re: The SEC thinks they can deny the relief granted by a judge.

quote:

---

I'm not sure who if giving the NCAA and SEC their legal advise but they need a new lawyer.

---

Since being banned SFP has more free time.

I learned two things from this thread:

1. LSU about to be independent like Notre Dame

2. Judges are the real kings/queens in the US.

quote:

---

For an SEC player to be eligible to transfer to another SEC school, it can only be done in the Spring portal. So their eligibility was already contrary to SEC rules. And they were ineligible.

---

No.
There is no Spring portal. That was eliminated last year. When the Spring Portal existed, SEC players could only transfer to nonconference schools during that window.

Essentially, with the spiring window closed, there is no longer an applicable SEC-to-SEC transfer restriction. Which brings this back to basis of the court ruling. The court's premise is that the players should have been notified of their 5th yr eligibility prior to the January portal.

This was avoidable. Simply establish the start date to begin with the 2023 entry class, and there would have been no issue. So much so that it almost appears to be a deliberate screw up designed to encourage federal legislation.

quote:

---

You are conflating two issues. The relief sought in the lawsuit was to have the 5 for 5 eligibility rule applied retroactively to the class of 2022. That was granted.

Just being in compliance with general NCAA eligibility rules does not mean conferences cannot have more restrictive rules on its VOLUNTARY member institutions. No different than a conference requiring a 3.0gpa to play--which is 1000% permissible.

If a member institution does not want to be subject to conference rules it can give up the money and go the Notre Dame route.

These players are NCAA eligible...they just need to go play for a conference with less restrictive rules.

---

I think your reasoning is very sound. However, I do NOT think that it insulates the league or it's member institutions from legal liability on numerous fronts. In fact-I think the coercive factor here-the fact that it appears the league might be strong-arming member institutions-might be a very convincing argument in a court room. The word "cartel" seems to be the one the lawyers are currently favoring.

Judges trying to legislate well beyond the scope of the issues involved have been a problem. They are not gods that can reach in and ignore all the implications of their fiat-driven nonsense. The judge granted a narrowly tailored relief--a relief that is contrary to the rights of the SEC and NCAA to establish rules -- like grade requirements, transfer requirements, etc...

The SEC had a ruling BEFORE the TRO. Eligibility for transfers between SEC schools was dependent on the transfer occurring in the Spring semester only.

quote:

---

Judges trying to legislate well beyond the scope of the issues involved have been a problem.

---

100%. That and judge shopping. But are problems.

However, the environment has to dictate action plans. Given the legal environment, the NCAA's actions here, not only did not take the likely response into account, they literally invited it.

What? Only another rule ignored by the judge? Would the judge allow someone academically ineligible to play as well? You can't pick and choose all these rules by blanket fiat that ignores eligibility requirements.

On August 2, 2026, U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney in Denver clarified that the injunction did not override existing NCAA roster limits, transfer rules, or revenue-sharing caps, meaning players could only return if schools had available roster spots, eligibility and scholarship/revenue space.

LSU had to,vote for the new rule.
Even if they disagreed, a 15-1, with LSU being opposed, would have looked terrible.

This is the kind of vote you never cast alone. You’re not “proving” anything by casting a lone “nay” vote. This isn’t a schoolyard disagreement where “showing up” someone proves anything.