Since its state court, will they expedite an appeal and rule on it prior to that date?
OT: NCAA Denies Brendan Sorsby Appeal for Reinstatement: FINAL UPDATE - Sorsby throws in the towel
- Thread starter Doctor Worm
- Start date
It’s horrible. I don’t see how anyone can conclude he didn’t have the ability to influence those outcomes or access to information the public didn’t have. Your in the locker room on the scout team. You know whose playing well. Whose feeling under the weather. They know he bet the under some games right? Heck if he’s feeling under the weather he could deliberately breathe on the starting QB or RB. I’m coming up with random possibilities but there are infinite ways he could’ve influenced those outcomes in some way or had an unfair advantage. If this is allowed but for a small slap on the wrist - huge problem.
Is that really true? A member of the scout team is legally allowed to bet on the team they are a member of. Does the law allow for MLB bench reserves to bet on their own team?
If you think it’s no big deal and he didn’t have an unfair advantage or have (and perhaps even use) a means of giving himself what he believed to be an unfair edge - then you have to wonder why the bets were made on his own damn team? There are an infinite number of other teams across a multitude of different sports he could’ve bet on instead. No?
Last edited:
Where did I say it was no big deal? I said he deserved the punishment that the NCAA gave him. BUT, he does not deserve to be punished for what he didn't do - just because maybe he might have done it, or maybe someone else might do it in the future.
I very much doubt that betting on one's own team, absent any criminal collision, violates any laws. If it did, Pete Rose would have been prosecuted for it.
Solid analysis here from a Texas lawyer.
And guess what? The Court of Appeals where this will be heard--Every single Judge graduated from Texas Tech!!!!
And guess what? The Court of Appeals where this will be heard--Every single Judge graduated from Texas Tech!!!!
It would depend on the State, but I don't see why it would be illegal. In fact, in many states, I don't believe it would be illegal to bet on your team in a game that you were actually playing in (from a criminal standpoint), but the laws are still in flux.
Solid analysis here from a Texas lawyer.
And guess what? The Court of Appeals where this will be heard--Every single Judge graduated from Texas Tech!!!!
So for practical purposes, it's over, and we need discuss it no further.
While it is apparently moot, the original judge on the case did have ties to Texas Tech, and did recuse himself. The judge who issued the ruling was brought in from Tarrant County (Fort Worth). So it looks like they did try to be impartial.
These types of shenanigans occur in all kinds of cases. As you noted, the judge issuing the ruling did not have a Texas Tech background. The reality is is a TRO has a high bar. And by the time the case "passes the bar", i.e., is heard by the Court of Appeals, the season will be over. Even if the Court of Appeals reverses the decision, it will be water under the bridge. Except maybe if Texas Tech wins with Sorsby, the wins will be vacated.
Looks like similar responses being made on X that were made here. David Hale is an ACC-based reporter:
Well the offense itself would be federal - the illegal gambling version of insider trading?
I don’t understand how the same percedents wouldn’t apply. With insider trading - the courts have consistently ruled that the anyone who has means to access insider information is breaking the law by betting on their own company even if the court can’t directly prove they actually use that information for their decision.
If your on a team and you are aware that the starting QB has the flu and this information hasn’t been made public and you bet your team to lose - that’s exactly the same thing as insider trading - is it not? The bar shouldn’t have to be to prove that this is why you placed the bet you did. That would be ridiculous. If you are a QB playing in a game it is 100% criminal fraud if you don’t try your hardest and throw the game you bet to lose. Even if you bet your team to win, there could be fraud involved. If a starting player on a basketball team likes the odds for his team to win on Sunday and places a bet early in a week, maybe he doesn’t go as hard and avoids contact to make sure he’s at his best for the game he bet on. Not sure how you can prove that for sure, but there’s a clear conflict of interest there and other people are betting on those earlier games.
While it might make sense to think of it like insider trading, there isn't a law on the books (as far as I understand) that makes betting on your own team a crime. It would be tough to prosecute a crime saying "well, this is sort of like this other law on the books", rather than having an actual law that was broken.
However, you might have broken other laws to place the wager (ie, if you conspired with others to get the $ down since no book would take action from you if they knew you were playing in the game, gave a fake identity, etc), but the wager itself isn't illegal...hence why Pete Rose was banned from baseball, but not criminally prosecuted.
Now this could make things really interesting!
Big 12 ADs reportedly discuss boycotting Texas Tech game after Brendan Sorsby decision
Big 12 ADs reportedly discuss boycotting Texas Tech game after Brendan Sorsby decision
The chances of a school turning down millions of dollars to make a stance based on principal are pretty much zero...but it'll get clicks.
I'd bet that there's a deal worked out between Sorsbys lawyers and agent where TT lets him keep his NIL money and the NCAA compensates him for his troubles, including legal fees just before the NFL supplemental draft on June 22nd.
The NCAA intends to appeal the injunction to allow Sorsby to play in 2026 with just a 2 game suspension and bith sides can't be sure of winning their argument and Sorsby needs to worry that even if the NCAA loses their appeal, the decision might add more games he has to sit out as punishment and by the time he's eligible to play, his replacement might be playing too good to replace..
Of course my theory depends on if the NFL wants to touch him ir what type of demands they'd make for him to play in the NFL
I think they would take a stand based on principal, and on interest too! But not on principle.
Off to the Principle's Office you go!I think they would take a stand based on principal, and on interest too! But not on principle.
The NCAA should force Texas Tech to forfeit every game in which an ineligible player, by their standards as a private organization, participates in during the 2026 season. Also, go hard after Texas Tech for tampering with the threat of the death penalty. Make up something. For those who gloss over this situation, go back and look at college basketball during the 50s. Corruption almost ruined the game. All it takes is a criminal mind to know you have a gambling problem and take advantage of a college kid with an opportunity to earn big bucks. People addicted to gambling have a hard time saying NO.
C'mon Spanky, you're smart enough to know this is nothing but posturing.
If they did that it would open the conference up to major litigation from many parties including it's TV partners, advertisers, game day vendors, etc..
Unfortunately they will just run back to the courts since there is no anti-trust exemption to protect the NCAA.
what are the odds of this: You can take an option on Kalshi if Sorsby will be playing pro next year. Right now it’s a 1% chance.
I think the NCAA has only one play here.
They can announce that they will appeal the judge's temporary injunction (emphasis on TEMPORARY). They will also announce their intention to litigate the matter to a final resolution, regardless of how long it takes. And they will advise Texas Tech that the ban on Sorsby's participation remains in place. They will of course honor the temporary injunction. However, if the NCAA should ultimately prevail, they will consider Texas Tech to have been in willful violation of an NCAA edict. And that they will be punished accordingly.
In other words, the message to Texas Tech would be "We can't stop you from playing Sorsby. But you'd better pray that we lose this case. Because if we don't, we're sure as f--k gonna make you wish you didn't play him."
They can announce that they will appeal the judge's temporary injunction (emphasis on TEMPORARY). They will also announce their intention to litigate the matter to a final resolution, regardless of how long it takes. And they will advise Texas Tech that the ban on Sorsby's participation remains in place. They will of course honor the temporary injunction. However, if the NCAA should ultimately prevail, they will consider Texas Tech to have been in willful violation of an NCAA edict. And that they will be punished accordingly.
In other words, the message to Texas Tech would be "We can't stop you from playing Sorsby. But you'd better pray that we lose this case. Because if we don't, we're sure as f--k gonna make you wish you didn't play him."
This would’ve been funnier if the most hated team in Michigan was Ohio State setting those two apart… Still this is very funny
you don’t know Texas very well. In SA, AUS and Houston it is mostly Texas and A&M types but in Fort Worth and the DFW area is the biggest concentration of Texas Tech fans outside Lubbock.
Color me surprised. Whoever had this result in the prediction markets cleaned up. Sorsby probably did.
In hindsight, it makes me think about how crazy it is that a judge is often an elected position. I'm sure this decision will play well with his electorate when he's up again, regardless if it's a proper ruling.
Last edited:
Well you realize that the judge was just fulfilling a religious obligation since football is a second religion in Texas.
How many times have we seen that if you properly lawyer up, you can literally get away with murder in the USA.
Ultimately any appellate court could prevent him from playing but it's more about which courts get the case and when. The NCAA is going to want this moved to federal court as soon as possible but it is definitely possible the TX state courts could hold onto it.
In TX I believe all the judges are elected so I'd imagine he's going to run into UT alums on the appeals and TX Supreme.