- 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
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Hot Carl
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | Prayers up for 3 |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 62982 |
| Registered on: | 12/4/2005 |
| Online Status: | Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Clancy trial verdict predictions
Posted by Hot Carl on 9/1/26 at 10:04 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
If it goes down that way they'll have to retry and fight like hell to prevent the jury being 75% female in the first place.
How was this allowed?
None of this online craziness was revealed until after they selected the jury. The prosecution may very well have wanted more women, thinking they would empathize more with the children and hate the mother. And thought men would be more likely to go by the letter of the law which, in Massachusetts, makes the prosecutions burden much more difficult to prove.
Hell, the women we assume are dug in for Lindsay, may not have been had the online ground-swelling not manifested. While they are instructed not to talk about, watch, or read anything regarding the case, there’s no way, without being sequestered, they haven’t been exposed to this. Especially if they were addicted to TikTok already. No way they were able to voluntarily quit it cold turkey for 6 weeks.
Honestly, a hung jury would not be the worst thing in the world for the prosecution. There are a ton of things they fricked up that they will learn from and do differently in another trial. And I don’t think there’s anyway they just drop it. They’ll probably be more likely to try to settle now, but the online support may have just emboldened the defense to reject any settlement and take their chances again with another trial.
0
re: Is this really a 1 time deal?
Posted by Hot Carl on 9/1/26 at 9:39 am to wildtigercat93
That was a bit unnecessary. :lol: I wasn’t arguing with you or calling you, specifically, naive. I was just using your post to point out that the NCAA and/or SEC and the rest of the conferences backing down, admitting their mistake, and grandfathering in the ‘22 class won’t stop eligibility suits in the future.
Even if they had done it on time, it wouldn’t have either. You may not have thought that, but some do. But I do agree with Project that those future hypothetical players will have less of a leg to stand on. But I don’t think that will stop them from trying.
Even if they had done it on time, it wouldn’t have either. You may not have thought that, but some do. But I do agree with Project that those future hypothetical players will have less of a leg to stand on. But I don’t think that will stop them from trying.
re: Is this really a 1 time deal?
Posted by Hot Carl on 9/1/26 at 9:26 am to wildtigercat93
quote:
The only reason these 5/5 injunctions are happening are because the NCAA put the 5/5 rule in place after the players declared. Next year no player can argue they didn’t know they would have an additional year of eligibility
This is easy to say. But eventually someone will try to argue that 5 years is arbitrary. Why 5 for 5? Why not 6 for 6? I obviously agree with you that the NCAA screwed up with the timing of the rule and again by not grandfathering in the 2022 class.
But if they are forced by the courts to do just that, that’s just another blow to their authority and ability to implement and enforce rules. Which would empower some ambitious lawyer/agent/player to challenge the 5 for 5 at some point. I just think, with everything we’ve seen the past 5-6 years, saying this is “a 1 time thing” is kinda naive.
re: Now Missouri wants in on that 5th year. Mark Mitchell re enrolls. Kentucky confused
Posted by Hot Carl on 8/31/26 at 12:35 pm to gumpinmizzou
quote:
Sounds like he had to enroll and thinks he’s hedging his bets on getting eligibility but the intra-conference transfer rule holding up.
This is clearly what he’s doing. It was obvious that what triggered Sankey was the Ole Miss kids transferring to LSU. He and the SEC will likely continue to fight to be able to enforce that rule. Not that that particular rule is necessarily special, but in order to be able to enforce ANY of their rules moving forward. I don’t see it holding up, especially because they would be following their HC, and I can’t see that being prevented for a player’s 5th year.
It may wind up being written as an exception. Though that could open more suits. But I think Sankey and the SEC have backed themselves into a corner where they’re having to fight just to maintain whatever semblance of power they can. I’m not sure they can afford to concede anything at this point.
re: Jack Pyburn with 2 sacks in the Preseason finale
Posted by Hot Carl on 8/28/26 at 11:51 pm to ChatGPT of LA
quote:
They dont have to, its not his choice. If they put him on the roster, there's zero he can do
Read this again. And then again. Maybe one more time. frick it, read it again. Can you not see how this one of the dumbest posts in the history of the internet?
re: Chris Sale just hit 100mph for the first time in 8 years
Posted by Hot Carl on 8/28/26 at 12:36 pm to cubsfan5150
He threw a shutout. His last pitch in the 9th was 99. Incredible.
re: Why does the media have such a hard on for Lane?
Posted by Hot Carl on 8/28/26 at 9:25 am to beauchristopher
quote:
I believe it's just trendy to hate on Lane and LSU.
It’s been trendy to hate on Lane for 20 years. It started with him getting the Raiders job. People thought it was an undeserved nepotism hire, and there were other, more qualified and “deserving” candidates that got passed over. The whole “born on 3rd base and thought he hit a triple” thing that turns a lot of people off.
That’s what put the initial bullseye on his back. His antics/decisions have kept it there. Fair or unfair, it’s pretty easy to see why.
re: If the Rantards are out THIS strong before the season even starts we're in for it baws
Posted by Hot Carl on 8/28/26 at 9:16 am to The Pirate King
quote:
First 3 and out should bring about 1,000 posts "100 million and THIS is what we get?!?"
Oh, forget a 3 and out, there are gonna be plenty of 4 and outs on our side of the field. A few probably within our own 25.
I’m as fired up to have Lane as our HC as anybody. But I also didn’t suddenly develop this weird amnesia that a lot of our fans have developed. We HATED him when he had guys flopping and dropping like flies at the end of games to get free timeouts. When the SEC implemented an injury report, his 1st one had 30 guys listed. :lol: We made fun of him for going for it on 4th down on his own side of the field.
The good should probably easily eclipse the bad with the resources he has now at LSU. But there will be bad. There will be items thrown. He will be “motherfricked.” Probably as soon as the 1st half a week from tomorrow. :lol:
re: LSU is just begging to get kicked out of the SEC
Posted by Hot Carl on 8/28/26 at 9:03 am to Yaboylsu63
quote:
So then we would get to go the Indy route like ND and have a complete farce of a schedule and be in the playoffs every single year.
Not the worst thing that could happen…
Y’all are just as delusional as the morons who think the SEC kicking us out is even a remote possibility. It ain’t. But make no mistake, we both need each other.
re: LSU is just begging to get kicked out of the SEC
Posted by Hot Carl on 8/28/26 at 9:01 am to AlecRock23
quote:
Please kick us out and let’s go play a big 12 schedule
Please
Are you retarded?
There is zero chance that LSU is kicked out of the SEC. :lol: I’m not even sure there’s a legal avenue to do it. But if there were, it would have to be done by a vote of member schools. And as much as they may hate LSU, that would set the terrifying precedent that they could also be kicked out sometime in the future, and that just ain’t happening.
This doesn’t even account for all the money they would lose by not having the LSU brand. All tv contracts would have to be renegotiated, schedules changed. And a shite ton of money in legal fees to fight what would probably be a years’ long battle.
I’m not reading that article, but anybody who believes this is even a remote possibility is living in fantasy land.
This doesn’t even account for all the money they would lose by not having the LSU brand. All tv contracts would have to be renegotiated, schedules changed. And a shite ton of money in legal fees to fight what would probably be a years’ long battle.
I’m not reading that article, but anybody who believes this is even a remote possibility is living in fantasy land.
re: Jack Pyburn will return to LSU
Posted by Hot Carl on 8/28/26 at 8:35 am to CatfishJohn
quote:
And is apparently 40 lbs overweight and coming off an injury.
The season lasts through January. He doesn’t have to be in peak physical condition on September 7th. A lot of y’all are really downplaying just how much better these 2 guys could make us. We don’t have anybody like them at all at their respective positions. Do we NEED them? No. Can we win the NC without them? Yes. Would they make us significantly better on both sides of the ball? Absolutely. They would not be “just depth.”
re: Poor Jeffrey Dahmer
Posted by Hot Carl on 8/27/26 at 3:57 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:
beyond the shadow of a doubt
Not the standard. At all.
quote:
Dumb hill to die on for depth players. Move on
I’m not suggesting we die on this hill. Not even disagreeing that we move on. But these are not simply “depth pieces.” We do not have anybody anywhere close to them at their respective positions. They would make us significantly better on both sides of the ball.
quote:
I think the line in the sand at signing a G-League/NFL contract to play actual games for one of those teams is simply that it is so cut and dried and clearly prohibited in the NCAA rulebook without precedent for it being crossed successfully (aside from temporary injunctions for lost cases).
It's clear from his statements/actions that Sankey is against almost all the local court rulings against NCAA determinations.
Injury related hardship / redshirt challenges have a long history with many precedents going all directions.
My guess is Sankey would have loved to include it but didn't think it was airtight enough and would be a weak link in the chain.
Again, I'm basing this off simply paying attention to exactly what Sankey testified and his statements regarding the Bediako case. Even then Sankey was specifically adamant about the no pass line of the G League contract being signed that effectively made Bediako an active member of professional US basketball team.
If Sankey has to back it up I think he will simply point to the 5 for 5 rule being put in place to fight future chaos regarding hardship waivers, redshirts, foreign pros etc.
But, he will also say that NBA/G-League//NFL pro contracts have always been a no pass line and there's no reason to mix them up with other issues that 5 for 5 is designed to address.
None of this is exactly my opinion. I think the entire thing is a complete mess. I just think it's better to argue against something when you clearly and fairly lay out exactly what the other side is arguing.
I completely agree with you. There is a difference between the situations of the 5 for 5 guys and Chambliss. A lot of people—guys like Adam—want to lump them together, but are being intellectually dishonest about why. It’s because he’s really fricking good and we play Ole Miss, who has suddenly become our biggest rival. Thats it. They have cover behind the “you can’t pick and choose” logic. Sounds reasonable. But eligibility disputes have ALWAYS been handled on a case by case basis. Like you said, that’s the precedent when you look at the history of granting medical redshirt seasons or not. We may not like it, it may seem—and probably is—inconsistent and unfair.
But if Chambliss—with the EXACT same particulars of his EXACT same situation—was the backup punter for Missouri, nobody on here would even know he exists, much less be continuing to invoke his name. Which is fine. I get it. I just wish they’d admit it. Or at least quit living in a fantasy land where Chambliss is not the starting QB of Ole Miss next Saturday barring some kind of injury. There is ZERO chance of him being ruled ineligible at this point. It may not be “fair,” but it is the absolute reality.
Hopefully they all get ruled eligible. I think people are kind of downplaying just how much better those 2 Ole Miss guys would make us. Not just for depth, either. We don’t have guys like them at their positions. They would make us much more versatile and have a much bigger cumulative impact than just their sheer production. But there’s a very strong possibility—if not probability—that they don’t play while Chambliss does. Some people need to come to terms with that, as unfair as it may seem to them.
quote:
I'm sure these attorneys are doing this on a contingent basis and trying to affect a monetary settlement .
I’ve thought about this the past couple of days. The players’ argument is not just that they can’t play an extra year because they love playing college football (though I’m sure they do), it’s that by not playing, they aren’t being afforded the opportunity to make the NIL money that playing would allow.
Would the SEC—if they are truly trying to protect the competitive balance of their league—be willing to settle by simply paying each player in the lawsuit whatever their NIL valuation is deemed to be, but still NOT allowing them to actually play? It would be a relatively small amount.
And would the players accept it? Hell, they would probably prefer it. The NFL has already said that they can’t re-enter next year’s draft, so it’s not like they can use their potential play as a platform to increase their draft stocks. Their only path to an NFL career is as a free agent, whether that’s this year or next. Since it didn’t seem to work out for them this year already, wouldn’t most probably prefer the year off to train and not risk injury as long as they were getting their NIL equivalent in a settlement? Even if they would prefer to play, wouldn’t most settle anyway, as the money would be guaranteed, and they wouldn’t have to get tied up in court where they could potentially wind up with nothing? Who says “no?”
re: Jalen Brewster Shuts Down Recruitment, Will Sign With TTU
Posted by Hot Carl on 8/27/26 at 10:28 am to ReverendJeffro
quote:
What a stupid decision.
Why?
re: Legal with Trinidad Chambliss and the other players. SEC in Trouble
Posted by Hot Carl on 8/26/26 at 9:44 pm to Jack Daniel
quote:
Can you repeat that?
:lol:
re: Do you think of Whisky when you are on the Whisky Bay Bridge?
Posted by Hot Carl on 8/26/26 at 3:28 pm to thermal9221
quote:
Mickey shunick bike.
re: Kate Koval leaving the basketball team
Posted by Hot Carl on 8/25/26 at 3:34 pm to saintsfan22
quote:
Don't do that. She's thousands of miles from home scared for her family and home country. She could feel isolated and basketball is her sanctuary and now she's thinking about Russia there too. I understand why Kim did it and I understand why Kate could walk away from it.
Any reasonable adult who doesn’t think this way and shits on Kate is a much bigger piece of shite and immature snowflake than they are pathetically calling her out as. Completely incapable of understanding nuance and trying to see different perspectives in good faith.
But this is the Rant, a place where a lot of them come to congregate and spew their ignorances and hatreds while hiding behind the anonymity it provides.
quote:
Final decision coming soon for him (between LSU and TTU)
It’s 2026, and some of y’all still haven’t figured out that there’s no such thing as a “final decision” until they sign in December. And even that isn’t “final.”
Popular
22
