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.

[Burnt Orange Horn]

2 hours ago, HelloThere said:

If the NCAA can't win this one in court then I am not sure what they can win.  On this one, it would not be the NCAA's fault either. 

The NCAA could not hold the CFP Committee to its obligation to consider  Strength of Schedule as required in its charge to the Committee.  It is a house of cards that serves as a cash flow conduit to its members.  It will collapse as soon as the top tier teams understand how much more their football broadcast rights are worth than the remaining mid and bottom tier teams.

I would guess that the B1G and SEC together would command 65% of the broadcast revenue over the combined remaining teams.

Edited 25 minutes ago by Burnt Orange Horn

[Springhorn]

2 hours ago, Gerry Hamilton said:

Every Texas Tech coach, member of the program and big money booster should be really ashamed to have any part in this.

How many speeches have Joey McGuire and his staff given to high school kids and parents, and college kids over the years on team, culture, doing the right things, etc… 

I really like McGuire, he always been awesome to me for well over a decade, but it’s truly pathetic and height of hypocrisy if he or his staff are supporting this attempt at eligibility after betting on his own team at Indiana.

Joey isn’t the one running the program; it’s Cody and he wants a return on his investment.   

[ArizonaLonghorn]

"Mark In Austin" is my legal eagle on this site (he was in UT law school when I was in UT grad school, though we didn't know each other).  Here are some arguments a good lawyer would make to try to get this down to a partial suspension.  What do you think Mark?

This will be heard initially in Lubbock and if you think that doesn't mean a more favorable court you haven't paid attention to what took place in places like Tennessee and Mississippi the past few years.

1) The "bet on your team and you are banned forever" rule came into effect in 2023 (I think), but the gambling we admit to occurred in 2022 (I think I got the years right).

2) The bets were minuscule, just a few bucks (I think I read $2 to $50?) so what's the big deal?  And he always bet on Indiana to win, so he lost most of the time.

3) Mr. Sorsby was not even playing, he was taking a redshirt season, so his actions could not have had any possible effect on the outcome.  This is not like a point shaving scandal.

4) He suffers from a "clinically diagnosed" gambling disorder, which is "a mental health condition."  He is undergoing treatment for this mental health condition as we speak.

5) The NCAA profits from gambling sites even while penalizing student-athletes while issuing an ever-changing list of what's allowed.  For example recently they OKed betting on pro sports like football, before changing their minds.

6) He stands to lose almost $6 million in NIL funds if he is not allowed to compete.

7) Sites that went into this matter in more depth than ESPN say Kessler will bring up something like the NCAA can't regulate the conduct of players like this since they are just students, not employees of the schools.  This "employees" argument seems to be some third rail for the universities and they quiver in fear when a savvy attorney threatens to use it.  This might be what causes the NCAA to look for an off-ramp and go for a lengthy suspension but not for the full year.

Not saying he should get off, a life-time ban seems fair to me, but he has an excellent lawyer who has run circles around the NCAA and I would not be surprised if he gets it reduced to a partial suspension.

What do you think Mark?