Latest / College Football Addiction: A Show About All Things College Football / Legal Insider Drops TRUTHBOMB on LSU & Lane Kiffin vs SEC Fight!

Transcript

Legal Insider Drops TRUTHBOMB on LSU & Lane Kiffin vs SEC Fight! · College Football Addiction: A Show About All Things College Football

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Welcome back to College Football Addiction. We are presented by PrizePix.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: Talk about them in just a little bit. But I've
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: got Chris back from Lomax Legal. We're going to dive
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: into some of this LSU, NCAA, NFL stuff. portal college football,
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: just nonsense. The LSU fans got fat mad the other day.
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: I said that lane was at the center of this.
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: And I didn't mean like he was caught, but I
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: was at the center of attention. It's kind of the
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: way I meant that. And they're like, he's not the center.
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: There's all these other players doing this.
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 0:28
  Speaker 3: He's at the center of attention.
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: Every time a post comes out, like, LSU is the
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: ones with guys that are on the roster or trying
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: to be on the roster. So he's at the center
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: of it.
• 0:39
  Speaker 2: You should be happy about that, right?
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, man.
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: That means you're relevant. You're a student of consequence.
• 0:45
  Speaker 4: If you were talking about people going back to play
• 0:48
  Speaker 4: at Furman or South Carolina State or even Colgate or.
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: Something, no one would even care.
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: Yeah, we wouldn't even be in this drama.
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: Right. So it should be a compliment.
• 0:58
  Speaker 4: And quite frankly, I think he had maybe more than
• 1:02
  Speaker 4: any other power four school playoff contender players that are
• 1:07
  Speaker 4: trying to do this whole thing and come back.
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: So I think he really is at the forefront of it.
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: So the big news today, the– well, big news from
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: a couple of days ago is the SEC was enjoined
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: into this as a partner. I don't know the exact–
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: phrasing that you would use there, but like as a subsidiary,
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: maybe of the NCAA, kind of like a, Hey, you
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: can't do their bidding, right? Like we, we told the
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: NCAA that these players could play. You can't then create
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: a rule. And so they, they weren't joined in a TRO.
• 1:41
  Speaker 3: That said like, no, you, you can't do this.
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: Can you explain to me, I understand the thought process of, Hey,
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: this judge created an order, a rule that, that he
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: felt like the SEC was violating by creating their rule. However,
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: I think where there's maybe a disconnect in my mind
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: and fans' mind is we can understand that that's what
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: happened in effect, but the SEC didn't make a rule
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: against players joining a roster. They didn't make a rule
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: against players receiving NIL. They didn't make a rule against
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: guys practicing. They made a rule for the universities and
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: the coaches that actually put them out on the field.
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: And I just wonder... Is that technically like is that
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: I mean, I guess a judge can do anything they want.
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: Maybe it's the answer.
• 2:28
  Speaker 3: But like, is that really correct?
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: Like, do they really have the legal authority to say
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: you can't punish your players in this situation? Does that
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: create a slippery slope for other things? Or is it
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: because it was to prevent something the judge had already ordered?
• 2:43
  Speaker 3: But like, are we going to get to a point
• 2:44
  Speaker 3: where judges can say, no, you can't?
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: Punish that kid for him being out this game, or
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: you can't punish that coach for the faking injury stuff
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: or just anything else.
• 2:52
  Speaker 3: Like, what are your thoughts just around that in totality?
• 2:55
  Speaker 4: So just taking a step back and looking at this
• 2:58
  Speaker 4: from like 5,000 feet, and this is the reason why
• 3:01
  Speaker 4: you had the Save College Sports Act. There is absolutely
• 3:04
  Speaker 4: no uniformity with respect to how these things work and
• 3:08
  Speaker 4: how they are to be enforced. So you have the NCAA,
• 3:12
  Speaker 4: which is like this supreme governing body that's supposed to
• 3:15
  Speaker 4: be able to weigh in and tell players, coaches, schools, conferences,
• 3:22
  Speaker 4: and otherwise how they are supposed to do their business
• 3:25
  Speaker 4: in the world of college sports. Then within the NCAA,
• 3:28
  Speaker 4: you have the conferences, SEC, ACC, Big 12, Big 10,
• 3:34
  Speaker 4: so on and so forth. Those conferences are supposed to
• 3:37
  Speaker 4: follow certain rules because they interact with each other.
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 3:41
  Speaker 4: And there has to be some consistency around how that functions.
• 3:44
  Speaker 4: And so the governing body that tells the conferences how
• 3:46
  Speaker 4: to interact NCAA. Then within the conferences, you have member
• 3:51
  Speaker 4: institutions who derive their guidance oftentimes from the conferences, but
• 3:56
  Speaker 4: also from the NCAA, because no one knows exactly who
• 4:01
  Speaker 4: is in charge of making these rules because the NCAA
• 4:03
  Speaker 4: is not doing it right now. Court is telling or
• 4:07
  Speaker 4: many courts are telling the member institutions the schools and
• 4:13
  Speaker 4: now the players what they can and cannot do in
• 4:16
  Speaker 4: terms of their eligibility and so One court in West
• 4:20
  Speaker 4: Virginia is saying one thing. A court in Baton Rouge
• 4:24
  Speaker 4: is saying something else. And a state court in a
• 4:27
  Speaker 4: different jurisdiction is saying something totally different. And so we
• 4:31
  Speaker 4: have this chaos around who's going to be able to
• 4:33
  Speaker 4: come back and play that really has no central source
• 4:39
  Speaker 4: of authority to look to and say, hey, this is
• 4:42
  Speaker 4: how it's going to be.
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: It's completely chaos right now. So.
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: The judge telling the SEC you can't penalize coaches. Just
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: thoughts around that? You can't fine universities? On one hand,
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: I understand that they're saying, like, you're doing this to
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: undo our order.
• 5:01
  Speaker 3: So I do get that side.
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: But on the other side, I say, if these are
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: institutions that all voted, which LSU did abstain from the
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: vote for penalties, but if these are presidents that all
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: voted for these rules, which LSU did vote for the rules, how.
• 5:16
  Speaker 3: Can you tell.
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: An entity that they cannot penalize their member institutions when
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: all the member institutions have agreed to it?
• 5:25
  Speaker 4: Well, there's several sources of authority that courts have. You know,
• 5:28
  Speaker 4: there's the jurisdictional authority that they have over the people
• 5:32
  Speaker 4: and the institutions within a certain state, right, for a
• 5:34
  Speaker 4: state court. Then there's federal court. And federal court is
• 5:38
  Speaker 4: essentially the law of the land. But then we have
• 5:40
  Speaker 4: this idea called federalism. Which shows us who is in
• 5:46
  Speaker 4: charge of what when multiple institutions can be in charge
• 5:50
  Speaker 4: of a certain thing.
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: Okay, so for example, you have federal land like an airport.
• 5:57
  Speaker 4: Technically, airports are located within states. But if you step
• 6:00
  Speaker 4: onto the grounds of an airport, you're in federal jurisdiction.
• 6:04
  Speaker 4: And so the federal court can tell you, hey, you
• 6:06
  Speaker 4: can't bring this in through the airport. Hey, you can't
• 6:10
  Speaker 4: move in this way. You have to show your ID.
• 6:12
  Speaker 4: You have to show your passport. And why is that, TJ?
• 6:14
  Speaker 4: Because we want to be able to regulate movement in
• 6:18
  Speaker 4: and throughout the country, going across state lines, taking things
• 6:22
  Speaker 4: in and out of the country.
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: So we have a federal jurisdiction for those types of things.
• 6:27
  Speaker 4: Now, United States prides itself on deferring to the states
• 6:31
  Speaker 4: to govern themselves and say, hey, in your local jurisdiction,
• 6:35
  Speaker 4: if you guys want to say you can't buy alcohol
• 6:37
  Speaker 4: on Sundays, that's up to you.
• 6:39
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 6:39
  Speaker 4: If you want to say that we're not going to
• 6:41
  Speaker 4: have football games, high school football games on any night
• 6:45
  Speaker 4: other than Friday night, that's up to you. So here
• 6:48
  Speaker 4: we are in a world where we have member institutions
• 6:51
  Speaker 4: and different conferences all across the country. with laws that
• 6:56
  Speaker 4: are being interpreted and created, quite frankly, by judges from
• 7:00
  Speaker 4: different places.
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: But then they are trying to apply.
• 7:04
  Speaker 4: Those rules to schools and institutions and conferences elsewhere.
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 7:09
  Speaker 4: And so there are arguments to be made in this
• 7:12
  Speaker 4: context about jurisdiction. There are arguments to be made about federalism.
• 7:17
  Speaker 4: There are arguments to be made about the power to
• 7:19
  Speaker 4: enforce rules that are basically like contractual agreements between member
• 7:24
  Speaker 4: institutions about being a part of a conference saying, hey,
• 7:27
  Speaker 4: we're going to be a part of this conference. We
• 7:29
  Speaker 4: are entitled to this amount of revenue. We agree to that.
• 7:32
  Speaker 4: We're going to be a.
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: Part of this conference.
• 7:33
  Speaker 4: We can't leave the conference until this year because everything
• 7:37
  Speaker 4: one school does impacts the other.
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: There has been rumblings, and I have not seen anything official,
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: and I want to go back to the SEC in
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: a moment, but there has been rumblings that the college
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: football playoff committee may weigh in here. As a private
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: institution that does not have an affiliation with the NCAA,
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: it felt like, and unless I'm misunderstanding this, it felt
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: like the reason the SEC was able to be slapped
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: down a little bit is because they are an institution
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: in the NCAA. I guess the question would be if
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: the college football playoff committee came out tomorrow or today
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: while we're recording this, probably because that's how my luck works.
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: If the NCAA, if the college football playoff committee said
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: we will not select teams that have NFL players on them, that.
• 8:21
  Speaker 3: That will be a byline, a rule that we hold to.
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: Would could I mean, I guess a judge could say anything,
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: but could a judge say, nope, you can't do that.
• 8:31
  Speaker 3: You have to you have to find other criteria.
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: And then I guess the follow up to that would be, well,
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: then they should probably just not say it and then
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: use the cloak of, well, we all thought Florida State
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: was getting it in 2013. So just do it more quietly.
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: I feel like that's a risk that then LSU would
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: just have to take or anyone that wanted to try this.
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: If the LSU fans don't want to yell at me. Um,
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: but thoughts on if, and what would happen if the
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: college ball playoff committee who is not associated with the
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: NCAA said, we won't select you for our invitational. If
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: you do this, would, and could a judge say, no,
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: you have to select them. I'll get right back to
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: chatting with Chris, but first I have a three pick
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: for you. Give me three players to score touchdowns. Now
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: they're on the ground, but if they catch these, they
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: count too. I'm going to take he won Lacey at
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: Ole Miss to score a touchdown this weekend. I'm going
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: to say cam cook. At West Virginia, I think they're
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: going to be a ground-and-pound type team, and I'm.
• 9:25
  Speaker 3: Going to take Mark Fletcher.
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: I think Miami's going to score a ton of points
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: on the road at Stanford, and he's going to get
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: in the end zone without a doubt.
• 9:32
  Speaker 3: Give me all three of them.
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: You play $ 5 over there on the PrizePix app. Not
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: only do you get the win, but if you get
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: that first win, use code HMA, you get 150 in lineups.
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: So a $ 5 lineup very quickly turns into a massive win.
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: Go check out the PrizePix app. Make sure you're on
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: there this season. We appreciate them for their support.
• 9:52
  Speaker 2: So would and could, absolutely.
• 9:57
  Speaker 4: Judges can come up with all types of reasons to
• 10:00
  Speaker 4: reach a result that is satisfactory for them. One of
• 10:05
  Speaker 4: the reasons they may argue is that, well, you know,
• 10:08
  Speaker 4: college football playoff committee, your behavior here is anti-competitive. because
• 10:13
  Speaker 4: you are favoring certain institutions over others for anti-competitive purposes.
• 10:19
  Speaker 2: And so what we're dealing with here is a.
• 10:23
  Speaker 4: Possibility that certain institutions who have allowed players to return
• 10:27
  Speaker 4: to college football or some other college sport after, you know,
• 10:32
  Speaker 4: flirting with professional sports are being excluded and that impacts
• 10:37
  Speaker 4: the the level of competition among the other institutions and
• 10:41
  Speaker 4: the ability to compete for contracts and money and TV deals, right?
• 10:45
  Speaker 4: So a court could sneak its way into a private
• 10:48
  Speaker 4: institution's activities. We've seen this in so many other contexts.
• 10:52
  Speaker 4: You can go back as far as the Industrial Revolution.
• 10:56
  Speaker 4: You can go into the Civil Rights Act where you
• 10:58
  Speaker 4: can say, well, how can you tell a hotel who
• 11:00
  Speaker 4: to allow to stay there or not? How can you
• 11:02
  Speaker 4: tell a private company who to serve and who not
• 11:06
  Speaker 4: to serve? There's always a mechanism when you're providing something
• 11:09
  Speaker 4: that impacts the public in a large and very substantial
• 11:12
  Speaker 4: way for it to be regulated. So I can very
• 11:15
  Speaker 4: well see how a state court and certainly a federal
• 11:18
  Speaker 4: court can say, well, because you've created such a national
• 11:21
  Speaker 4: presence in terms of the college football playoff. That is
• 11:25
  Speaker 4: the end all be all for a national pastime of
• 11:27
  Speaker 4: great significance.
• 11:29
  Speaker 2: We find it important.
• 11:30
  Speaker 4: And because you're going to show your program, your big
• 11:33
  Speaker 4: grand program on the national airwaves governed by the Federal
• 11:37
  Speaker 4: Communications Commission, we are going to find a way to
• 11:40
  Speaker 4: regulate the way that you do that. And as a result,
• 11:43
  Speaker 4: we can enjoin you from doing certain things, command you
• 11:45
  Speaker 4: to do certain things or not do certain things.
• 11:47
  Speaker 2: So I can see it. Lawyers are smart.
• 11:49
  Speaker 4: And some lawyer will come up with an argument that
• 11:51
  Speaker 4: will give a judge an avenue to regulate this whole thing.
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: If that happens, I'm going to be doing a lot
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: more complaining about the way that 2023 went down.
• 11:58
  Speaker 5: Let me add this other point, too, because you made
• 12:03
  Speaker 5: a good point about how there can be some tacit,
• 12:08
  Speaker 5: we'll call it reactionary behavior.
• 12:11
  Speaker 4: I don't want to call it punishment or retaliation, but
• 12:14
  Speaker 4: I'll give you two examples. You will remember that there
• 12:17
  Speaker 4: was a point in time which Colin Kaepernick was a
• 12:20
  Speaker 4: starting NFL quarterback. He took a certain position on things,
• 12:25
  Speaker 4: and he never played quarterback again. Not because he didn't
• 12:28
  Speaker 4: have the ability, not because he certainly lost his ability
• 12:32
  Speaker 4: to play or he wasn't talented, but there was no
• 12:35
  Speaker 4: action taken against him, no rule, but that guy never
• 12:38
  Speaker 4: picked up another football.
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: He was not offered a job. Similarly, Shador Sanders, people.
• 12:43
  Speaker 4: Who viewed him as a quarterback who was pretty good,
• 12:47
  Speaker 4: good enough to be drafted, he fell many, many, many rounds,
• 12:51
  Speaker 4: And he hasn't started in the NFL at all.
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: So there are ways in which these institutions can function.
• 12:57
  Speaker 4: Covertly without the right line rule or saying, hey, we
• 13:01
  Speaker 4: are going to actually institute a ban against this institution,
• 13:04
  Speaker 4: you know, and say you're not going to get in.
• 13:06
  Speaker 4: And the example that you gave was great. When Florida
• 13:08
  Speaker 4: State went, was it 13 and 0? On paper, they
• 13:12
  Speaker 4: certainly did. they certainly deserved to go to the college
• 13:15
  Speaker 4: football playoff, but no rule was had that said, Hey,
• 13:18
  Speaker 4: if you lost your quarterback or you don't seem like
• 13:21
  Speaker 4: it would be as good as you would have been
• 13:23
  Speaker 4: six weeks ago, you can't make it.
• 13:24
  Speaker 2: But the decision was made. This team is going to
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: be left out. Yeah.
• 13:29
  Speaker 3: I think the, I mean, that's a great point. And
• 13:32
  Speaker 3: that's the risk.
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: I think LSU runs with this is now if they
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: win the sec championship, they get an auto bid, right?
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: If they don't, you are running a risk at being
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: evaluated differently, just like Florida State was last year, just
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: like other teams have been, right? I mean, just even
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: down to not even controversy, BYU was evaluated differently last
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: year than Notre Dame and Miami were.
• 13:54
  Speaker 3: They had less losses. And they were evaluated differently.
• 13:58
  Speaker 2: It's because of the perception.
• 13:59
  Speaker 4: If you are someone who's favored, if you are a darling,
• 14:02
  Speaker 4: if you're someone that they like to prompt up, then
• 14:04
  Speaker 4: you're going to be given the benefit of the doubt.
• 14:06
  Speaker 4: If you're a villain, if you're not a major program
• 14:08
  Speaker 4: that's in a major market, you're seen differently.
• 14:10
  Speaker 2: That's just the way it is.
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: That's how they've operated really since the committee started, right?
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: Like you've had some gifts given out to like Cincinnati
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: here and there, but like that's how the committee has
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: always operated. And so by not creating the rule. If,
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: if the committee did want to make a stand and
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: that's probably, I would assume that's probably why they haven't
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: made an official ruling yet. Like test us, we'll just
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: do it under cloak and dagger.
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: If I'm the general counsel of the committee, I'm saying, guys,
• 14:36
  Speaker 2: just relax.
• 14:38
  Speaker 4: Sit back and let everybody else get into the arena
• 14:41
  Speaker 4: and poke each other with swords and daggers.
• 14:44
  Speaker 2: And then once the time comes, because we have, what, eight, nine.
• 14:47
  Speaker 4: Weeks before they announce the first college football playoff rankings,
• 14:52
  Speaker 4: just say, hey, why are we going to get in
• 14:55
  Speaker 4: here and put ourselves in a line of fire when
• 14:58
  Speaker 4: we can sit back and wait and have somebody else
• 15:00
  Speaker 4: make all the arguments, take all of the heat, and
• 15:03
  Speaker 4: then finally, when we need to, we'll make a decision.
• 15:05
  Speaker 2: But right now, there's really no need. Yeah.
• 15:08
  Speaker 3: Ellis, you could have three losses by that point, too,
• 15:11
  Speaker 3: you know, or anything.
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: And then you you didn't stick your nose in. You
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: know what? Just you let the season kind of take
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: care of itself. If you believe in that.
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: So.
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: So the SEC has said they're going to fight this.
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: And LSU has said we're going to comply. We're in
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: constant communication. We're going to comply with what needs to
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: be done. It does feel a little bit like, you know,
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: they're saying one thing doing the other because it doesn't
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: feel like there's a lot of compliance going on. I
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: don't know who LSU plans to run out there when
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: they go into Death Valley against Clemson this weekend, but
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: I guess we'll all tune in and see. And that's
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: part of certainly the appeal of all of this is
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: it is a major program that you're running with. But
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: the SEC going to fight it and try not to
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: lay down and try to explain kind of their side
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: of things defensively. I know it's really hard to ask,
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: how do you think this goes? Do they have an argument?
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: And how effective will that argument be? And I guess
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: the follow-up there would be, if it's not effective, will
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: they take it to federal court? I would assume it's
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: kind of the next step is to try and go
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: over the state court to get an answer.
• 16:16
  Speaker 2: So I want to make sure I'm clear on your question.
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: When you say they, who do you mean?
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: Will the SEC have any effectiveness in getting this overturned
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: at any point? and having the TRO stopped?
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: I think they have a shot, right?
• 16:31
  Speaker 4: There are a couple of issues, I think, that are
• 16:35
  Speaker 4: ripe for argument with respect to the way that this
• 16:37
  Speaker 4: thing went down. First of all, it went down at
• 16:41
  Speaker 4: a very inopportune time, right? And it happened in a
• 16:46
  Speaker 4: way that would affect a certain class of athletes and
• 16:49
  Speaker 4: not others. And so you're treating people differently who are
• 16:52
  Speaker 4: similarly situated and It also affects athletes who play different
• 16:57
  Speaker 4: sports in different ways. And so if you're a basketball player,
• 17:00
  Speaker 4: you just so happen to be in the middle of
• 17:02
  Speaker 4: the year. It doesn't affect you yet. You wouldn't have
• 17:05
  Speaker 4: done something that you might not have otherwise done. And
• 17:07
  Speaker 4: they're not applying the rule to basketball players in the
• 17:10
  Speaker 4: same way as they are football players. And the thing
• 17:14
  Speaker 4: that we have to make sure we don't underestimate is
• 17:17
  Speaker 4: the power of the lobby that exists in the SEC.
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 17:22
  Speaker 4: There is a strong lobby. and very, very aggressive lobby
• 17:26
  Speaker 4: around the SEC being the preeminent conference in the United
• 17:31
  Speaker 4: States in the NCAA. And right now they're in fierce
• 17:34
  Speaker 4: competition with the Big Ten for the first time, I
• 17:36
  Speaker 4: would say, in a long time. who's grabbed hold to
• 17:40
  Speaker 4: this narrative of being the most dominant conference. And so
• 17:43
  Speaker 4: if the SEC decides they're going to put everything they
• 17:45
  Speaker 4: have behind this because they believe it gives them a
• 17:48
  Speaker 4: competitive advantage, I think they will do that. That includes
• 17:52
  Speaker 4: influencing legislation. That includes influencing judges. That includes hiring the
• 17:56
  Speaker 4: most powerful lawyers. So yeah, I think they do have
• 17:59
  Speaker 4: a shot at doing this. Now, how do they avoid
• 18:01
  Speaker 4: calamity by going out and making themselves potentially ineligible for playoffs?
• 18:07
  Speaker 4: It's the same thing that happens when a player back
• 18:10
  Speaker 4: in the olden days may have accepted.
• 18:13
  Speaker 2: You know, some free shoes. Right.
• 18:16
  Speaker 4: Or may have gone to a vacation that he didn't
• 18:20
  Speaker 4: pay for. You wait until the ruling comes down before
• 18:24
  Speaker 4: you play that guy because you don't want to forfeit
• 18:25
  Speaker 4: any games. So it happens that his ineligibility becomes, you know,
• 18:31
  Speaker 4: no longer a controversial in game five, game six or
• 18:34
  Speaker 4: even all in the playoffs.
• 18:36
  Speaker 2: You have that guy ready to go. Right.
• 18:38
  Speaker 4: And so this is like an insurance policy, I'm sure,
• 18:40
  Speaker 4: for them.
• 18:40
  Speaker 2: They can probably.
• 18:41
  Speaker 4: Survive a number of games without these players, but it's
• 18:45
  Speaker 4: icing on the cake if they can find a way
• 18:47
  Speaker 4: to get them eligible in time to make a real run.
• 18:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: And that's a good point that you brought up, because
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: I've I've asked this question several times. I've been asked
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: this question several times on shows. Is the juice worth
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: the squeeze?
• 19:00
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: Like is is the I mean. Lane seems to thrive
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: under off field distraction. So maybe that isn't a big
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: deal for him, but is the off field distraction worth it?
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: Is the chaos that is surrounding this program heading into
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: a massive week one game? Is it worth it? Um,
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: is it worth it to the players, right? Like, is
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: it worth it to that second string tight end? That's
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: going to now be their number three tight end or
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: that first off the bench defensive tackle. That's now going
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: to be their Second off the bench defensive tackle or
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: maybe even a starter. Is it worth it to do
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: that to your own players, to your fan base who
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: just wants to get to Saturday?
• 19:38
  Speaker 3: Is it worth it to your locker room?
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: And that's a good point is if they were with
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: you for five, six, seven weeks and then this got resolved, settled,
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: which normally it doesn't because the wheels of justice are fixed.
• 19:50
  Speaker 2: Slow.
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: But if you did get to the end of December
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: and you had somebody extra or two for a playoff run,
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: it might be kind of a big deal to have
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: them come in. So that was a good point. I
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: would assume that your thoughts on that then are you
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: probably won't see any NFL guys suit up against Clemson
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: this week.
• 20:07
  Speaker 4: I don't expect we will. That would be, to me,
• 20:10
  Speaker 4: a very, very bad decision on their part. You need
• 20:14
  Speaker 4: to wait and see. It's not worth jeopardizing the whole
• 20:16
  Speaker 4: season to try to win one game. But, you know,
• 20:20
  Speaker 4: think about what we were saying and thinking about Trinidad-Chamberlain
• 20:25
  Speaker 4: seven months ago, six months ago, right, and how much
• 20:28
  Speaker 4: different that is today. I don't think there's much, if any,
• 20:31
  Speaker 4: controversy around the fact that he's suiting up right now
• 20:34
  Speaker 4: for Ole Miss. Have you heard anybody– really hemming and
• 20:37
  Speaker 4: hawing about that. But we talked about it ad nauseum
• 20:43
  Speaker 4: at the time that it was happening. And now it's
• 20:45
  Speaker 4: just seen as he's the quarterback at Ole Miss.
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: Do you have a guess how this goes? As a
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: college football fan, as an attorney, do you have a
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: guess as to who wins here?
• 21:00
  Speaker 2: It's less of a guess and more of.
• 21:06
  Speaker 4: A proposal for how I think it should go and
• 21:08
  Speaker 4: where I think it would make the most sense. So
• 21:12
  Speaker 4: I think there should be a process by which a
• 21:16
  Speaker 4: player can find out if he or she has a
• 21:21
  Speaker 4: reasonable likelihood of continuing on to play professional sports. I
• 21:28
  Speaker 4: know that they give those pre-draft grades and say, hey,
• 21:31
  Speaker 4: you're likely to go in the fifth round, you're likely
• 21:33
  Speaker 4: to go in the seventh round, you're likely to go
• 21:34
  Speaker 4: in the third round. But if you can enter your
• 21:37
  Speaker 4: name into the draft and it so happens that you
• 21:40
  Speaker 4: are not selected, I think that that should be a
• 21:43
  Speaker 4: hard cutoff for a player being able to decide to
• 21:46
  Speaker 4: come back and play for college again. Because you haven't
• 21:49
  Speaker 4: joined a team. You haven't accepted any funds from the
• 21:52
  Speaker 4: NFL squad. You haven't practiced and received all of the
• 21:57
  Speaker 4: specialized knowledge that an NFL player would have above and
• 22:00
  Speaker 4: beyond a college player to make it unfair to college athletes.
• 22:04
  Speaker 4: But you did find out, hey, am I a guy
• 22:07
  Speaker 4: who can play at the next level or does it
• 22:09
  Speaker 4: look like I will be and not have to jeopardize
• 22:12
  Speaker 4: an opportunity to continue to play and get more education
• 22:15
  Speaker 4: at my school? I think you should be able to
• 22:17
  Speaker 4: find that out. And there's always been a mechanism for
• 22:19
  Speaker 4: doing that, but not with as much certainty. And so
• 22:23
  Speaker 4: I think that they will come up with a system
• 22:25
  Speaker 4: that provides student athletes an opportunity to try to get
• 22:28
  Speaker 4: information that's reliable about their professional prospects. And then to
• 22:32
  Speaker 4: make a more informed choice. I know at least at,
• 22:36
  Speaker 4: you know, University of Miami and other places for years,
• 22:39
  Speaker 4: we have players declare for the NFL draft and not
• 22:42
  Speaker 4: be drafted or get waived within the first few weeks
• 22:46
  Speaker 4: of training camp. And they were on an island. I mean,
• 22:48
  Speaker 4: these guys played only three years. They left early, could
• 22:51
  Speaker 4: not return to college on a scholarship. And they're trying
• 22:54
  Speaker 4: to figure out life.
• 22:56
  Speaker 2: I think guys who've done that and it didn't work
• 22:58
  Speaker 2: out should be able to come back and play.
• 23:00
  Speaker 4: But once you suit it up and you become a
• 23:02
  Speaker 4: member of a professional team, then I think you probably
• 23:05
  Speaker 4: ought to be a professional.
• 23:06
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: We'll ask this and then kind of wrap up unless
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: you have anything big picture on this.
• 23:15
  Speaker 2: But.
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: With all of this going on, I know a judge typically,
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: I don't think, would rule with the idea of a
• 23:24
  Speaker 1: slippery slope in mind. But for the people that worry
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: about something like this becoming a slippery slope, again, I
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: don't think a judge would base a ruling on, oh, well,
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: if you allow this, you might have to allow something later.
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: But I do think that's a pretty real concern for
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: fans of, man, if I just saw a guy get
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: two sacks for the Bucs last week, and then suit
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: up for LSU and be on that sideline and.
• 23:46
  Speaker 3: Available for a big game or, or anyone else, not
• 23:48
  Speaker 3: just LSU.
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: What does that then do for that professional line and
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: that cutoff?
• 23:55
  Speaker 3: Do you get a situation where a guy says, well, I.
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: Only played one game and then I got hurt and, and,
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: or I was just filling in for another guy that
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: was hurt and I can come back. Like again, a
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: judge is not going to rule based on that slippery
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: slope mindset, but we saw it with an IL. We've
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: seen it with the portal. We've seen with other things and,
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: And I think every reasonable fan can say, yeah, it
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: is a one-off situation. It sucks that that 22 class
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: wasn't included. But what shoe is going to drop next
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: offseason that now allows a player to truly come back
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: from the NFL because we've now opened that door? And honestly,
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: I do think that's most of the SEC's concern. The
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: Big Ten's concern is, man, we can't crack this door
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: open for a one-time exception. Because if we've learned anything
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: the last five years in college football, there's always another
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: one-time exception that's coming. There's always another, you know, oh, well,
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: but what about this guy? Or this wasn't fair for
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: this kid. Or this wasn't fair for this program. And
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: so I think that's a real concern that fans have
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: is if you let this happen, very different situations, but
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: same with Sorsby.
• 24:57
  Speaker 3: Yeah, maybe he had mental health problems.
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: Maybe he never impacted any games playing in Indiana.
• 25:01
  Speaker 3: But if you let him play, then.
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: Where do you draw the line for future people to
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: get caught influencing games, right?
• 25:08
  Speaker 3: So I think that's something that fans would be concerned about.
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: Now, again, that's probably not going to impact a judge's
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: ruling one way or the other, but I do think
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: that's a real concern that people have.
• 25:16
  Speaker 4: Yeah, and I don't think that this is a decision
• 25:19
  Speaker 4: that a judge should make. In every agency in the
• 25:24
  Speaker 4: federal government, there is a process called rulemaking.
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: And rulemaking authority is.
• 25:31
  Speaker 4: something that's embedded in this process because those agencies, whether
• 25:35
  Speaker 4: it's the Department of Education, the Department of Health and
• 25:37
  Speaker 4: Human Services, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation,
• 25:42
  Speaker 4: those agencies' jobs are to become the most expert at regulating.
• 25:48
  Speaker 2: Their particular industries.
• 25:50
  Speaker 4: The reason we don't leave these things up to judges
• 25:52
  Speaker 4: to create a system or a fabric for operation is
• 25:56
  Speaker 4: because judges do not have the resources, the information, or
• 26:00
  Speaker 4: the experience to create systems that actually work in practice.
• 26:05
  Speaker 4: The NCAA is supposed to be functioning like an agency.
• 26:09
  Speaker 4: It is supposed to be the most expert on how
• 26:12
  Speaker 4: to regulate the lives and the practices of student athletes
• 26:16
  Speaker 4: and their relationships with their institutions and the conferences. They
• 26:21
  Speaker 4: have time and they have data to study what is
• 26:24
  Speaker 4: in the best interest of those student-athletes. They're supposed to
• 26:27
  Speaker 4: use all that information to come up with systems that
• 26:30
  Speaker 4: actually make sense. A judge who is given a brief
• 26:34
  Speaker 4: by one interested party and a brief by another interested
• 26:37
  Speaker 4: party is going to have a very difficult time coming
• 26:40
  Speaker 4: up with a ruling that creates the type of system
• 26:43
  Speaker 4: that we need to solve this problem. Now what a
• 26:46
  Speaker 4: judge might do or should do I think is in
• 26:49
  Speaker 4: this situation is be asked to enter an order requiring
• 26:53
  Speaker 4: the NCAA to come up with a system. Maybe a
• 26:56
  Speaker 4: system that is later reviewed by the judge to figure
• 26:59
  Speaker 4: out if it makes sense, if it's fair, if it
• 27:01
  Speaker 4: violates antitrust laws or otherwise, and then put the NCAA
• 27:05
  Speaker 4: on a clock to figure this out.
• 27:07
  Speaker 2: It happens all the time in other contexts.
• 27:09
  Speaker 4: They come up with these different settlement agreements that have
• 27:12
  Speaker 4: to be monitored by the court, consent decrees, so on
• 27:15
  Speaker 4: and so forth. So the NCAA needs to come back
• 27:18
  Speaker 4: into line with doing what it was designed to do.
• 27:21
  Speaker 4: Because it didn't do a good job of that for
• 27:23
  Speaker 4: so long, it has been pummeled in the courts over
• 27:26
  Speaker 4: and over and over again. Because what it was trying
• 27:29
  Speaker 4: to do before was choke out the student athletes from
• 27:32
  Speaker 4: having any real say-so in how they performed and lived
• 27:35
  Speaker 4: their lives. As a result, they've been wiped out and
• 27:38
  Speaker 4: have no control over it now. But they need to
• 27:40
  Speaker 4: come back and try to come.
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: Up with a system.
• 27:42
  Speaker 4: And like we talked about at the last show, in
• 27:44
  Speaker 4: that process, there should be seats at the table for
• 27:48
  Speaker 4: all of the parties who are going to be impacted
• 27:51
  Speaker 4: by the system. The players, first and foremost, the coaches,
• 27:55
  Speaker 4: the conferences, the member institutions.
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: The TV networks, right? Everybody needs to be at the
• 28:01
  Speaker 2: table figuring out how.
• 28:03
  Speaker 4: Can we make a system that's fair, that's just and
• 28:06
  Speaker 4: equitable and allows everybody to get what they deserve to
• 28:09
  Speaker 4: get based upon the work that they put in.
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: We talked a lot about the Protect College Sports Act
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: in our last episode or two that you were on.
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: Do you think when they get back in session, they'll
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: probably discuss this or maybe even amend some things to
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: add some language around this into practice? any future versions
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: of the bill if and when this gets voted on?
• 28:30
  Speaker 2: Absolutely, and I.
• 28:31
  Speaker 4: Think that they will rue the day that they did
• 28:33
  Speaker 4: not resolve it in advance. I think that they will
• 28:36
  Speaker 4: see that as a mistake because now additional issues have
• 28:40
  Speaker 4: arisen that are making this season become even more fraught
• 28:43
  Speaker 4: with controversy. And so hopefully they take their job seriously.
• 28:48
  Speaker 4: and finish it, right? That's what they are paid to do.
• 28:51
  Speaker 4: Their Congress people are paid to go and create legislation
• 28:54
  Speaker 4: to help govern and to, you know, allow people to
• 28:56
  Speaker 4: live their lives in this country. So I do think
• 28:59
  Speaker 4: it will come back up and they'll try to come
• 29:01
  Speaker 4: up with something that works. I think we need it
• 29:04
  Speaker 4: because right now you don't know whether you should look
• 29:06
  Speaker 4: to the conference, to the NCAA or to the court
• 29:11
  Speaker 4: for what you're supposed to do if you were an
• 29:13
  Speaker 4: institution or a conference.
• 29:15
  Speaker 3: Chris, tell us a little about Lomax Legal and we'll
• 29:16
  Speaker 3: get you.
• 29:16
  Speaker 2: Out of here.
• 29:18
  Speaker 4: Thank you, first of all, for having me again, TJ.
• 29:20
  Speaker 4: This was very fun and interesting, as always. But we
• 29:24
  Speaker 4: are a South Florida-based law firm focusing on business litigation,
• 29:28
  Speaker 4: primarily disputes around people.
• 29:32
  Speaker 2: Owing another person money, fighting over that.
• 29:34
  Speaker 4: But we get into various areas of law with respect
• 29:37
  Speaker 4: to defamation, First Amendment rights, so on and so forth
• 29:40
  Speaker 4: so happy to help anybody in need please feel free
• 29:43
  Speaker 4: to give us a call 305-582-6506 or visit us at
• 29:48
  Speaker 4: our website www.lomaxlegal.com.
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: Maybe the most important question that i've ever asked you
• 29:54
  Speaker 1: who's who's who's lifting up that trophy at the end
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: of the year this year.
• 29:58
  Speaker 4: So this is a hard one for me, but I
• 30:01
  Speaker 4: think that it will be the Hurricanes of Miami.
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: I knew it wasn't a hard one. I see the
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: palm trees out your door.
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, it's hard here.
• 30:12
  Speaker 4: Coral Gable's right behind me here. I'm not giving you
• 30:15
  Speaker 4: a Homer pick, but I think we are something I
• 30:19
  Speaker 4: read said that the last however many NCAA champions are
• 30:22
  Speaker 4: always part of the first, the top seven preseason teams.
• 30:27
  Speaker 4: And the Kings are sitting right there at number seven.
• 30:30
  Speaker 4: So this is a fair, unbiased assessment. So bring me
• 30:35
  Speaker 4: back on when we're hoisting that trophy.
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: I think they've got as good of a chance as anybody.
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: You know that I cover them quite extensively, and I
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: think there are five or six teams that could win it,
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: and they're certainly up there. And if they take care
• 30:51
  Speaker 1: of business and get hot again in December, then they
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: certainly can. So, Chris, I appreciate your time a ton, man,
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: for hanging out and always answering our questions. And if
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: you have other questions, put them in the comments. I'll
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: ask Chris. We'll do follow-ups and stuff. But I appreciate you, man,
• 31:03
  Speaker 1: a ton.
• 31:04
  Speaker 2: Hey, my pleasure. Thanks so much.