Major Movement from Kalshi on Brendan Sorsby’s Future

[Realist Horn]

3 minutes ago, harveycmd said:

I previously read it was federal court, but I just looked it up and see it is a Texas state court. That could throw nutjobism into it for a while. Ultimately the result will be the same.

Federal Court the judges are appointed; State Court is usually elected - this guy may know where his bread is buttered. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Realist Horn

[harveycmd]

1 minute ago, Realist Horn said:

Federal Court the judges are appointed; State Court is usually elected - this guy may know where his bread is buttered. 

Yes, but the judge can't blatantly render incorrect opinions without consequences. Again, legally speaking, this case is not related to any of the other state court cases about NCAA eligibility. 

[Realist Horn]

6 minutes ago, harveycmd said:

Yes, but the judge can't blatantly render incorrect opinions without consequences. Again, legally speaking, this case is not related to any of the other state court cases about NCAA eligibility. 

this is only a TRO, the Judge isn't finding whether Sorsby can win his case, just a strong probability that he will...they will then do their best to maintain the status quo through trial. Sorsby's attorney argued the status quo was him playing...

[THookem]

 

[THookem]

 

[THookem]

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The precedent this would set is so perverse to contemplate. It also would completely upend the actual case law precedents. Sorsby’s case is MUCH worse, for example, than the ISU players. It would be pure and naked self-interest by the judge. 

[Colby TS]

So, aside from any additional documents that may be requested by the judge, the arguments are over and now it's just a waiting game for the judge to issue a ruling. Is that correct.

[omarv]

No way this guy plays another down of college football.

[Realist Horn]

30 minutes ago, Colby TS said:

So, aside from any additional documents that may be requested by the judge, the arguments are over and now it's just a waiting game for the judge to issue a ruling. Is that correct.

Yes. Did the judge ask for documents or supplemental briefing? 

[Colby TS]

12 minutes ago, Realist Horn said:

Yes. Did the judge ask for documents or supplemental briefing? 

Well, I can't seem to find the tweet now, but I read one that said the judge asked both sides to submit additional documents.

[tommym]

1 hour ago, THookem said:

 

You are a idiot the guy speaking in these video. He didn't just bet on his team to win. There were hundreds of bets. If I am a teammate and he is allowed to play he fumbles or throws a interception, there will be doubts. These is sad they are having hearing. Tech should do what is best for the player, that is not play, get help a short stint in a recovery place will not help.

[tommym]

These probably the most ridiculous thing. I have ever seen, he should not play. Period, we are done. So pathetic, these situations has become and desperate.

[Colby TS]

48 minutes ago, Realist Horn said:

Yes. Did the judge ask for documents or supplemental briefing? 

Found the link, but I was wrong about the need for additional documents. Just said the volume of exhibits the judge was presented. No clue who this guy is, though.

 

 

[jkates]

I will continue to say it: Integrity is not one of the core values of the Texas Tech athletic department.

[CJ Vogel]

Odds from Kalshi have risen back up to just under 70% bets predicting Sorsby will enter the Supplemental Draft.

[Jarveaux]

3 hours ago, Joe Zura said:

Because I’m an idiot  explain it to me like I’m 5 

Joe you are anything but an idiot. Highly intelligent. You just have this negative attitude about Flood. Not sure you will be able to overcome it .

[Alex Butler]

2 hours ago, THookem said:

 

What a joke

[UTexas]

3 hours ago, Jerky said:

Suggests Sorsby likely to be allowed to play at TT this season. 

No way he should be allowed to take another college snap. 

[Hookem72]

1 hour ago, Realist Horn said:

Yes. Did the judge ask for documents or supplemental briefing? 

Usually judges rule from the bench on a TRO on whether the plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success. After that they move to a preliminary injunction phase where witnesses can testify.  That has to be held 14 days after the TRO is granted.  If its not granted, that usually means the judge is not going to grant the injunction.  

[Roy Hinojosa]

2 hours ago, THookem said:

 

So, what you're saying is that Tech did everything in their power to get ahead of this thing by sending Sorsby to get treatment for his addiction knowing this was their play all along. Throwing himself at the mercy of the court. Pathetic.

Edited 19 minutes ago by Roy Hinojosa