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: The SEC has made a move to try and gain some power back why has the NCAA not?
Posted on 9/10/26 at 7:24 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/10/26 at 7:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They were for a long time, but that's eroded a bit with court rulings, starting with the NIL ruling.
We just had a court ruling that said the two "former NFL players" could play for LSU this season yet the SEC is trying to punish the school for these players.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 7:30 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
We just had a court ruling that said the two "former NFL players" could play for LSU this season yet the SEC is trying to punish the school for these players.
The rest of my post covered this.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 7:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
d one LSU should be hoping isn't investigated.
Are you implying that you have knowledge of incriminating dealings that have not been made public. If so, don’t play games. State what you know, or hopefully get banned.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 7:36 am to Tvilletiger
Keep in mind, this is ending before that "power" got tested. The more I think about it, the more it's becoming clear that the SEC could not let the Federal case they started get a hearing because they couldn't risk losing.
The moment that case got tossed (and it was going to be tossed at some point. Maybe not yesterday but sometime), the legal protection to rule with an iron fist would be gone and they would be just as susceptible as the NCAA is.
Which is why if ever some semblance of sanity is to return, the sport needs either the PCSA, some other form of legislation, or collective bargaining (which may not even be possible and would be a monster to establish and take maybe 5-10 years to get going).
The moment that case got tossed (and it was going to be tossed at some point. Maybe not yesterday but sometime), the legal protection to rule with an iron fist would be gone and they would be just as susceptible as the NCAA is.
Which is why if ever some semblance of sanity is to return, the sport needs either the PCSA, some other form of legislation, or collective bargaining (which may not even be possible and would be a monster to establish and take maybe 5-10 years to get going).
Posted on 9/10/26 at 7:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Signing professional contracts creates as bright of a line regarding ineligibility as gambling
Insider betting by a minor is a significantly bigger issue than murky eligibility. One is, at its root, an issue of contract, the other has potentially criminal implications.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 7:40 am to Guava Jelly
quote:
nsider betting by a minor is a significantly bigger issue than murky eligibility.
Once you cross the proverbial line, the largess of the sin becomes irrelevant. Eligibility is binary, so once you're ineligible, you're ineligible.
The "grey areas" in this discussion are how that determination is made, but once it's made, it's binary.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 7:41 am to Good Times
quote:
Are you implying that you have knowledge of incriminating dealings that have not been made public.
Nowhere did I do that.
The longer this saga goes on, the chances of that sort of evidence coming to light increases, though. IF that does happen, then LSU is in a much more precarious position.
Which is why ending it quickly without major punishment is the best interest of LSU.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 7:42 am to bstaceyau19
quote:
Which is why if ever some semblance of sanity is to return, the sport needs either the PCSA, some other form of legislation, or collective bargaining (which may not even be possible and would be a monster to establish and take maybe 5-10 years to get going).
All that needs to be done is a mechanism to stop rogue state court judges from over-extending their power. That's exactly what the Big12 and SEC are trying to do.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 7:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
All that needs to be done is a mechanism to stop rogue state court judges from over-extending their power. That's exactly what the Big12 and SEC are trying to do.
Extremely questionable legal arguments in a filing on a lawsuit you (SEC) instituted including unserious statements (lack of institutional control being attached to Lane's halftime interview) are NOT the way to accomplish that. If anything, it's the way to keep it from happening.
Oh and no one can insulate themselves from the oversight of the judiciary, state or federal. That's a right we all constitutionally enjoy...access to the courts to settle disputes.
This post was edited on 9/10/26 at 7:48 am
Posted on 9/10/26 at 8:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Once you cross the proverbial line, the largess of the sin becomes irrelevant. Eligibility is binary, so once you're ineligible, you're ineligible
As you noted, you could have made that argument 6 months ago, but that's not the situation we're in right now. Eligibility is not the "bright line" it used to be.
What is a bright line is that it is illegal for minors to place bets in Ohio and Indiana. It's illegal to place sports bets of any kind in Texas. It is also against various conference and NCAA bylaws for student athletes to place wagers, at minimum, on games involving teams they are rostered on. All that is to ignore the AML implications of insider betting.
Sorsby broke the law (literally thousands of times) by placing insider bets as a minor in Indiana and Ohio. He subsequently broke state and federal law (dozens of times more) every time he placed bets in Texas.
You can't compare this issue with Sorsby's. They are not even close to the same.
Posted on 9/10/26 at 8:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Are you implying that you have knowledge of incriminating dealings that have not been made public.
“Nowhere did I do that”
“The longer this saga goes on, the chances of THAT SORT OF EVIDENCE coming to light increases.”
Are you hoping for such evidence? Are you aware of any EVIDENCE? Are you wanting TO APPEAR as an insider?
Or are you FULL OF shite?
Posted on 9/10/26 at 11:53 am to SlowFlowPro
If we encouraged them and they had evidence it would have come out already and they would have punished us.
They had nothing and once we closed the roster hole to cool things down it stopped.
They had nothing and once we closed the roster hole to cool things down it stopped.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News