- 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
With no federal court case today
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:32 pm
SEC would be violating the Louisiana court injunction if they take punishment actions against LSU at tomorrow’s meeting.
4
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:34 pm to da prophet
quote:
SEC would be violating the Louisiana court injunction if they take punishment actions against LSU at tomorrow’s meeting
No, because they wouldn't be voting based on rostering players (is what they'd be able to claim) they'd be voting based on Lack of institutional control
Which we know is bullshite, but that's how they'd spin it.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:34 pm to da prophet
Nah because the protection was for rostering players.
IF they try to go ahead with giving penalties, it will be over “a lack of institutional control” or something like that. “Undermining the conference’s authority” is another angle.
IF they try to go ahead with giving penalties, it will be over “a lack of institutional control” or something like that. “Undermining the conference’s authority” is another angle.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:36 pm to da prophet
quote:They've already violated it. The damage to Clayton's clients is severe. There is certainly a case for contempt of court.
SEC would be violating the Louisiana court injunction
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:36 pm to da prophet
Plus, LSU technically didn't not roster the players because of fear of reprisal, they just chose to roster two other players who were already member of the team but not on official roster
(Is what the public talking point will probably have to be, this will also insulate the SEC somewhat, which is probably what the positive discussions between rousse and Sankey have involved)
Back off, and we won't make you look bad.
That's my interpretation obviously, I have no insider knowledge
(Is what the public talking point will probably have to be, this will also insulate the SEC somewhat, which is probably what the positive discussions between rousse and Sankey have involved)
Back off, and we won't make you look bad.
That's my interpretation obviously, I have no insider knowledge
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:45 pm to JayVegas702
quote:The SEC can spin it any way they want.
No, because they wouldn't be voting based on rostering players (is what they'd be able to claim) they'd be voting based on Lack of institutional control
Which we know is bullshite, but that's how they'd spin it.
The only person who will decide if the SEC violated Judge Jordan's preliminary injunction will be Judge Jordan.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:46 pm to Volvagia
quote:The SEC can spin it any way they want.
Nah because the protection was for rostering players.
IF they try to go ahead with giving penalties, it will be over “a lack of institutional control” or something like that. “Undermining the conference’s authority” is another angle.
The only person who will decide if the SEC violated Judge Jordan's preliminary injunction will be Judge Jordan.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:49 pm to Salviati
You can’t spin explicit words. The enjoinment was specifically for punishments from rostering the plaintiffs.
The judge can’t just tangentially control all internal affairs from the SEC from that.
The judge can’t just tangentially control all internal affairs from the SEC from that.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:49 pm to JayVegas702
quote:
Which we know is bullshite, but that's how they'd spin it.
And how do you think Judge Jorden would interpret it.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:50 pm to JayVegas702
quote:
LSU technically didn't not roster the players because of fear of reprisal, they just chose to roster two other players who were already member of the team but not on official roster
Exactly, they showed all their cards scheduling a meeting specifically to “expel” LSU. If that isn’t retaliation, then idk what else to call it.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:50 pm to JayVegas702
quote:
Which we know is bullshite, but that's how they'd spin it.
Do you think we wouldn’t litigate the fact that this is obvious spin based on the timeline + the fact this new claim appeared out of thin air?
They can try to spin. The great thing about courtrooms is that they don’t give AF what sports journalists think.
The fact Finebaum and others have publicly insulted the integrity of the LA judge is wild.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:55 pm to DeathByTossDive226
I can’t believe with how shitty Sankey’s testimony was, Finebum had the nerve to call it a kangaroo court. I was legit taken aback he would say that.
But I’m sure the North Alabama court is a paragon of integrity, competence, and virtue.
But I’m sure the North Alabama court is a paragon of integrity, competence, and virtue.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 1:57 pm to DeathByTossDive226
quote:
Do you think we wouldn’t litigate the fact that this is obvious spin based on the timeline + the fact this new claim appeared out of thin air?
Of course we would
Posted on 9/9/26 at 2:03 pm to Volvagia
quote:Wrong. The injunction is far broader, and court's look at substance over labels. The injunction prohibits the SEC from "enforcing . . . any SEC rule or proposed penalty against . . . any member institution or coach for which Plaintiffs choose to compete."
You can’t spin explicit words. The enjoinment was specifically for punishments from rostering the plaintiffs.
The judge can’t just tangentially control all internal affairs from the SEC from that.
The potential remains for Judge Jordan to find that the SEC enforced a penalty against LSU related to LSU's actions concerning the two players. Such SEC action violates the PI.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 2:15 pm to Salviati
Especially considering the SEC referenced the injunction in their federal tro filing
Posted on 9/9/26 at 2:23 pm to Ebridg3
quote:That's an excellent point.
Especially considering the SEC referenced the injunction in their federal tro filing
Posted on 9/9/26 at 2:26 pm to Salviati
quote:
The potential remains for Judge Jordan to find that the SEC enforced a penalty against LSU related to LSU's actions concerning the two players. Such SEC action violates the PI.
That’s my point. Their potential angle and filed case has NOTHING to do with the players.
Posted on 9/9/26 at 2:38 pm to Volvagia
quote:Uhhh . . . the complaint in the federal case had numerous allegations arising from the 19th JDC case.
That’s my point. Their potential angle and filed case has NOTHING to do with the players.
Hell, the SEC filed copies of the TRO and preliminary injunction from the 19th JDC case into the federal case.
The two cases are inextricably linked!
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News