College Sports (Football)

#52      
RabidDawgClassic
Mr. Tibbs said:
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
Click to expand...
Krombopulos_Michael 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
#53      
OrangeBlue98
RabidDawgClassic said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#54      
sbillini
RabidDawgClassic said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#55      
Bucktown
RabidDawgClassic said:
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.
Click to expand...
TSJ was suspended by the school not the NCAA. There were Title IX issues. They really aren't that similar.
 
#57      
blackdog
OrangeBlue98 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#58      
RabidDawgClassic
blackdog said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#59      
ChiefGritty
RabidDawgClassic said:
Legally speaking, the details of the case are irrelevant.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#60      
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?
 
#61      
RabidDawgClassic
ChiefGritty said:
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.
Click to expand...
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)
 
#63      
Battle89
OrangeBlue98 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2064761685097726086
Click to expand...
1781120758314.png
 
#64      
TentakilRex
Fun question: Texas Tech vs Notre Dame in a bowl game, who do you want to win? NO meteors or other Armageddon scenarios allowed.
 
#66      
ChiefGritty
Ander1345 said:
You forgot the part where he appeals to your humanity by mentioning that he has two sons and one of them who graduated from Texas Tech and played football for Texas Tech.
Click to expand...
While it's very lame and post-modern the way this is all getting sort of wink-wink medicalized, you have to sympathize with the way Texas Tech, the renegade insurgent against the genuinely evil and destructive B1G-SEC duopoly, is being demanded to self-impose withdrawal back to where they "belong" over something they didn't do.

Should they have done better due diligence on Sorsby? Of course, but absolutely every poster here would be pitched to psychosis over this if it were us.
 
#67      
TentakilRex
Hypothetical question: if you were in Josh Whitman and Bret Bielema's shoes and you could (and in this scenario all of the scheduling implications and butterfly effects magically disappears), if Texas Tech offered to play the Illini this year in Lubbock with Sorsby guaranteed to start, would you accept the offer?
 
#68      
OrangeBlue98
ChiefGritty said:
While it's very lame and post-modern the way this is all getting sort of wink-wink medicalized, you have to sympathize with the way Texas Tech, the renegade insurgent against the genuinely evil and destructive B1G-SEC duopoly, is being demanded to self-impose withdrawal back to where they "belong" over something they didn't do.

Should they have done better due diligence on Sorsby? Of course, but absolutely every poster here would be pitched to psychosis over this if it were us.
Click to expand...
If Illinois was in Texas Tech’s situation, not a chance that I’d want the player to play. He admitted to gambling on his own team. You can’t uncross that line.

I backed TSJ because I was certain he was innocent and that the case against him was bogus (which they were proven to be).
 
#69      
lstewart53x3
ChiefGritty said:
While it's very lame and post-modern the way this is all getting sort of wink-wink medicalized, you have to sympathize with the way Texas Tech, the renegade insurgent against the genuinely evil and destructive B1G-SEC duopoly, is being demanded to self-impose withdrawal back to where they "belong" over something they didn't do.

Should they have done better due diligence on Sorsby? Of course, but absolutely every poster here would be pitched to psychosis over this if it were us.
Click to expand...
I don’t necessarily blame Texas Tech. They want to win games and will play whoever is eligible to play.

I don’t blame Sorsby. He wants to play and will use every mean possible to do so.

I blame the legal system for creating a world where the sport cannot have any binding rules.

The NCAA has a clear rule against gambling. Because it hurts the integrity of the sport. He admitted he did it. If they can’t enforce cut and dry rules like this, what can they enforce?
 
#70      
Ander1345
TentakilRex said:
Hypothetical question: if you were in Josh Whitman and Bret Bielema's shoes and you could (and in this scenario all of the scheduling implications and butterfly effects magically disappears), if Texas Tech offered to play the Illini this year in Lubbock with Sorsby guaranteed to start, would you accept the offer?
Click to expand...
No I don't want to play a potential playoff team in a "rebuilding" year.
 
#71      
Ander1345
ChiefGritty said:
While it's very lame and post-modern the way this is all getting sort of wink-wink medicalized, you have to sympathize with the way Texas Tech, the renegade insurgent against the genuinely evil and destructive B1G-SEC duopoly, is being demanded to self-impose withdrawal back to where they "belong" over something they didn't do.

Should they have done better due diligence on Sorsby? Of course, but absolutely every poster here would be pitched to psychosis over this if it were us.
Click to expand...
I've said it before that I would hope Illinois would stand behind one of their players.

I just don't know where this goes without guide rails. Every new eligbility incident seems wilder than the last.
 
#73      
OrangeBlue98
TentakilRex said:
Hypothetical question: if you were in Josh Whitman and Bret Bielema's shoes and you could (and in this scenario all of the scheduling implications and butterfly effects magically disappears), if Texas Tech offered to play the Illini this year in Lubbock with Sorsby guaranteed to start, would you accept the offer?
Click to expand...
Short answer: No
Long answer: Hell no
Really long answer: No f***ing way
 
#74      
blackdog
Ander1345 said:
I've said it before that I would hope Illinois would stand behind one of their players.

I just don't know where this goes without guide rails. Every new eligbility incident seems wilder than the last.
Click to expand...

If an Illinois player admitted to gambling on college sports and their own teams I would hope this athletic department would support them in recovery from potential gambling addiction but not in getting back on the team.
 
Back