All Activity

Starter level snaps, either way he was on the field A LOT, wouldn’t happen at all now

Smart preemptive strike. Big 12 gets to choose the legal venue in Federal court as as opposed to making the suspension and waiting for Tech to file in state court. The case can be assigned to any of 9+ Judges, hopefully not the one in Lubbock or Amarillo.

-Boston lost to Philly who the Knicks swept.. Knicks also beat the "healthy Celtics" last year. Was going to be 3-1 before the Tatum injury so don't want to hear that BS -Cleveland is confirmed a joke -Would have beat OKC in 5 as well -RT with Pinkman, Brunson is absolutely a great player. Will he only win one ring? That very well could be the case but he will never be considered a one hit wonder

I asked AI some questions, including a question like yours a moments ago. AI responses to my questions. The Big 12's use of a First Amendment strategy is a highly calculated, aggressive legal maneuver. While you are entirely correct that a standard breach-of-contract claim based on the bylaws seems more direct, the conference introduced the First Amendment precisely because the Texas Attorney General escalated the battle into a constitutional arena. The First Amendment strategy significantly strengthens the Big 12's position, serves as their ticket to federal court, and counters the massive state-level interference they are facing. 1. Why the First Amendment? (The "Freedom of Association" Shield) The Big 12 is invoking the constitutional right to Freedom of Association. Under established U.S. constitutional law, private, voluntary organizations (like a sports conference) have the right to associate with whoever they want, set their own internal standards, and self-govern without government interference. The Problem: If the Big 12 just argued "Texas Tech broke our contract," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton would use the power of the state to counter-sue, claiming the bylaws violate state antitrust laws or tortiously interfere with Texas Tech's business. The Solution: By using the First Amendment, the Big 12 is arguing that the State of Texas (via AG Paxton) is violating the conference's constitutional rights by trying to force them to accept an athlete who breaches their core ethical standards. Constitutional rights trump state laws and antitrust claims. 2. Is This Just to Get It into Federal Court? Yes, primarily. [1] Avoiding "Home Cooking": Brendan Sorsby already won an injunction in a Lubbock County state court (Texas Tech's home turf). If the Big 12 filed a standard contract dispute in Texas state court, they would likely face a heavily biased environment protective of Texas Tech and influenced by state politics. Establishing Federal Jurisdiction: To get a case into federal court, you must raise a "federal question." By asserting that a state official (Paxton) is violating their First Amendment rights, the Big 12 guarantees the case will be heard by a federal judge, completely bypassing the local Texas state courts. [1] 3. Does the First Amendment Weaken or Strengthen the Big 12's Position? It heavily strengthens their position. If they only used standard contract law...By using the First Amendment... They would be locked in a messy legal debate over whether Sorsby's bets "materially harmed" the conference.They possess a constitutional shield, arguing the government cannot force a private group to change its ethical rules. Paxton could paralyze them with state-level antitrust and $200M tortious interference threats.They can completely neutralize Paxton's threats by framing his actions as unconstitutional government overreach. A local Texas judge could rule that Texas Tech's state interests outweigh the conference's bylaws.A federal judge must prioritize the U.S. Constitution over Texas state preferences. 4. Why Couldn't They Just Rely on the Agreed Bylaws? Normally, they would. Member schools sign a contract agreeing to adhere to the bylaws and submit to supermajority votes. However, Texas Tech broke the chain of command by hiding behind a state court injunction and inviting the Texas Attorney General to threaten the conference with a $200 million liability. Because Texas Tech used the legal power of the State of Texas as a weapon to freeze the conference bylaws, the Big 12 was forced to deploy a federal constitutional argument to shatter that state-level protection.

Hopefully the bats show up today.

I asked AI some questions, here are the AI responses. The Big 12's use of a First Amendment strategy is a highly calculated, aggressive legal maneuver. While you are entirely correct that a standard breach-of-contract claim based on the bylaws seems more direct, the conference introduced the First Amendment precisely because the Texas Attorney General escalated the battle into a constitutional arena. The First Amendment strategy significantly strengthens the Big 12's position, serves as their ticket to federal court, and counters the massive state-level interference they are facing. 1. Why the First Amendment? (The "Freedom of Association" Shield) The Big 12 is invoking the constitutional right to Freedom of Association. Under established U.S. constitutional law, private, voluntary organizations (like a sports conference) have the right to associate with whoever they want, set their own internal standards, and self-govern without government interference. The Problem: If the Big 12 just argued "Texas Tech broke our contract," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton would use the power of the state to counter-sue, claiming the bylaws violate state antitrust laws or tortiously interfere with Texas Tech's business. The Solution: By using the First Amendment, the Big 12 is arguing that the State of Texas (via AG Paxton) is violating the conference's constitutional rights by trying to force them to accept an athlete who breaches their core ethical standards. Constitutional rights trump state laws and antitrust claims. 2. Is This Just to Get It into Federal Court? Yes, primarily. [1] Avoiding "Home Cooking": Brendan Sorsby already won an injunction in a Lubbock County state court (Texas Tech's home turf). If the Big 12 filed a standard contract dispute in Texas state court, they would likely face a heavily biased environment protective of Texas Tech and influenced by state politics. Establishing Federal Jurisdiction: To get a case into federal court, you must raise a "federal question." By asserting that a state official (Paxton) is violating their First Amendment rights, the Big 12 guarantees the case will be heard by a federal judge, completely bypassing the local Texas state courts. [1] 3. Does the First Amendment Weaken or Strengthen the Big 12's Position? It heavily strengthens their position. If they only used standard contract law...By using the First Amendment... They would be locked in a messy legal debate over whether Sorsby's bets "materially harmed" the conference.They possess a constitutional shield, arguing the government cannot force a private group to change its ethical rules. Paxton could paralyze them with state-level antitrust and $200M tortious interference threats.They can completely neutralize Paxton's threats by framing his actions as unconstitutional government overreach. A local Texas judge could rule that Texas Tech's state interests outweigh the conference's bylaws.A federal judge must prioritize the U.S. Constitution over Texas state preferences. 4. Why Couldn't They Just Rely on the Agreed Bylaws? Normally, they would. Member schools sign a contract agreeing to adhere to the bylaws and submit to supermajority votes. However, Texas Tech broke the chain of command by hiding behind a state court injunction and inviting the Texas Attorney General to threaten the conference with a $200 million liability. Because Texas Tech used the legal power of the State of Texas as a weapon to freeze the conference bylaws, the Big 12 was forced to deploy a federal constitutional argument to shatter that state-level protection.

F the big 12 but man, good for them.

I assume to preempt the crap Paxton is trying to do.

I hope Tech loses obviously. I’m holding my nose and applauding an entity and commissioner I will always detest.

Brunson is absolutely a great player. To disagree with that is either just being a hater or not knowing ball. And I said generational closer/leader. Which he is. Ok now I as get further down in your comment I realize you’re just a hater as suspected. Becky Hammon’s burner?

Why are they asking a federal court if they can invoke their own bylaws?

Probably depends on which Judge gets this as to the outcome.

When Texas Tech joined the Big 12, they agreed to abide by its rules—so it always seemed crazy to me that Cody Campbell would say you can’t punish us for that because that would be collusion. Well hell yes it is collusion, but its a collusion Tech agreed to allow happen.

Translate that into English for us @CJ Vogel lol

Good for the Big 12. Not sure if anything will come of it but I'm glad they are at least making an attempt.

Well well well

So, now the B12 gets to make its argument as to why it will be irreparably harmed if Sorsby plays.

Props to the Big 12 for this!

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/breaking-news/article/big-12-pursuing-legal-action-against-texas-tech-texas-attorney-general-over-brendan-sorsby-132244341.html The Big 12 Conference has filed a federal lawsuit against Texas Tech University and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to prevent them from blocking sanctions against quarterback Brendan Sorsby, who was previously deemed ineligible for illegal sports wagering. The legal action seeks to uphold conference bylaws regarding athletic integrity following threats of litigation from the Texas Attorney General's office.

Will be there today and am hoping that we will be able to stay for another one. The boys need to put on their hitting shoes today and be more aggressive at the plate and in the field. Hook’em. 🤘