NCAA Denies Brendan Sorsby Appeal for Reinstatement: UPDATE - Injunction Granted, he is now eligible
- Thread starter Doctor Worm
- Start date
Yet there is a difference between law and rule. Rules are more easily changed and consequences aren’t written in ink. There are eligibility rules, not eligibility laws…at least for now.
Yes except he BET ON HIS OWN TEAM to lose which is, in fact, against the law.
What Pete Rose was “proven” to have done was more borderline as he claimed to the very end that he never bet on the Reds to lose, and he was so full of himself, it was probably true. I can’t see him ever thinking his team would lose.
All that said - it was still on the cusp because he clearly had access to information on things related to players and teams that he bet on that the general public did not have which is by definition “insider trading” and still illegal even if nothing specific giving your bet a clear edge can be pointed to.
Last edited:
Sorsby has more ammo then what I have stated before, if this article is spot on
>In a bombshell new report from USA Today, Cincinnati learned last summer that quarterback Brendan Sorsby, who played two seasons with the school, was betting on sports.
That could put the Bearcats in the NCAA’s crosshairs because the quarterback played the entire 2025 season.<
Cincinnati knew of star quarterback’s gambling problem in stunning reveal
At the center of every scandal is the same defining issue: who knew what, and when they knew it.
nypost.com
And short of incarceration, how exactly does breaking the law block him from playing ? He could be convicted of a crime and still win eligibility in a lawsuit v the NCAA.
Last edited:
Who did? Sorsby? From what I read, he did the same thing as Pete Rose and bet on his own team (still a good reason to get banned...but just making sure we have the facts correct).
Yeah - my understanding was that bet on his team both ways. Pete Rose also bet on his own teams but it was never proven that he placed a bet against his team. He always claimed that he only bet on them to win.
Pretty sure that your understanding is wrong (at least from what’s been reported)…his bets were on his team to win.
Sorsby replacement at Texas Tech?
@LotusAggressor_rivals , was not joking about fieldhouses in other thread.
@LotusAggressor_rivals , was not joking about fieldhouses in other thread.
All of the info that I read today also confirms that all of his bets where on Indiana (or it's players), and not against them. Don't know where you read it was both, but almost positive that is incorrect.
Reminds me of this guy : Art Schlichter
A highly touted college football prospect with the Ohio State Buckeyes, Schlichter's professional career was cut short by a gambling addiction that resulted in him facing legal trouble for nearly four decades.
en.wikipedia.org
| College | Ohio State (1978–1981) |
|---|---|
| NFL draft | 1982: 1st round, 4th overall pick |
A highly touted college football prospect with the Ohio State Buckeyes, Schlichter's professional career was cut short by a gambling addiction that resulted in him facing legal trouble for nearly four decades.
Art Schlichter - Wikipedia
I don’t actually remember where I read that it was both. I might’ve heard it discussed in one of the random college sports podcasts I listened to during my commute to work. Could well have just been someone’s assumption.
Should add here that virtually any bet other than a straight up bet for your own team (the one you are directly competing for) to win a game outright meets the threshold for direct “insider trading” by design and is illegal, not just against the rules. A player in a game has the ability to influence the outcomes which the general betting public doesn’t have. For instance, if a PG bets on a teammate to score at least 10 points, that PG has the ability to intentionally try to pass to the specific player he bet on more than he usually does. The law does not allow individuals to bet on anything where they have the ability to influence the outcome in a different way from normal.
A straight up bet for one’s own team to win is more borderline with regards to the law because the bet is directly aligned with the team goal of winning. However, even at that, the player involved, could choose to “save his energy” for the games he’s betting on in which case, once again though a bit more indirect, he has the ability to self create an insider advantage not available to the public which is against the law.
So in summary, we’re talking about actions that are a combination of illegal and a threat to the integrity of the sport. That’s the key distinction here. This isn’t like getting a DUI or an assault charge which is illegal but has nothing to do with the sport itself. And that’s why, I just can’t see this being overturned.
A straight up bet for one’s own team to win is more borderline with regards to the law because the bet is directly aligned with the team goal of winning. However, even at that, the player involved, could choose to “save his energy” for the games he’s betting on in which case, once again though a bit more indirect, he has the ability to self create an insider advantage not available to the public which is against the law.
So in summary, we’re talking about actions that are a combination of illegal and a threat to the integrity of the sport. That’s the key distinction here. This isn’t like getting a DUI or an assault charge which is illegal but has nothing to do with the sport itself. And that’s why, I just can’t see this being overturned.
Injunction granted! Sorsby is now eligible. NCAA could appeal but they wouldn't do that, would they?
I for one am shocked that the District Judge in Lubbock County, Texas ruled in Sorsby's favor.
I do not see your point. The NCAA has a rule, enforced the rule, and a friendly judge stopped them from doing so.
Also, this case has nothing to do with cheating.
What the NCAA should do:
If this kid plays, then every game Texas Tech plays should be a forfeit. Iowa and Iowa State players accept their punishment, so why can't this guy?
If this kid plays, then every game Texas Tech plays should be a forfeit. Iowa and Iowa State players accept their punishment, so why can't this guy?
I disagree. This could lead to fixing games. Are we going back to the 50s when players fixing games was par for the course?
They should appeal, this has too many unintended consequences, which Doug mentioned one, to let it rest.
Mike Florio of NBC Sports says they will likely appeal. The clock is ticking, as the deadline for Sorsby filing for the supplemental draft is June 22, exactly two weeks.
The judge did give Sorsby a slap on the wrist, ruling him ineligible for the first two games (both OOC). Sorsby could appeal this, but I doubt he will.
I also have no sympathy for the alcoholic/drug addict that killed my best friend while driving drunk when I was a kid.
Yeah, sorry. But that is where some people are at with things like this. No personal accountability for consequences of a person's poor choices that impact others.
Please tell me that you are joking when you say he should be banned from American sports. A tad extreme, don't you think?
You'd be okay with your star QB intentionally throwing games that he bet on his team to lose on? The integrity of the game is now 100% in question over this if he is allowed to play.
Last edited:
HE DIDN'T DO THAT. And yes, I am shouting.
Sorsby, to my knowledge, broke no laws. (Maybe underage gambling?) He broke an NCAA rule and was punished for it. A judge rescinded that punishment, wrongly in my opinion. Maybe the story will end there and maybe it won't.
I think you are taking this "slippery slope" argument way too far. You seem to be saying "If Sorsby gets away with it, then others maybe will do things that are worse. So let's punish Sorsby for what those other guys maybe will do in the future."
And that, in a word, is un-American.