re: Update: Lawyers Representing Wright & Harris Claim SEC’s Action Put NCAA in Contempt

quote:

---

What I think happens is the SEC gets to keep their rule, but it doesn’t apply to these specific players who declared before they were granted another year of eligibility.

---

I agree. I don't see how the SEC can deny court orders that class of 2022 players are eligible.

Are those Texas tickets still available? I'm still looking.

quote:

---

If the SEC now attempts to keep players off the field after they terminate their pro deals, the SEC is also acting in concert with the NCAA. And a judge in Louisiana may find it to be in contempt.”

---

That makes alot of sense. Wouldn't it be something if the judge held both the SEC and Skanky personally in contempt and hauled his arse to jail?

quote:

---

I’m tired of the legal battles too but wouldn’t that be NCAA jurisdiction?

---

Admittedly I’m ignorant on this front but I have a hard time thinking the SEC would be forced to have a team represent them that they don’t want to

Who could have predicted this outcome?

SEC and B1G casually admitting to cartel behavior to oppose a TRO and expecting the players and attorneys just to play dead.

quote:

---

Just to run the scenario, say LSU were eligible for SEC championship…if they were barred from participating they could still make playoff given that their record would likely by 10-2 or better. CFP committee picks which teams get in. SEC can’t bar them from the playoff.

---

Anything that prevents these players from making the full amount of money they could have made previously would cause irreparable harm. So missing the SEC championship game and or the playoffs is clearly harming the players - who is to say if they would have had a great game, improved their draft stock etc?

Plus for the SEC to selectively enforce such a rule now looks exactly like they are spitting in the face of the judge who said let the young men have their final year under the 5 for 5 rule - it would look like the only reason they are coming up with these last minute rules is to punish the very kids the judge said to let play -

quote:

---

I should know by the end of September

---

Thank you!!! If you don't mind, let me know one way or the other so if yours aren't available, I'll look for other options

I think the interesting dilemma is going to be if the courts tell the SEC you can't deny these players and then schools sign them after their presidents said the team can't have them - that's going to be a conundrum for the presidents. I suppose they could say "I was against it but the courts made me do it" but everyone will know that's a lie because they could easily tell their football coach no to that player.

quote:

---

provides a “colorable argument” to cover conference-wide policies as well.

---

What was the language? Conferences and especially schools have been given a little more leeway to make rules than a governing body that affects most schools in the country (and all schools with bigger TV contracts).


Also, what stops the NCAA or other schools who support this particular NCAA rule from finding favorable local judges in the other states to issue an injunction against these players playing on the road? At this point if Ole Miss doesn’t sign anyone like this I can see their judge deciding that the NCAA was correct on them being professionals. With all these local judges applying federal law in multiple locations eventually the Feds are going to have to decide if a local BR judge in a local judicial district full of bad judges and some from similar districts elsewhere are applying federal law correctly. There is also the stay in the federal judge’s TPO or injunction (can’t remember which) that involved players seeking a 5th year.

I think part of judicial reform needs to be to speed up the process. I am tired of courts being so slow and used as a tool to delay unless both sides actually agree to it. It’s worse when Judges are purposely just slowing things down like with deportations.

quote:

---

The school as a league member has a mandate. The players don't and they are the parties being harmed (if the courts interpret that the players are entitled a 5th year). Crazy.

---

Which is why they should make it going forward, but not for these guys.

quote:

---

Plus for the SEC to selectively enforce such a rule now looks exactly like they are spitting in the face of the judge who said let the young men have their final year under the 5 for 5 rule - it would look like the only reason they are coming up with these last minute rules is to punish the very kids the judge said to let play -

---

Regardless of this issue or the fact that judges can make bad decisions the 2 local judges from the 19th district deserve more than spit in their faces for a multitude of other reasons.

quote:

---

They would have done better to create an exception.

---

Exactly how I feel. I don't get this for these particular guys.