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: SEC could still punish Lane and LSU
Posted on 9/10/26 at 12:01 pm to MrWalkingMan
Posted on 9/10/26 at 12:01 pm to MrWalkingMan
Thought i heard masconna say no punishment was put in the first suit
Posted on 9/10/26 at 12:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
$25k 
The SEC board says, 'he should have gotten a better contract'.
He was trying to, aight!!
The SEC board says, 'he should have gotten a better contract'.
He was trying to, aight!!
This post was edited on 9/10/26 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 9/10/26 at 12:05 pm to WeeWee
ok Mr. 4 year old child here you geaux w the non-legal interpretation.
But first ... the latest "news" about LSU's "pending" punishment:
"The punishments will come for LSU; don't doubt that, but it looks like the SEC will still be home to the Tigers."
How we got here:
1. SEC meeting to NOT have "pro" players on roster or eligible was agreed to by the league members before season started.
2. LSU has since then been "keeping their options open" to having them (2 players) on roster and hopefully eligible thru Coach Kiffin's public remarks, law suit (temporary restraining order), leaving 2 spots open on opening day roster, and allowing the "pro" players to practice w team.
3. LSU admin. had been publicly quiet leading up to the season - letting Kiffin speak to media.
4. Rumors have been circulating that Coach Kiffin reached out to the players and gave them the idea about coming back to play college football (due to the 5-5 rule - ask your Mom & Dad about that).
Where we are at today (9/10/2026):
1. SEC meeting today will be to discuss current situation (de-escalation) and if there should be any punishment for LSU for what is perceived as "lack of institutional control" b/c Coach Kiffin seemed to be going against league agreement to not roster "pro" players by his actions and words while the administration (by their lack of actions) seemed to be in agreement w Coach Kiffin.
The question of the day is should the SEC punish Coach Kiffin and LSU?
As a Tiger fan the answer is unequivocally NO! However, for any other SEC member program the perception is LSU was letting Coach Kiffin lead the way in this "legal" battle over eligibility and the TRO (temporary restraining order) was going against newly created SEC policy. Therefore they want to punish at minimum Coach Kiffin for his defiance and possibly the university monetarily for allowing it to happen. That's all I got.... Geaux Tigers!
But first ... the latest "news" about LSU's "pending" punishment:
"The punishments will come for LSU; don't doubt that, but it looks like the SEC will still be home to the Tigers."
How we got here:
1. SEC meeting to NOT have "pro" players on roster or eligible was agreed to by the league members before season started.
2. LSU has since then been "keeping their options open" to having them (2 players) on roster and hopefully eligible thru Coach Kiffin's public remarks, law suit (temporary restraining order), leaving 2 spots open on opening day roster, and allowing the "pro" players to practice w team.
3. LSU admin. had been publicly quiet leading up to the season - letting Kiffin speak to media.
4. Rumors have been circulating that Coach Kiffin reached out to the players and gave them the idea about coming back to play college football (due to the 5-5 rule - ask your Mom & Dad about that).
Where we are at today (9/10/2026):
1. SEC meeting today will be to discuss current situation (de-escalation) and if there should be any punishment for LSU for what is perceived as "lack of institutional control" b/c Coach Kiffin seemed to be going against league agreement to not roster "pro" players by his actions and words while the administration (by their lack of actions) seemed to be in agreement w Coach Kiffin.
The question of the day is should the SEC punish Coach Kiffin and LSU?
As a Tiger fan the answer is unequivocally NO! However, for any other SEC member program the perception is LSU was letting Coach Kiffin lead the way in this "legal" battle over eligibility and the TRO (temporary restraining order) was going against newly created SEC policy. Therefore they want to punish at minimum Coach Kiffin for his defiance and possibly the university monetarily for allowing it to happen. That's all I got.... Geaux Tigers!
Posted on 9/10/26 at 12:07 pm to WeeWee
And LSU could still leave the SEC on its own terms!
Posted on 9/10/26 at 12:09 pm to WeeWee
This is all speculation by someone not in the meetings. Anybody on this message board could write that the decison not to vote LSU out does not preclude suspending Kiffin bla bla bla. Anyone can write that. Just start you're own website, claim you know what is going on because you are an "insider" and give an opinion. Samething.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 12:12 pm to CDawson
So did Alabama in basketball. Nothing ever happened. The SEC hardly cared and that guy played 2 or 3 games before Bama shut it down. Nate Oates wasn't suspended. Wasn't even threatened. Bama didn't forfeit games, didn't receive punishment. LSU would have a good case to challenge any suspension. F dem.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 12:16 pm to WeeWee
They'll have to be careful is the punish Lane. They'll be approaching some 1st amendment issues.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 12:19 pm to ole man
quote:
ole man
you're still alive?!
Posted on 9/10/26 at 12:27 pm to DrD
quote:It's just a tiny detail, but ....
the TRO (temporary restraining order) was going against newly created SEC policy
The newly created SEC policy was going against the TRO (temporary restraining order). Not the other way around.
This post was edited on 9/10/26 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 9/10/26 at 12:29 pm to WeeWee
quote:
Can someone explain this to me like I am a 4 year old
Smart move not being a year older.
Posted on 9/11/26 at 6:02 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
and kickin.....................
Posted on 9/11/26 at 6:15 am to WeeWee
Hey WEE WEE stfu and leave
Posted on 9/11/26 at 7:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Signing these contracts is the line in the sand for the SEC
I understand that being an UDFA after entering the draft is different than the other group of guys that didn't enter the draft, went to mini-camps, etc. I also understand that signing a contract with an NFL team is an absolute line in the sand.
However, at the time of the signing, it was their only option to continue to play football. These were signed in May. Then in June the NCAA released their new 5 for 5 rules and left out the class of 2022 with no more eligibility.
The suit filed by the group of players thinking they should get a 5th year as part of the 2022 class won, which included Harris and Wright.
So if this group gets a 5th year those guys that had actually entered the draft, should be able play college because the NCAA changed the rules after their entrance into the draft (their only option). If the NCAA had released the 5 for 5 before the draft, then yes I would agree, they entered the draft, their college days are through even if the TRO to give 2022 class a 5th year came after the draft. In that scenario they would've had options and a decision to make.
This is all the NCAA's fault for having this hard cutoff for a single class. If entering as a freshman this fall, you can chose which rules you will submit too. The old rules with red-shirts or the new 5 for 5. Why do they have that flexibility, but the 2022 gets screwed.
Posted on 9/11/26 at 8:20 am to WeeWee
The definition of a "professional" is a line drawn by the SEC as it fits their narrative to screw LSU.
A professional:
It's not declaring and leaving the university
It's not participating in NFL camps (Texas situation)
It's ONLY signing a contract even if you didn't make the practice team or the roster. (LSU's situation)
My understanding:
The rule was written on Aug 26th after 5 for 5 became a thing and many teams brought back players. LSU sought players before that date. Once the rule was in (however screwed up it is), LSU obliged to not roster the two "professional" players. That's the "moot" reference from LSU.
Now, the SEC wants to punish LSU for the intent to roster even though the rule didn't exist before. Pretty stupid!
A professional:
It's not declaring and leaving the university
It's not participating in NFL camps (Texas situation)
It's ONLY signing a contract even if you didn't make the practice team or the roster. (LSU's situation)
My understanding:
The rule was written on Aug 26th after 5 for 5 became a thing and many teams brought back players. LSU sought players before that date. Once the rule was in (however screwed up it is), LSU obliged to not roster the two "professional" players. That's the "moot" reference from LSU.
Now, the SEC wants to punish LSU for the intent to roster even though the rule didn't exist before. Pretty stupid!
This post was edited on 9/11/26 at 8:22 am
Posted on 9/11/26 at 8:32 am to Tiger987
quote:
Did Texas guy sign a pro contract like Wright and Harris? Yall correct me if I’m wrong. Not trying to flame.
What other players filing for 5th year signed with pro teams?
According to the new rules, an NFL contract is not required. Camping alone is a disqualifier. But that shouldn’t matter anyway since these contracts are voided if a player is waived in camp.
Posted on 9/11/26 at 8:53 am to WeeWee
All that means is Sankey can do what he wants to. That why we need to leave.
Posted on 9/11/26 at 8:55 am to WeeWee
They better fricking not attempt any punishment whatsoever.
Posted on 9/11/26 at 9:03 am to WeeWee
They can’t the temporary injunction is still in effect I never had a hearing in Alabama
Posted on 9/11/26 at 11:51 am to CDawson
Do you think they will punish LSU like they did that ROGUE Alabama basketball team.......
Charles Bediako, Alabama essentially brought him back from the G League in the middle of the 2025–26 season, but it turned into a legal/eligibility mess.
Bediako had played at Alabama from 2021–23, then entered the NBA draft and spent roughly three seasons in the G League.
In January 2026, Alabama took him back, hoping he could use another college season. A Tuscaloosa judge initially issued a temporary restraining order, allowing him to play.
He played five games for Alabama, averaging about 10 points, 4.6 rebounds and 1.4 blocks.
Then another Tuscaloosa County judge ruled him ineligible on February 9, because his professional experience had exhausted his NCAA eligibility.
Bediako appealed, but on February 28, 2026, the Alabama Supreme Court refused to let him resume playing.
So Alabama did not simply cut him. They actually tried to use him, but the courts ultimately prevented him from playing the rest of the season—including March Madness.
The interesting part is that Alabama apparently recruited him knowing there was a serious eligibility question, and the case became one of the early examples of former professional players trying to return to college under the rapidly changing NCAA rules.
Charles Bediako, Alabama essentially brought him back from the G League in the middle of the 2025–26 season, but it turned into a legal/eligibility mess.
Bediako had played at Alabama from 2021–23, then entered the NBA draft and spent roughly three seasons in the G League.
In January 2026, Alabama took him back, hoping he could use another college season. A Tuscaloosa judge initially issued a temporary restraining order, allowing him to play.
He played five games for Alabama, averaging about 10 points, 4.6 rebounds and 1.4 blocks.
Then another Tuscaloosa County judge ruled him ineligible on February 9, because his professional experience had exhausted his NCAA eligibility.
Bediako appealed, but on February 28, 2026, the Alabama Supreme Court refused to let him resume playing.
So Alabama did not simply cut him. They actually tried to use him, but the courts ultimately prevented him from playing the rest of the season—including March Madness.
The interesting part is that Alabama apparently recruited him knowing there was a serious eligibility question, and the case became one of the early examples of former professional players trying to return to college under the rapidly changing NCAA rules.
Posted on 9/11/26 at 11:57 am to Choupique19
If we do, it is time to walk. This is pure nonsense.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News