I'm not digging into this stuff beyond the daily blog I read, but I feel like there's something I'm missing. Apparently LSU voted with the other 15 SEC schools not to allow professional players to return to school......but they're also trying to recruit those players? I'm missing something.
From yesterday:
"A day after the SEC announced that it would enforce a ban prohibiting professional athletes from returning to college, league presidents voted yesterday on the penalties for violating that rule. The result? Any violation will carry a hefty fine equal to 50% of that sport’s annual operating budget, while the head coach will be suspended for half of the team’s contests. That suspension includes all coaching, recruiting and administrative duties during that time. The school would also lose its SEC voting privileges on conference business.
In other words, the consequences are severe, which they need to be if the rule is going to have any teeth.
That’s not to say I completely agree with everything about the SEC’s position. I still have an issue with the conference allowing some players to compete under temporary court orders, while now threatening severe penalties if another school does the same with players who have also received relief from the courts. But I support the SEC drawing a firm line on the professional-to-college issue.
That said, the most interesting part of yesterday’s development may be the vote itself. The initial vote to prohibit professional athletes from returning passed unanimously, 16-0. Yesterday’s vote establishing the penalties passed 15-0, with LSU abstaining. I’ll be frank: That doesn’t sit well with me. At a time when every other school in the conference was willing to put its name behind enforcing the rule, LSU chose not to. Whatever the reasoning behind that decision may be, I think it’s a bad look for my beloved Tigers.
Here’s another part of this that doesn’t sit well with me. As you know from Tuesday’s post, I have a good deal of sympathy for the Class of 2022 players who decided to go pro at a time when they had no reason to believe another year of college eligibility would ever be available to them. I still believe the NCAA’s ill-timed implementation of the 5-for-5 rule is the root of this mess we’re dealing with today.
That’s also why I could understand Lane Kiffin’s explanation after some of those players went to court and were granted temporary relief. Kiffin essentially said that if the players were eligible and were going to play somewhere, he felt it was his responsibility to recruit them if they could make LSU better. I may not have loved where all of this was headed, but I could understand the logic.
But if recent reports from CBS Sports, FootballScoop and others are accurate — which is a very big “if” — the situation looks different. Those reports suggest that Kiffin and LSU reached out to multiple players on NFL rosters, or their representatives, in an effort to get them to challenge the NCAA in court and return to college. If so, that’s a bit different from simply reacting to a court ruling over which LSU had no control.
Personally, I wish LSU would step away from this whole mess and stop pursuing these players. A friend at the gym summed up my feelings pretty well yesterday: “Would those players help us? Yes. Does it feel right? No.” It’s also the very type of distraction a team and coaching staff don’t need as they prepare to kick off the season in nine days."
And then from today:
"...there is one development in the ongoing eligibility saga worth passing along. SEC commissioner Greg Sankey has now been added as a defendant in the Louisiana lawsuit that resulted in temporary relief for more than 30 athletes, including LSU newcomers Dae’Quan Wright and Zxavian Harris.
The move comes, of course, after the SEC adopted its new policy prohibiting schools from rostering athletes who previously signed with or appeared on rosters in the NFL and other major professional leagues. Attorneys for the players argue that the SEC’s new policy and its severe penalties effectively prevent their clients from taking advantage of the relief already granted by the court. They have now amended their legal action to include the SEC and Sankey and are asking the court to address that issue as well.
A hearing on the case that had been scheduled for Monday has reportedly been moved to Thursday so Sankey or another SEC representative can attend. That timing is certainly worth noting, as Thursday would put the hearing just two days before LSU opens the season against Clemson.
So, as we suspected yesterday, this thing is far from over."
