Steamboat Willie

Well sh*t, sometimes the baseball gods just don’t smile on you.

If the Big 12 wins this lawsuit, Sorsby could still be allowed to play because of the Texas court order. What the Big 12 would win is the right to punish Texas Tech for choosing to play him. At that point, the question isn't can Sorsby play, it is whether Tech values having him on the field more than whatever penalties the conference decides to impose.

The most intersting aspect of the Big 12's filing is that it isn't asking the court whether Brendan Sorsby should be punished. The conference is asking a broader question: does the Big 12 have the right to govern itself and enforce its own bylaws? Courts are usually receptive to protecting the authority of a private membership organization to manage its internal affairs than they are to directly deciding a player's eligibility. That's why I think the conference's legal position may be stronger than Texas Tech supporters realize. At its core, this case is becoming less about one quarterback and more about whether a conference has the authority to police conduct that its members believe is harmful to the league.

Poor Sorsby, it is society’s fault.

3 since the weekend and 4 in total outstanding?

I could easily see a future where the SEC and Big Ten don't completely leave the NCAA, but instead create a separate football governance structure with: Their own eligibility rules Their own NIL framework Their own enforcement staff Their own gambling investigations and penalties Their own arbitration process outside of NCAA enforcement At some point, the question becomes: if the NCAA can't consistently enforce eligibility rules, gambling rules, or its own disciplinary decisions without courts stepping in, what exactly is it governing? The more that perception grows, the easier it becomes for the SEC and Big Ten to argue that they need their own football governance structure with their own rules, enforcement, and appeals process.

So do we need a catcher out of the portal?

He (Glasco) is hard to listen to in a press conference, but I did gain a measure of respect based on how he handled himself in a difficult situation.

I agree, the players aren't responsible for Campbell or McGuire. Any schadenfreude I might have is directed at rival programs and fan bases, not 20-year-old athletes who just poured everything they had into a season. If anything, hearing the players speak afterward usually increases my respect for them. Losing a championship on that stage and then sitting in front of microphones minutes later takes a lot of composure.

So, Texas wins the title, I am excited. My first thought wasn't "Let's watch the celebration." It was, "Where's the Texas Tech press conference?" Obviously, this may be the sports version of schadenfreude. I'm not talking about enjoying personal pain or attacking players. That's different. Not hatred. Not wishing bad things on anyone. Just a morbid curiosity to see what the losing side has to say when the season ends one game short. There's a raw honesty that comes out when people are dealing with disappointment. Sometimes you learn more about the game from the team that lost than from the team that won. You hear the respect they have for their opponent. You hear the regret. You hear the pride in what they accomplished despite the loss. And sometimes you hear the pain of knowing they were so close to a championship that can never be recovered. I can't decide if this makes me a terrible person or a completely normal sports fan.

To be fair, I would have walked Stewart every time she came to the plate.

A lot of nonsense over nada. A big nothing sandwich!!!

What jumps out is that the biggest gains probably come from discipline, not scheme. This is actually fixable -- and probably one of the highest ROI improvements they can make heading into a title run.

Imagine the sh*t-show college sports will be if Sorsby and Kessler win, and players are allowed to gamble on their own games.

Any news?

Switched right in the bottom half of the 8th. That was some BS by ESPN

Is Olivya Edwards basically a Louisville lean because she’s an Adidas signee, or does that not really matter anymore in today’s NIL era? I believe the Adidas angle is overblown and this is going to come down to fit, role, and NIL, not shoe brand. If she wants high usage + to be “the piece” instead of “a piece,” Texas is the play. This is going to come down to whether she wants optimization (SC), usage (Texas), or brand/NIL (Louisville). South Carolina is still the cleanest system fit; Staley has built her entire program around players like Edwards. Texas might actually be the best role fit though if she wants to be a focal point early instead of fighting for touches. Louisville probably brings the strongest NIL/Adidas alignment, but it’s the weakest pure basketball fit of the three.

I’m with you on Dani Carnegie and Zya Vann; Those are the types Vic loves because they give you both ends. Athletic, switchable, and still bring real scoring juice, which is what Texas lost more than anything. That’s why the guard piece still feels like the swing factor to me. Replacing what Rori Harmon did structurally is the hardest part of this whole thing. The reason the Cody/Dauda split keeps coming up for me is because it fits reality. It patches the biggest losses without asking one player to do everything.

If Texas ends up landing Gracie Merkle and Dani Carnegie, the missing piece that makes the whole thing work is a true point guard like Nevaeh Caffey. Merkle gives you something you didn’t have at all in a real low-post scoring presence, and Carnegie replaces a big chunk of the lost perimeter production, but neither solves the structure you lose with Rori Harmon. Add Caffey into that mix and now you have balance again, someone to control the game, keep turnovers down, and let everyone else play in their natural roles. At that point it’s not just a good rebuild, it’s actually a higher ceiling version of the roster because you’ve added interior scoring and perimeter firepower without sacrificing control.

Taking both Maryam Dauda and Essence Cody actually makes a lot of sense given how much Texas is losing in the frontcourt. This isn’t redundancy, it’s replacing over half your rebounding and interior minutes with two players who bring different strengths. Dauda gives you the higher ceiling and rim protection while Cody gives you physical, consistent minutes and toughness. Together that’s a complete frontcourt rebuild instead of hoping one player can carry the load. Dauda = starting 5, rim protection, higher impact Cody = rotation big, rebounding, physical minutes Covers foul trouble and keeps you stable vs elite size Matches up better with South Carolina and LSU type teams If you pair that with the right perimeter adds, the roster really starts to make sense. Texas still needs a true point guard to replace Rori Harmon, another scorer to offset the lost production, and a versatile forward to bridge everything together. Nevaeh Caffey = defensive PG, ball security, keeps the system intact Jada Williams = shot creation, scoring punch, late clock offense Skylar Forbes = two way forward, secondary scoring, lineup flexibility Reduces pressure on one player to carry the offense Lets Forbes naturally play the 4 instead of forcing small lineups Keeps defense, rebounding, and structure aligned with Texas identity Builds a complete, balanced, SEC-ready rotation with no major holes

Three portal adds that make a ton of sense for Texas if we are trying to reload without losing identity Nevaeh Caffey Indiana PG about 2 years left cleanest fit to replace Rori Harmon with defense ball security and structure Skylar Forbes Marquette forward about 1 to 2 years left scoring and versatility upgrade over Aaliyah Moore gives you a real second option Essence Cody Alabama forward center about 1 to 2 years left SEC ready physical presence to anchor the paint and fix the frontcourt That group covers every major hole and keeps Texas firmly in the Final Four tier!

As she’s a liability on the defensive end, that would honestly surprise me. Doesn’t really line up with what Vic typically prioritizes.

What CC is really pushing for isn’t some neutral “fix the system” framework, it’s access. A seat at the table where the biggest decisions and money flows are already concentrated. And like you said, if that access doesn’t come naturally through performance, brand, or market pull, then the next lever is trying to reshape how the pie gets divided. That’s where the “fairness” language starts doing a lot of work. The other point you make is just as important. Most schools aren’t trying to move into that top tier, they’re trying to manage costs and stay competitive at a sustainable level. So you end up with two very different incentives in the same system. A small group pushing to redefine the top tier and how it’s structured, and a much larger group that’s fine staying out of it. That’s why this whole thing feels less like a system-wide solution and more like a targeted push by a few programs trying to change where they sit in the hierarchy.

If you pooled oil revenues, you’d be redistributing from the most productive fields to the least. That’s basically what’s being hinted at here with college sports. It sounds like “fairness,” but it’s really about shifting resources based on where you sit, not how much demand you generate. And that’s the part people don’t want to say out loud. This isn’t really about protecting college sports, it’s about pushing back on who’s winning right now. Same idea, different industry. But just like with energy, once you start forcing redistribution instead of letting production and demand drive outcomes, you don’t fix the system, you distort it.

Calling college sports a “public asset” that Congress needs to manage just doesn’t make sense. This isn’t taxpayer-funded, it’s schools competing in a market that’s finally showing what things are actually worth. Yeah, it’s messy right now, but that’s what happens when you take away years of artificial limits. Making it a federal issue just brings in politics and slows everything down. The real point isn’t being said out loud. This is about pushing back on SEC and Big Ten dominance and trying to even out the money. If Texas Tech were in the SEC or Big Ten with those same payouts, this argument probably never gets made. That’s the tell. It’s less about protecting the system and more about where your program stands in it. Those leagues are ahead because that’s where the demand is. You don’t fix that by forcing balance from the top down, you just protect teams that can’t keep up. Let it play out, clean up the rules, and it’ll settle on its own.