Texas Tech and Sorsby have no shame.

[Bobby Burton]

30 minutes ago, Armando Gutierrez said:

I'm pretty sure any school, including Texas, would do the same thing if they were in Tech's position.

I disagree about Texas.

And it happened to Iowa State and they didn't.

[Tuco Ramirez]

2 minutes ago, Bobby Burton said:

I disagree about Texas.

And it happened to Iowa State and they didn't.

Most schools have ethics. Tech doesn’t. 

[genevalonghorn]

It is interesting to me that Tech's road opponents have not launched competing suits, i.e. to determine Sorsby's eligibility to play in their states.  This would include Oregon (playing Oregon State), Colorado, Ohio (playing Cincy), and Oklahoma (playing OSU). None of those is in the Fifth Circuit.

You could say the same thing about how teams/schools reacted (or didn't react) to the Chambliss and Pavia cases.  

 

[dentonhorn]

2 hours ago, CJ Vogel said:

They're doing what any school would do after a $6M investment gone wrong.

I really hope that is not true. 

[Burnt Orange Horn]

2 hours ago, harveycmd said:

Most of the eligibility cases have been in state courts for reasons I won't get into because it would take a while to explain. 

I haven't looked at the jurisdictional specifics in this case, but I must presume the monetary transactions that constitute at least some of the bets involve interstate commerce and therefore immediately results in federal priority. 

Epistemically speaking, this is an a priori matter. While there's no specific mention of competitive sports in the Constitution, it's undeniable that allowing players to gamble on games in which the participate would make competitive sports untenable, which is why every sports league or group does not allow it.

Courts will not support illicit self interest over contractual obligation.