re: So is this just the SEC is laying the framework to kick us out if we roster the players?

quote:

---

disagree because of them specifically naming LSU and Kiffin.

---

That's just procedure. Go look at their requests/prayers

Page 49-50

LSU can try to make those arguments you made in the case, but if the SEC wins, that's where it dies. Then any claims of irregular enforcement are for the members to address internally.

quote:

---

That's just procedure. Go look at their requests/prayers

Page 49-50

LSU can try to make those arguments you made in the case, but if the SEC wins, that's where it dies. Then any claims of irregular enforcement are for the members to address internally.

---

so our opinions differ because I do not think the SEC will win.....IF and its a big arse IF, the lawyers on LSUs side push it


but what is the SEC asking for in terms of adjudication? wtf do they actually want the judge to rule? that the SEC has the right to enforce its own rules and punish schools that broke those rules?

ok thats fine....LSU did not break any rule. Zero.

so what are they asking to be adjudicated?

quote:

---

They want a federal court to say the SEC can enforce its rules, punish members, and state-based TROs can't stop them.

If they get that, then the SEC can't prevent LSU from rostering these players, but they can drop the hammer on LSU if they do. This would apply to any other school who tried to get a local judge to neuter their enforcement.

---

we agree there

I think this opens them up to further arguments though

let me explain

1) they named LSU and kiffin specifically in the lawsuite saying they were violating first admin rights.....they have to prove that they are

can you prove that? LSU didnt roster the players, LSU didnt break any written SEC rules. this opens them up to lack of clear rules, selective enforcement of the rules

2) they then amended the suit to say LSU lacks institutional control because Kiffin made the half time comment and Rouse hasnt said anything.....well now you have to prove that. good fricking luck with that


SEC will argue about NCAA rules and that opens them up big time

if the SECs own rules mention NCAA rules...opens them up big time



you don't just get to file first amendment rights case and not have to prove the defendant is actually violating those rights

you seem to keep forgetting about this. They actually have to prove LSU is violating their rights.

quote:

---

The 1A argument is about the association between LSU and the SEC, which is their vehicle to get the enforceability made plain and clear.

They don't have to prove every factual allegation in the petition to win

---

of course they dont but they have to show the LSU is violating those rights

to win the 1A argument they have to show cause.


otherwise there is no 1A violation by the defendant which makes the whole lawsuit void.

there as to be something to adjudicate.....for the judge to do that, there has to be proof that 1a was violated by the defendant.

Nebraska has history of being in the AAU and are about to get back in. LSU can't realistically do this.

Those little beyotches might vote us out because they are scared of what's coming.

quote:

---

I don't think Sankey cares, and the rest of the conference is on a power trip after we didn't add them to the roster.

---

Sankey and the SEC school presidents are being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. They'd better tread lightly.

LSU is protected by the outcome of the federal case under the Louisiana state court order. If the federal court nullifies the injunction, the SEC can't act against LSU. This situation appears to be a classic case of collusion, especially if the SEC votes LSU out, which could lead to an antitrust lawsuit. The SEC applied different standards to LSU regarding Harris and Wright, while half the league rostered players who practiced with NFL teams under participatory contracts at minicamps. Both the UDFA contract and the participatory contracts are binding and signed by an agent of the NFL.

The SEC's lawsuit is weak and stretches First Amendment grounds. The Beiako case exposed the SEC and was far worse. The SEC sat there with their head up their asses and did nothing. No extraordinary measures taken, no emergency sessions, no public threats to kick out a founding SEC member. LSU could argue a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Still, it likely wouldn't hold up, since federal courts view the SEC as a private entity. The Miicamp contracts give LSU a solid basis for a counterargument against unfair business practices. If LSU were removed over claims against Kiffin, it would open the door to an 11-figure antitrust lawsuit. It could sink the SEC. Plus, the SEC's TV contract is shite without LSU. The SEC can't find a new member equal to what LSU returns to the league. Sure, in the frick isn't Clemson, Florida State, or fricking Tulane.


Sankey has weaponized SEC school presidents, state AGs, and the media in this apparent collusion.

quote:

---

I'm just over this entire situation.

---

I've heard you're also 4 LSU.

Nice pun.

quote:

---

The 1A argument is about the association between LSU and the SEC, which is their vehicle to get the enforceability made plain and clear.

They don't have to prove every factual allegation in the petition to win

---

for the record LSU nor the board agreed to be sued in federal court and will ask for dismisal of the case based on them being state entities and not people



and Slow before you say I am wrong....

might want to read this

LINK

quote:

---

The SEC sued five defendants in the Northern District of Alabama: Louisiana State University; the LSU Board of Supervisors; LSU President Wade Rousse; Athletic Director Verge Ausberry; and Head Football Coach Lane Kiffin. The SEC alleges that LSU’s effort to roster former professional players violates the Conference’s First Amendment right of expressive association and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Two of those defendants—LSU and its Board—have an obvious threshold defense. LSU and its governing Board are state entities, and Louisiana has not generally consented to being sued in federal court. The Eleventh Amendment therefore presents a substantial sovereign-immunity problem for the SEC’s direct claims against them. Section 1983 creates another problem because a State and its arms are not “persons” within the meaning of § 1983. LSU and the Board should seek dismissal on those grounds unless the SEC can identify an effective waiver of sovereign immunity in the Conference’s governing or membership agreements.

---

quote:

---

But Rousse, Ausberry, and Kiffin are different. The SEC sued each only in his official capacity and seeks prospective relief, plainly attempting to invoke the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity. If those defendants remain in the case, they should not necessarily be content simply to defend the SEC’s First Amendment theory. The lawsuit may also provide a vehicle to force the SEC to answer a much more basic question:

Is the Conference applying its new professionalism rule equally to all sixteen member schools?

That question could become central to the case.

---

exactly what I said will happen


the SEC better be using this as leverage to get a settlement.....otherwise they are in for a world of hurt

and if they vote in the mean time to kick LSU OUT


holy fricking shite, the amount that LSU is going to sue for is going to be insnae

not to mention the other legal paths they could take before that.