tsip92

Sorsby should get the full $6m because he had all the leverage against Tech. The Big XII sued Tech, not Sorsby. It was Tech that was at risk. Could Tech have unilaterally decided to violate the court order allowing Sorsby to play? Hmmm. Just because the Big XII makes Tech ineligible for post season play doesn’t mean that Sorsby isn’t eligible to play. He’s just not playing for anything.

Eltife > Campbell and it’s not even close. It takes a lot more than money to build the type of machine that Eltife, CDC, Hartzell, etc. have put together. The University of Texas at Austin was founded to be a “university of the first class” but the administration, students, and alumni have turned this place into something more. A “university of the first class” means you want to be really good, on par with top peer universities. That is no longer the goal for The University of Texas at Austin. The goal is to be the BEST at everything we do, whether it be rowing, softball, men’s swimming and driving, accounting, petroleum engineering, or information systems. We’re #1 in all those things. The University doesn’t suffer from the narrowness of mind that reduces the overarching goal to “Beating tu!” or declaring success when competitive in one or two areas. By trying to be the best at everything we do at the University, we frequently achieve that goal, and when we don’t we’re darn close. The Director’s Cup honors athletics, but it’s symbolic of the overarching success that the University of Texas at Austin has achieved as an academic institution. The heads of this university haven’t lost track of these goals and it’s incumbent upon us, the students, alumni, faculty, and fan base to remember that as we represent The University, its goals, and morals when we interact with the world at large. It’s simple, try to be the best, do it the right way, and don’t fall into the trap of creating moral shortcuts to give yourself a “leg up.” Tech will undoubtedly bounce back, but I’m much happier to be in a position of strength to start with AND not have to work through the pain that they have brought upon themselves. All of that starts at the top and that’s why I’m oh so grateful that we have the quality of leadership that we do. Hook ‘em

This!

Self serving piece of crap (Campbell, that is). Tech needs a new Chair of the BoR.

Paxton will probably send a letter to all the D3 institutions in the state of Texas threatening their accreditation if they don’t agree to schedule Tech. With an undefeated regular season how could the CFP committee deny Tech???

For his sake I hope it was $6m. It’s not like Cody cares anyway. The BIG XII should still investigate to determine if Tech violated any NCAA eligibility rules before the mental illness determination. They probably won’t, but if they want to ensure Tech stays in line they should take this to the full extent possible.

Should also ask when the gambling addiction diagnosis was made by a medical professional. If Tech knowingly allowed Sorsby to participate in any team activities (practice, workouts, meetings, etc) before the formal diagnosis they would have knowingly been allowing a player that they knew had violated NCAA guidelines to participate in team activities. The after the fact diagnosis and later legal ruling wouldn’t protect Tech from those actions, if they did occur.

Someone really needs to ask Joey when and how he / Tech became aware of Sorsby’s situation and if the was before the end of spring practices, if Sorsby missed any practices after that.

Same folks that didn’t have us getting out of the regional. The game threads this year have been a brutal read.

One game at a time my friends

The AG’s job is to enforce the laws of the state of Texas, which Sorsby has violated and the AG appears to have done nothing about.

Light the tower!!!?!!?!??!???

So Paxton is writing legal threats against something that the Big XII might do…. Meanwhile I haven’t heard a thing from the AG’s office about the documented violation of Texas state gambling laws that Sorsby has admitted to. His priorities are “interesting” at best.

Now spinning his inevitable return week 3 as a gritty human interest story when we all know there is a 0% chance he doesn’t start unless someone from the outside steps in and prevents it.

This is classic. Literally, the criminal gets to determine the penalty for the actions which he has admitted are in violation of NCAA rules and state laws. The fox is literally running the hen house.

I understand the sentiment but I’m not a fan of starting threads specifically to sh*t on our own players.

No bueno. Hopefully it’s not a reoccurring thing for him.

No doubt. That guy at UCLA had them as the national #1 seed! Get him!

Light the tower! #1

The other thing that Tech has failed to acknowledge is that if he falls back into his addiction he will find a way to circumvent all the digital and financial account monitoring that they are using to justify that he can safely participate in football in the future. The first time some alumni hands him a Benjamin there’s nothing that they can do keep him from buying a burner and paying someone to set up an account for him. I’m sure that there are plenty of people that would be more than willing to go out of their way to “help” someone that is publicly known to be sitting on $6m (assuming he’s allowed to play).

You have to think they released this knowing that either the authorities already have all of this evidence or he has already arranged plea deals and the eligibility question is the only thing keeping him from being able to play. I don’t have any idea what the potential criminal penalties are for this, but it would certainly be difficult to plead not guilty considering he’s admitted to the evidence. Of course they can try the mental illness angle in criminal court also.

Because he may have also been breaking the law at the same time. I think that would make his friends accessories to the crime(s), but I’m not a lawyer.

Based on the Tech logic of minimal punishment for an addict you have to wonder what punishment they would deem appropriate for a non-addict that only made two bets that “happened” to be unders against his team. I would assume nothing less than a lifetime ban because that person was fully responsible for their own actions. BTW, when did Sorsby become an addict? His first IU bet?

The ultimate “your honor I do not recall” from our friends at ESPN: Sorsby, who appeared in 10 games and made seven starts at Indiana in 2023, said he was unaware of an October 2022 bet on the under for Indiana's quarterback passing yards or a September 2023 bet on the under for the first half of a Hoosiers football game. "Sorsby became aware of the bets only after the betting data was made available to his attorneys," the stipulated facts said. While I agree that it’s probably difficult to remember all the bets he’s made since he’s made SO many, that was an extremely convenient memory lapse.

Makes you wonder what the folks at IU and UC knew.