility they were seeking a couple of months after their “contract” was signed.
That is the entire crux of the situation and the reason this isn’t a potential ongoing problem.
If eligibility is waived to pursue the NFL, there is no going back. These players never did that.
This isn’t difficult to grasp for anyone that doesn’t just want to argue or be contrarian.
This post was edited on 10/7/26 at 3:18 pm
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News