
- 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: The SEC has called a Sept. 10th special meeting to vote on kicking LSU out of the SEC
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:35 pm to HubbaBubba
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:35 pm to HubbaBubba
we would not have any games except Tech to play with 9 conference games. We would not have a football season. Also, it takes years to get on someone's schedule.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:42 pm to LivingOnTheBayou
quote:
we would not have any games except Tech to play with 9 conference games. We would not have a football season.
They’d play out this season. The other schools have too much to lose financially.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:48 pm to shel311
Look I am not here to argue its a good line in the sand but the line that the SEC/NCAA believes it can defend in court is actually putting ink to paper on an NFL contract. Our 2 guys did that. Chambliss did not. The situations are not apples to apples. I am not arguing one is more wrong than the other. But I am not gonna sit here and act like the distinction between our guys and Chambliss isn't clear as day.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:51 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:Google Charles Bediako.
Look I am not here to argue its a good line in the sand but the line that the SEC/NCAA believes it can defend in court is actually putting ink to paper on an NFL contract.
How does the SEC explain having a pretend vote to kick LSU out of the SEC when not a single rule has been broken, but they did not give Alabama the same treatment when Alabama actually played the pro player, and in a situation MUCH different and wayyyy worse than this one, where the player did have eligibility and chose to forego it AND played professionally for 3 years before returning...
quote:What we think does not matter, i'm talking about applying the actual rule. I highly doubt the by-laws make distinctions of ineligible. By rule, ineligible is ineligible, so unless that is specifically called out and I can't see a world where it is, by rule the situations are the same. Not my opinion vs your opinion, just the actual rules itself.
Chambliss did not. The situations are not apples to apples. I am not arguing one is more wrong than the other. But I am not gonna sit here and act like the distinction between our guys and Chambliss isn't clear as day.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:52 pm to shel311
You’re right. Judging levels of ineligibleness can’t happen. It’s binary.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:56 pm to SPEEDY
quote:
Just need a vote of two-thirds to make it happen
What worries me here is that you dont call a vote you dont know you will win. I suspect they are colluding to get LSU to agree to sanctions on the program
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:57 pm to DBG
quote:That's the point I'm trying to make, you said it much more succinctly than I have.
You’re right. Judging levels of ineligibleness can’t happen. It’s binary.
The SEC is saying these 2 players are ineligible because they signed an NFL contract. There is no gray area by the SEC itself, so what that means, is...Patrick Mahomes himself is not any more ineligible than these 2 players...again, by rule. Patrick Mahomes is the same level of ineligible than those 2 players, not an opinion, just a fact based on the rule.
The same thing applies to Trinidad Chambliss, who is also ineligible per the NCAA.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 1:59 pm to GetmorewithLes
quote:Why would LSU agree to sanctions when they factually have broken zero rules?
What worries me here is that you dont call a vote you dont know you will win. I suspect they are colluding to get LSU to agree to sanctions on the program
You could certainly argue they're trying to strong arm LSU into not rostering these 2 guys, but there's no world where LSU is agreeing to sanctions for not breaking any rules.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:03 pm to shel311
quote:
Why would LSU agree to sanctions when they factually have broken zero rules? You could certainly argue they're trying to strong arm LSU into not rostering these 2 guys
Like you said, attempt to strong arm.
Posted on 9/8/26 at 2:07 pm to GetmorewithLes
quote:You said to get LSU to agree to sanctions, why would LSU agree to sanctions?
Like you said, attempt to strong arm.

Popular
Back to top

1








