College Sports (Football)

[OrangeBlue98]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2064163864770396236

https://twitter.com/x/status/2064143575512699207

Integrity has never been a part of major college sports.

The examples are just different now.

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

wait a minute

didnt Sorsby admit to sports gambling on college football & enter rehab for it ?

thats a lot different.
with TSJ, it was he said , she said

Love to dust off IANAL… Legally same thing but in terms of the details - there have been numerous players across sport facing criminal charges being allowed to continue to play. When, in recent memory, has a player knowingly been betting on their own games and is allowed to continue to participate? I hate to throw out the “integrity” term but there’s essentially no way you can ever guarantee integrity of competition if this line is crossed, which it now has been.

I don’t disagree with either of you. This puts the integrity of the sport in jeopardy. But while IANAL as well, the ruling is exactly the same as TSJ’s, on the surface:

1) Suspended player files a lawsuit seeking immediate relief, pending trial
2) The trial won’t happen until after the upcoming season.
3) Judge rules that a players ability to earn money during a finite period of time would be harmed.
4) Judge issues an injunction allowing the athlete to play immediately (pending trial).

Legally speaking, the details of the case are irrelevant. The athlete, whether TSJ or Sorsby has an upcoming trial and an official ruling will come at that time. The only difference is that Sorsby’s trial is in civil court while TSJ’s was criminal. As far as this injunction is concerned, it’s irrelevant what Sorsby has or hasn’t said or done up to this point. That WILL matter at trial.

It also wouldn’t surprise me if the judge in the Sorsby case cited the TSJ case as legal precedent.

 

[OrangeBlue98]

I don’t disagree with either of you. This puts the integrity of the sport in jeopardy. But while IANAL as well, the ruling is exactly the same as TSJ’s, on the surface:

1) Suspended player files a lawsuit seeking immediate relief, pending trial
2) The trial won’t happen until after the upcoming season.
3) Judge rules that a players ability to earn money during a finite period of time would be harmed.
4) Judge issues an injunction allowing the athlete to play immediately (pending trial).

Legally speaking, the details of the case are irrelevant. The athlete, whether TSJ or Sorsby has an upcoming trial and an official ruling will come at that time. The only difference is that Sorsby’s trial is in civil court while TSJ’s was criminal. As far as this injunction is concerned, it’s irrelevant what Sorsby has or hasn’t said or done up to this point. That WILL matter at trial.

It also wouldn’t surprise me if the judge in the Sorsby case cited the TSJ case as legal precedent.

Don’t disagree with you on any of this from a legal standpoint.

The issue I see is Sorsby has confessed his transgressions. TSJ always claimed his innocence (and was ultimately proven right). Texas Tech and/or the Big 12 should be dealing with this themselves.

But they won’t, because winning and money have made integrity a moot point.

 

[sbillini]

I don’t disagree with either of you. This puts the integrity of the sport in jeopardy. But while IANAL as well, the ruling is exactly the same as TSJ’s, on the surface:

1) Suspended player files a lawsuit seeking immediate relief, pending trial
2) The trial won’t happen until after the upcoming season.
3) Judge rules that a players ability to earn money during a finite period of time would be harmed.
4) Judge issues an injunction allowing the athlete to play immediately (pending trial).

Legally speaking, the details of the case are irrelevant. The athlete, whether TSJ or Sorsby has an upcoming trial and an official ruling will come at that time. The only difference is that Sorsby’s trial is in civil court while TSJ’s was criminal. As far as this injunction is concerned, it’s irrelevant what Sorsby has or hasn’t said or done up to this point. That WILL matter at trial.

It also wouldn’t surprise me if the judge in the Sorsby case cited the TSJ case as legal precedent.

IANAL here as well. while i agree with you on the technicalities, i don't think there's any doubt that this creates a slippery slope and where the line is on NCAA's (or any sporting body, for that matter) ability to govern its respective league. Should a governing body have legitimate power to enforce the integrity of the league without potential legal ramifications? TSJ's situation was much less about the integrity of NCAA basketball and more of a personal matter. This situation is very different.

While I might be taking it to an extreme (but am I, really?) the slippery slope argument can extend further. Player gets suspended a game for targeting. The next game just happens to be a playoff game (but doesn't have to be in this scenario). Before the game, player sues NCAA due to financial harm (NIL, draft stock, etc.) for a rule/call he doesn't agree with. Then player gets injunctive relief and gets to play in game until legal matters are settled. again, IANAL, so i'm probably missing some nuances here, but, broadly speaking, doesn't seem implausible based on this texas tech ruling.

 

[Bucktown]

I don’t disagree with either of you. This puts the integrity of the sport in jeopardy. But while IANAL as well, the ruling is exactly the same as TSJ’s, on the surface:

1) Suspended player files a lawsuit seeking immediate relief, pending trial
2) The trial won’t happen until after the upcoming season.
3) Judge rules that a players ability to earn money during a finite period of time would be harmed.
4) Judge issues an injunction allowing the athlete to play immediately (pending trial).

Legally speaking, the details of the case are irrelevant. The athlete, whether TSJ or Sorsby has an upcoming trial and an official ruling will come at that time. The only difference is that Sorsby’s trial is in civil court while TSJ’s was criminal. As far as this injunction is concerned, it’s irrelevant what Sorsby has or hasn’t said or done up to this point. That WILL matter at trial.

It also wouldn’t surprise me if the judge in the Sorsby case cited the TSJ case as legal precedent.

TSJ was suspended by the school not the NCAA. There were Title IX issues. They really aren't that similar.

 

[fuddrules]

If the NCAA can’t stop it, the CFP should: Ban Texas Tech | Opinion

NCAA couldn’t stop him. A judge reinstated him. Now the CFP may be the last group with the power — and the will — to draw a line that still matters.

www.usatoday.com

 

[blackdog]

Don’t disagree with you on any of this from a legal standpoint.

The issue I see is Sorsby has confessed his transgressions. TSJ always claimed his innocence (and was ultimately proven right). Texas Tech and/or the Big 12 should be dealing with this themselves.

But they won’t, because winning and money have made integrity a moot point.

Yea he admitted to violating rules and then didnt like the punishment he got. I find it kind of silly to say that he will be harmed by the decision because GOOD. He should be harmed, he broke major rules in an egregious way.

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

Yea he admitted to violating rules and then didnt like the punishment he got. I find it kind of silly to say that he will be harmed by the decision because GOOD. He should be harmed, he broke major rules in an egregious way.

You do realize that opposing fans were saying the same thing about the TSJ ruling, right?

I don’t disagree with anyone who says this is a slippery slope and it is absolutely insane that someone who has admitted to gambling at all let alone on his own team is allowed to play. But this is how the legal system works. It worked in TSJs favor and it’s worked in Sorsby’s favor. TSJ had the “receipts” at his criminal trial and was vindicated. I doubt Sorsby will have similar good fortune.

 

[ChiefGritty]

Legally speaking, the details of the case are irrelevant.

To slightly nitpick this, the details of the case are extremely relevant, but "the case" is the process of the NCAA's suspension (or UI's suspension in TSJ's case) rather than the underlying case that caused those administrative actions.

To get a TRO you have to demonstrate a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of challenging the suspension. I frankly don't think that question was analyzed very well in either TSJ or Sorsby's case, but that's what the TRO rules are on paper.

It's good posting to point out the similarity to the TSJ situation here, and you aren't wrong. I do nonetheless think that the real story here has nothing to do with Sorsby himself, and more to do with the shock and horror at how cavalierly the gambling wolf is being let through the door.

Baseball, the country's most popular sport, was basically understood to be frequently not on the level at the turn of the 20th century. Boxing too. We really don't want to go back there. Or maybe we're so far gone into blasé cynicism as a culture that we actually do, or just don't care, who knows.

 

[Ander1345]

I honestly don't mind Texas Tech standing behind their athlete. I would want Illinois to do the same.

The problem for me is just the wild inconsistencies. Hunter Dekkers never played another down of FBS football(ironically now plays for the Houston Gamblers of the UFL). Others never got to play football again.

Sorsby needs help. Not football. If undermining the integrity of the game has no consequences the game has no integrity. Any team should just play whichever players they want regardless of elgibility and sue anyone who tries to not play them?

Letting Sorsby play football is like me letting an sober alcoholic smell my beer. They're technically not breaking their sobriety, but is that really help?

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

It's good posting to point out the similarity to the TSJ situation here, and you aren't wrong. I do nonetheless think that the real story here has nothing to do with Sorsby himself, and more to do with the shock and horror at how cavalierly the gambling wolf is being let through the door.

Baseball, the country's most popular sport, was basically understood to be frequently not on the level at the turn of the 20th century. Boxing too. We really don't want to go back there. Or maybe we're so far gone into blasé cynicism as a culture that we actually do, or just don't care, who knows.

I agree 100% on this point. In fact, I was just listening to a podcast (Andy & Ari On 3) and they were lamenting how disgusted they were about this whole ordeal before they abruptly cut away to a Kalshi commercial.

You can listen here. Start at the 16:15 mark (although I’m not sure if the commercials rotate out)