Thanks!

Thanks for the link. Very informative.

Seems to me that the SEC's message is aimed at the politicians as much as the university, and that the SEC intends to draw a line in the sand on this matter. They aren't going to stand for this BR judge trying to run things, and if the plaintiffs in that case don't back down (and we all know who is really calling the shots, as evidence by the Louisiana AD sitting at the counsel table with the plaintiff's during the injunction hearing), then the SEC's only option is to expel LSU.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Quote:

---

Cornerback Aidan Anding and defensive end Gabriel Reliford, two returning players for the Tigers, are joining the roster, sources told Thamel.

---

Well well well. 2 other players WERE going to be harmed by their pursuit of the pros. The last 3 weeks I kept hearing all this vague nonsense about "well they weren't even keeping a full roster so no other player was going to be displaced by this.

LSU caved. You love to see it.

---

I guess this means it's over and we can focus on football now…yeah right lol

rbelsom said:

---

Another great analysis by Trish Whitcomb

https://substack.com/@trishwhitcomb/p-214758997

Evidently expulsion is the only avenue left based on the LA judges restrictions:

"the four page order signed by a Louisiana state judge on August 28. It is attached to Sankey's declaration, and it bars the SEC, Sankey, and anyone acting with them from "enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.9.4.2 (the Rule of Restitution), the ghost transfer rule, and/or any SEC rule or proposed penalty" against the players, against any school they choose to play for, or against any school that plays against them. It adds that if the SEC believes it has another basis to declare a player ineligible, it must "come before this Court" and ask leave first. The judge granted a preliminary injunction on the same terms orally on September 3, and the players' lawyers have drafted a written order they expect to submit this week. That draft is attached too.

The SEC's position, stated in the amended complaint, is that removing a member "is not a penalty nor is it the enforcement of a rule." It is a right the presidents hold under their "plenary power" in Section 4.1.2. The motion puts the practical consequence plainly: because the Louisiana order blocks the fines and suspensions the conference laid out in its August 26 memo, the SEC "has no option to exercise its First Amendment Rights other than by terminating LSU's membership in the Conference."

---

It's not the only avenue left. LSU just backed down by filling the two roster spots with other eligible players. Now they kiss and make up and pretend this will never happen again.

Quote:

---

It's not the only avenue left. LSU just backed down by filling the two roster spots with other eligible players. Now they kiss and make up and pretend this will never happen again.

---

Can't do that while the suit is still pending in Louisiana state court. Kiffin instigated it. Now, LSU needs to get it off the docket. SEC isn't going to unilaterally disarm with a gun pointed at it.

rootube said:

---

rbelsom said:

---

Another great analysis by Trish Whitcomb

https://substack.com/@trishwhitcomb/p-214758997

Evidently expulsion is the only avenue left based on the LA judges restrictions:

"the four page order signed by a Louisiana state judge on August 28. It is attached to Sankey's declaration, and it bars the SEC, Sankey, and anyone acting with them from "enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.9.4.2 (the Rule of Restitution), the ghost transfer rule, and/or any SEC rule or proposed penalty" against the players, against any school they choose to play for, or against any school that plays against them. It adds that if the SEC believes it has another basis to declare a player ineligible, it must "come before this Court" and ask leave first. The judge granted a preliminary injunction on the same terms orally on September 3, and the players' lawyers have drafted a written order they expect to submit this week. That draft is attached too.

The SEC's position, stated in the amended complaint, is that removing a member "is not a penalty nor is it the enforcement of a rule." It is a right the presidents hold under their "plenary power" in Section 4.1.2. The motion puts the practical consequence plainly: because the Louisiana order blocks the fines and suspensions the conference laid out in its August 26 memo, the SEC "has no option to exercise its First Amendment Rights other than by terminating LSU's membership in the Conference."

---

It's not the only avenue left. LSU just backed down by filling the two roster spots with other eligible players. Now they kiss and make up and pretend this will never happen again.

---

No, not really. Not rostering them wasn't going to make this go away.

From the complaint:

94. In light of the recalcitrance, lack of institutional control, and serious harm caused by the statements and conduct of LSU, the 15 SEC CEOs (other than LSU) have informally told the Commissioner (and President Plowman has directed the Commissioner) to issue a notice of the Special Meeting to be conducted on September 10, 2026, to consider the termination of LSU's membership in the SEC, whether LSU renounces its intention to roster and play professional players on its football team, or not.

rbelsom said:

---

"the four page order signed by a Louisiana state judge on August 28. It is attached to Sankey's declaration, and it bars the SEC, Sankey, and anyone acting with them from "enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.9.4.2 (the Rule of Restitution), the ghost transfer rule, and/or any SEC rule or proposed penalty" against the players, against any school they choose to play for, or against any school that plays against them. It adds that if the SEC believes it has another basis to declare a player ineligible, it must "come before this Court" and ask leave first. The judge granted a preliminary injunction on the same terms orally on September 3, and the players' lawyers have drafted a written order they expect to submit this week. That draft is attached too.

---

So if LSU students rush the field against an SEC opponent, the conference can't apply the fine that every other school has paid??? Way too overly broad of a a ruling by the judge. Hope that LSU gets kicked out for something like rushing the field that's not even related to the NFL players for acting like idiots and involving the judge.

Sgt. Schultz said:

---

If the vote to expel actually occurs, if it gets to that point, the rest of the conference is just saying that the juice LSU brings is not worth the squeeze. You have/had the governor, Kiffin, members of congress, all spouting off saying LSU did nothing wrong when everyone else says otherwise, its incredibly tone deaf.

This is not something that has just recently popped up. LSU has routinely been a lightning rod for its on the field and off the field behavior. But when you have a lawsuit filed by players ( at the behest of LSU) in a friendly Louisiana court that basically told the SEC to go pound sand with its rules, that doesn't sit well with the other conference members. Though this may be business as usual for Louisiana politics, the SEC has to come down hard on LSU otherwise this was all just a giant waste of time and money, and ended up pissing a lot of people off -- for nothing. Plus, the biggest thing is the conference as a whole is weakened if it cannot enforce the rules of the conference - the rules the members have agreed to follow.

---

I refuse to believe that this gets anywhere close to this. I don't see any scenario where LSU isn't "worth the squeeze" because they're a rabid fanbase that makes a lot of money and brings in a lot of viewers.

I don't even think they'll get probation of any sort. The SEC may go through the motions in court, knowing it'll get dismissed and say, "Well, we tried." MAY get a small fine.

I never fully understood why the court was brought in. All members of the conference own and agree to the rules that have been established. I guess a court could say that a rule is discriminatory. At that point, the SEC would need to modify a rule. However, there is no discrimination occurring.

I hate how LSU has handled it. I also hate LSU...period. However, kicking them out would not be good. Levying some sort of penalties against the school for violations and damaging acts against the SEC, would be rightful. I am not sure what the SEC can levy that would be a penalty. No participation in SEC Championships? No TV coverage...that is Disney controlled...good luck!

The court was brought in because Kiffin wanted to make a power play on the conference and its members. To show that he's bigger than they are combined.

hipnix said:

---

rootube said:

---

rbelsom said:

---

Another great analysis by Trish Whitcomb

https://substack.com/@trishwhitcomb/p-214758997

Evidently expulsion is the only avenue left based on the LA judges restrictions:

"the four page order signed by a Louisiana state judge on August 28. It is attached to Sankey's declaration, and it bars the SEC, Sankey, and anyone acting with them from "enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.9.4.2 (the Rule of Restitution), the ghost transfer rule, and/or any SEC rule or proposed penalty" against the players, against any school they choose to play for, or against any school that plays against them. It adds that if the SEC believes it has another basis to declare a player ineligible, it must "come before this Court" and ask leave first. The judge granted a preliminary injunction on the same terms orally on September 3, and the players' lawyers have drafted a written order they expect to submit this week. That draft is attached too.

The SEC's position, stated in the amended complaint, is that removing a member "is not a penalty nor is it the enforcement of a rule." It is a right the presidents hold under their "plenary power" in Section 4.1.2. The motion puts the practical consequence plainly: because the Louisiana order blocks the fines and suspensions the conference laid out in its August 26 memo, the SEC "has no option to exercise its First Amendment Rights other than by terminating LSU's membership in the Conference."

---

It's not the only avenue left. LSU just backed down by filling the two roster spots with other eligible players. Now they kiss and make up and pretend this will never happen again.

---

No, not really. Not rostering them wasn't going to make this go away.

From the complaint:

94. In light of the recalcitrance, lack of institutional control, and serious harm caused by the statements and conduct of LSU, the 15 SEC CEOs (other than LSU) have informally told the Commissioner (and President Plowman has directed the Commissioner) to issue a notice of the Special Meeting to be conducted on September 10, 2026, to consider the termination of LSU's membership in the SEC, whether LSU renounces its intention to roster and play professional players on its football team, or not.

---

I guess we'll see. I feel like LSU is going to back down and everyone will kiss and make up. Would be absolutely hilarious if they did kick LSU out but going that far would cause some serious problems for both parties.

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

It's not the only avenue left. LSU just backed down by filling the two roster spots with other eligible players. Now they kiss and make up and pretend this will never happen again.

---

Can't do that while the suit is still pending in Louisiana state court. Kiffin instigated it. Now, LSU needs to get it off the docket. SEC isn't going to unilaterally disarm with a gun pointed at it.

---

It's a suite filed by the two players, not LSU. And I fully expect the players to sue the SEC for damages now

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

It's not the only avenue left. LSU just backed down by filling the two roster spots with other eligible players. Now they kiss and make up and pretend this will never happen again.

---

Can't do that while the suit is still pending in Louisiana state court. Kiffin instigated it. Now, LSU needs to get it off the docket. SEC isn't going to unilaterally disarm with a gun pointed at it.

---

It's a suite filed by the two players, not LSU. And I fully expect the players to sue the SEC for damages now

---

Why the SEC? The SEC is still enjoined from penalizing LSU for rostering them, it was LSU's decision to fill up their roster spots. They aren't going to sue anyway, they'll be paid off and be on their way. Any lawsuit they bring will include the text messages from Lane with his assurances that everyone in La has their back, from the governor, to the AG, all the way down to the local judges. Can't have that come out in court

This whole legal argument has gotten too stupid for me to follow. My understanding of the last few years of nonsense was that the NCAA let itself get screwed by having a monopoly on being a feeder league to the NFL, and therefore they are unable to impose restrictions on the players' ability to further their career.

The SEC is not a monopoly. They are one of 10 Division I college football conferences. If a player does not want to follow the SEC's rules, they are welcome to go to a team in one of the other conferences that doesn't have that rule. By playing for a team, they are voluntarily participating in all rules that team is subject to, including at the conference level.

Telling a conference, that is literally just a group of schools that mutually agree on rules to hold themselves to, that it cannot enforce rules that it voluntarily makes seems to have no legal backing other than the time-honored precedent of "I dun wanna".

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Quote:

---

Cornerback Aidan Anding and defensive end Gabriel Reliford, two returning players for the Tigers, are joining the roster, sources told Thamel.

---

Well well well. 2 other players WERE going to be harmed by their pursuit of the pros. The last 3 weeks I kept hearing all this vague nonsense about "well they weren't even keeping a full roster so no other player was going to be displaced by this.

LSU caved. You love to see it.

---

#LSU edge rusher Gabe Reliford has torn his ACL, he confirmed with The Advocate on Saturday.

A really tough blow after Reliford tore his rotator cuff 4 games into last season.https://t.co/5SZUVfFNfe

— Koki Riley (@KokiRiley) March 28, 2026

. @LSUfootball @Lane_Kiffin confirms defensive back Aidan Anding has an achilles injury and is out for the season. Anding made two interceptions during #LSU scrimmage Saturday, injuring himself on the second.

— Jacques Doucet (@JacquesDoucet) April 14, 2026

I just don't get where a state judge in Louisiana thinks he has the power to keep a conference that LSU joined of its own free will and that LSU has agreed to abide by the rules and penalties of from enforcing those rules with penalties when LSU violates them? First of all, why is this even in state court in the first place? It is a multi-state commercial dispute and the proper venue is federal court. Second of all, the proper avenue for LSU to deal with rules or penalties it doesn't like is to leave the conference. They agreed to abide by the rules. If you don't like the rules you agreed to, leave!

txags92 said:

---

I just don't get where a state judge in Louisiana thinks he has the power to keep a conference that LSU joined of its own free will and that LSU has agreed to abide by the rules and penalties of from enforcing those rules with penalties when LSU violates them? First of all, why is this even in state court in the first place? It is a multi-state commercial dispute and the proper venue is federal court. Second of all, the proper avenue for LSU to deal with rules or penalties it doesn't like is to leave the conference. They agreed to abide by the rules. If you don't like the rules you agreed to, leave!

---

There were lawsuits filed in several states by players against the NCAA to have their eligibility retroactively restored after the 5 for 5 ruling - Louisiana, Texas, Missouri, Colorado, California

Ray Baker said:

---

txags92 said:

---

I just don't get where a state judge in Louisiana thinks he has the power to keep a conference that LSU joined of its own free will and that LSU has agreed to abide by the rules and penalties of from enforcing those rules with penalties when LSU violates them? First of all, why is this even in state court in the first place? It is a multi-state commercial dispute and the proper venue is federal court. Second of all, the proper avenue for LSU to deal with rules or penalties it doesn't like is to leave the conference. They agreed to abide by the rules. If you don't like the rules you agreed to, leave!

---

There were lawsuits filed in several states by players against the NCAA to have their eligibility retroactively restored after the 5 for 5 ruling - Louisiana, Texas, Missouri, Colorado, California

---

I get how the judge got the case. I don't understand how he thinks he has the ability within that case to enjoin the conference from enforcing any conference rules or penalties against LSU.

Quote:

---

I just don't get where a state judge in Louisiana thinks he has the power to keep a conference that LSU joined of its own free will and that LSU has agreed to abide by the rules and penalties of from enforcing those rules with penalties when LSU violates them?

---

let me preface by saying NCAA and SEC did nothing wrong here IMO. I am speaking generally about what power the state judge would have over a private entity like SEC.

under Louisiana law, " Courts should not interfere with internal affairs of private association except in cases when affairs and proceedings have not been conducted fairly and honestly, or in cases of fraud, lack of jurisdiction, invasion of property or pecuniary rights, or when action complained of is capricious or arbitrary, or unjustly discriminatory."

Here, the Court determined there was reason to "interfere." Again, I disagree.

Quote:

---

First of all, why is this even in state court in the first place? It is a multi-state commercial dispute and the proper venue is federal court.

---

not necessarily, and I don't think the SEC even raised that issue. I'd have to see the lawsuit filed by the players to say for sure why the state court might have jurisdiction. also, its very possible that at this stage SEC has just fought the injunction and has not gotten to the jurisdictional issues. that would not be uncommon.

i don't think they have filed a removal to federal court at this point.

txags92 said:

---

Ray Baker said:

---

txags92 said:

---

I just don't get where a state judge in Louisiana thinks he has the power to keep a conference that LSU joined of its own free will and that LSU has agreed to abide by the rules and penalties of from enforcing those rules with penalties when LSU violates them? First of all, why is this even in state court in the first place? It is a multi-state commercial dispute and the proper venue is federal court. Second of all, the proper avenue for LSU to deal with rules or penalties it doesn't like is to leave the conference. They agreed to abide by the rules. If you don't like the rules you agreed to, leave!

---

There were lawsuits filed in several states by players against the NCAA to have their eligibility retroactively restored after the 5 for 5 ruling - Louisiana, Texas, Missouri, Colorado, California

---

I get how the judge got the case. I don't understand how he thinks he has the ability within that case to enjoin the conference from enforcing any conference rules or penalties against LSU.

---

He's enjoining the NCAA and by extension the conferences who were following the NCAA "legislation." The conferences chose not to distinguish from the NCAA so behaved like they were part of the cartel that continues to claim they need anti-trust protection from the government.

twk said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

twk said:

---

Quote:

---

It's not the only avenue left. LSU just backed down by filling the two roster spots with other eligible players. Now they kiss and make up and pretend this will never happen again.

---

Can't do that while the suit is still pending in Louisiana state court. Kiffin instigated it. Now, LSU needs to get it off the docket. SEC isn't going to unilaterally disarm with a gun pointed at it.

---

It's a suite filed by the two players, not LSU. And I fully expect the players to sue the SEC for damages now

---

Who do you think is funding that litigation? The freaking Louisiana AG sat at the counsel table with the players' attorneys. This is an LSU production from start to finish.

---

You're probably right, but you can't prove it

Quote:

---

Who do you think is funding that litigation?

---

contingency fees lawyers with a hope and a dream

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Who do you think is funding that litigation?

---

contingency fees lawyers with a hope and a dream

---

The Baton Rouge District Attorney is representing them (only in Louisiana could that happen, I suspect). He's not doing it on a contingent fee, particularly where the primary relief sought was injunctive relief.

Quote:

---

He's not doing it on a contingent fee, particularly where the primary relief sought was injunctive relief.

---

is that a guess or has that been disclosed? not saying one is right, just that I don't know and its not clear.

despite being the "baton rouge district attorney" he is also a personal injury attorney worth many many millions of dollars.

I don't know the answer or know him personally, but do know several similarly rich plaintiff lawyers that would do this "pro bono" for the publicity.

edited to add, I heard from a somewhat reliable source that one of the attorneys had his compensation contingent on future NIL earnings of the players

Sadly, many of y'all are losing sight of the forest for the trees; this whole debacle is likely a "test case" to identify the pros & cons of each legal issue, so the next attempt is ironclad.

THEREFORE, when t.u. does something far more sinister, which they will, & Sankey bows down before Bevo's altar & ratifies it, we'll finally spot the real issue: LSU found a loophole; their real crime is the timing, b/c if t.u. had done it first, HAY NO PROBLEMO! Instead, Sankey is now trying to arbitrarily punish LSU, which directly affects the 'eligible' players' opportunity to play for LSU (which opens up NIL opportunities; there's your pecuniary interest), based upon an allegation of "loss of institutional control" although there isn't a specified rule LSU has violated that I'm aware.

Accordingly; have y'all so easily forgotten how Bama was allowed to do whatever in the hell they wanted when Saban was there??? They were the 'golden calf'; now, Sankey's got a real bovine to worship ever since the Tide have fallen. There's ZERO chance t.u. is sitting idle in all this; they're manipulating everyone behind the scenes while OU sheepishly nods along in agreement.

In so doing, you can bet t.u. will pull the rug once it's advantageous for them to do so. When that happens, let's see if Sankey will even permit a meeting to take a vote!

really hope that is supposed to be parody