Is Lane Kiffin’s transfer portal strategy worth the risk?
Lane Kiffin’s roster strategy sparks debate as experts question whether the payoff justifies the scrutiny.
- A Louisiana judge issued a temporary restraining order against the SEC, preventing it from enforcing a new policy that bans players with professional experience.
- The SEC has stated it will abide by the court order but reserves the right to retroactively punish schools if the ruling is overturned.
- If the judge converts the order to a preliminary injunction, the SEC’s ban could be frozen for the entire season.
Will they or won’t they?
Will college football rosters – mandatory to be submitted a day before the first competition – contain ex-NFL players this week, specifically at LSU?
That’s the backdrop for court Thursday, Sept. 3, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on the heels of 19th Judicial District Court Judge William Jorden’s temporary restraining order that specifically names the SEC and its commissioner, Greg Sankey, as defendants and precludes them from enforcing new policy that punishes league schools that field players with professional experience that meet certain criteria.
Those rosters must be submitted and certified to the CAPS system – College Athlete Payment System – no later than 24 hours before a team’s first competition of the season.
LSU makes its debut under new coach Lane Kiffin at home Saturday at 8 p.m. ET against Clemson.
On August 25, SEC institution leaders – presidents, chancellors, athletics directors – convened and unanimously adopted new policy that deemed it against league bylaws to sign or roster a player with professional experience, such as from the NFL, NBA or WNBA.
However, Jorden already had granted the temporary restraining order against the NCAA on Wednesday, Aug. 19; he added the SEC and Sankey to the order Friday, Aug. 28.
What does LSU, NCAA stand to gain in courtroom?
The plaintiffs in the case, notable because they include players Dae’Quan Wright and Zxavian Harris who had signed NFL contracts and been in camp with their respective franchises, are 33 individuals who are “invoking Louisiana’s judicial authority and its legal framework to protect their rights,” explained attorney Ryan Regula.
He believes this ruling could set the stage for the entirety of the college football season.
“If the judge converts this temporary order into a preliminary injunction, the SEC’s ban stays frozen likely through the entire season and the pro athletes will be able to play for LSU (for example) without the school facing any conference punishment,” Regula, who works directly with universities and in this space as partner at Snell & Wilmer, told USA TODAY Sports.
However, as USA TODAY Sports reported Monday, Aug. 31, the SEC has been mindful to let it be known that it will abide by this court order, and others such as the one issued by a Dallas judge and set for trial Sept. 11, but reserves the right to retroactively punish offending parties in the event of an eventual legal victory for the conference.
The SEC, USA TODAY Sports was again informed on Wednesday, Sept. 2, has made clear that, essentially, there is not a statute of limitations on the imposition of penalties if a league team plays athletes in direct violation of the league’s new policy.
“The last thing the SEC wants is to be held in contempt of court,” a college executive with knowledge of this situation and the league told USA TODAY Sports. “[The SEC also is reminding]: It’s a serious risk to play any of those players.”
What scenario in Thursday’s hearing could be a “win” for the SEC and Sankey?
“If the judge sides with the SEC and lifts the order,” said Regula, whose perspective includes time as a football player at Pittsburgh and track and field athlete four years at Notre Dame, “the conference could immediately start enforcing its new penalties.
In that scenario, however, the athletes maintain legal recourse via the federal courts system. There are approximately 60 active lawsuits across the United States that are focused on athlete eligibility, the majority of them centering on individuals whose collegiate careers ended in the 2025-26 competition calendar.
Those athletes were not grandfathered into the NCAA’s new age-based eligibility model, which the NCAA and its member institutions – with public support from the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) – adopted on June 23. It’s policy that grants all current and future NCAA student-athletes five years to play up to a maximum of five seasons of competition in their respective sports.
The next scheduled court case with potentially widespread implications arrives in Dallas County District Court Judge Martin Hoffman’s courtroom Sept. 11. Hoffman has previously granted a TRO that precluded both the NCAA and SEC from blocking more than 40 athletes with varying degrees of professional experience to return to collegiate competition in the wake of the NCAA’s new age-based policy.