OT: NCAA Denies Brendan Sorsby Appeal for Reinstatement: FINAL UPDATE - Sorsby throws in the towel
- Thread starter Doctor Worm
- Start date
This is all happening because of greed. And I'm not talking about the players...the NCAA is a non profit organization, they aren't the NFL or NBA so the courts have the final say.
This is all on the big 12… What Nebraska and Georgia did is simple pontification which amounts to nothing…even the Big Ten and it’s alleged idea is pointless. If the big 12 allows Texas Tech to play with this guy, then it’s all on them because if Texas Tech faced off with Georgia in the playoff, do you think Georgia would forfeit out of outrage? Duh! Of course not.
If the Texas Tech QB plays, I see a lot of targeting headed his way… Like a lot of targeting
If the Texas Tech QB plays, I see a lot of targeting headed his way… Like a lot of targeting
I doubt it. I doubt the opposing players know or care much about any of this.
Sometimes you got to wonder if someone's loyalty to the program warps their view towards what's best for college football,
Considering Campbell's central position to getting the Protect College Sports Act passed through Congress, when what's best for Texas Tech runs in contrast with what's best for college athletics, where does Campbell's loyalty lie?
https://www.footballscoop.com/2026/...es-statement-brendan-sorsby-injunction-ruling
Considering Campbell's central position to getting the Protect College Sports Act passed through Congress, when what's best for Texas Tech runs in contrast with what's best for college athletics, where does Campbell's loyalty lie?
https://www.footballscoop.com/2026/...es-statement-brendan-sorsby-injunction-ruling
Considering how much money that individual has given Texas tech in this NIL world of course his view of college football is completely warped
this is political theater and will never get passed
something needs to be done but this isn't the answer
Tom Mars' first mistake was thinking Ted Cruz knows anything. He can be very dopey.
His second mistake is giving any credence to a Harvard Law graduate. Yes, some fine attorneys have graduated from Harvard Law, but like anywhere else, they graduate a fair share of midwits that live off the credential but don't live up to it.
Depending on what the state appeal court and TX Supreme Court says, I am assuming the thought process is that they'd then try to appeal to SCOTUS but reading about this more the basis for that is not really clear.
I mean this literally applies to every CFB fan.
Do you think the B1G and Rutgers should pool media rights and revenue share with the other 10 conferences?
Revenue share with Temple to help level the playing field?
People only care about "what's best for college football" when it also is whats best for their team.
IIRC Texas is an eight corners state so the athletes can likely submit all kinds of interesting "promises"...especially to an in state student. And I don't see how you get any of that into federal court. It's basically just hoping the SCOTUS is interested in it and willing to exceed their authority.
They would appeal to SCOTUS on the grounds that mental health is not a viable defense for gambling on college sports and his own team in violation of their rules. Additionally, this activist judge added some other things in the ruling that penalized schools that played TT if certain things happen. They would also be challenging that part of the ruling.
This is insane.
How do you get these judges and appeals out of the sport?
Create rules. Enfore rules.
Just deal with it.
Is it just collective bargaining?
Its time to **** or get off the pot.
If the NCAA and conferences and teams and players want to operate (and make money) like a professipnal enterprise - then make it so and get rid of this junk.
How do you get these judges and appeals out of the sport?
Create rules. Enfore rules.
Just deal with it.
Is it just collective bargaining?
Its time to **** or get off the pot.
If the NCAA and conferences and teams and players want to operate (and make money) like a professipnal enterprise - then make it so and get rid of this junk.
Heck I think the College Playoffs should be between all 10 conference winners (P4 & G6) with an auto invite to any independent ranked in the top 15 and the highest ranked conference team that didn't win it's conference championship . If 2 independents qualify then the conference loser is bumped out , if there's not one independent then the highest ranked independent get in with the conference loser with the highest ranking
If every independent has a losing record , then the 2nd highest conference team that didn't win it's conference gets in playoffs instead
Making for a 12 team playoff that awards every conference champion a shot at the National Title
As for revenue sharing with other conferences, every conference keeps 60% and the other 40% is placed in a pool equally shared by every conference .
Last edited:
Not wore PR knew that betting on games he was involved in would result in a lifetime ban
Only the P4 matters. The G5 is basically athletics DEI. No one cares or wants to watch Tulane, Sam Freakin Houston, Texas State or Rice or the sad new “PAC” teams…many won’t say it out loud because it isn’t touchy-feely or inclusive or some other BS nonsense. Let those programs have their own playoff.
Society is collapsing. The rules do not apply to certain people. Lawyer up, make flimsy excuses for bad behavior, and get away with murder.
Yep, you can go back to 1969 with Chappaquiddick or the 1990s with OJ. Tons of examples before this one if you have the money or are in a position of power.
It is spreading beyond people with money and a position of power. There are examples, but don't want this thread to get political. It's people unable to process or handle a simple insult or getting shoved and responding with lethal violence, and then trying to justify the behavior because. . . . . .
I've always found it quite funny the irony in these "hardship" cases.
Suppose Sorbsy does have a legitimate addiction and issue with gambling.
Wouldn't the best thing for his mental health is NOT play college football? Remove himself from the environment.
Similar to the old "hardship transfer" to avoid the 1 year sit out.
If your family situation is so severe that you HAVE to transfer closer to home - wouldn't the best thing for your family is you NOT also add all the stress and time of college football to your schedule?
I think that is a double-edged sword that cuts two different ways.
1. What is the guy going to do for a living when he loves the sport and he is extremely talented? What person would walk away from that much money and opportunity?
2. On the other hand, if it destroys you personally and professionally, is all that money and fame worth it.
I know how I would answer. But other people would answer differently. My answer is not universally right. It is right for me. I made choices like this with alcohol early in my life with alcohol, and it worked out well. Other people that I am close too did not make those choices--for some, they are getting by OK, and for others, they would have been better off doing what I did. But I am me, and I am unique. Something caused me to make the decision. Not everyone has that level of self-control, or they are pushed or driven by others. And nowadays, with social media, young people are driven by the buzz, likes, clicks, fame, etc. I'm glad I'm old!!!
The one year sit out seems like it could make sense here for Sorsby. But I doubt Texas Tech would be supportive of that. Do they really care about Sorsby as a person? Of course they don't. Wealthy boosters have a bloodlust for winning it all, driven by some emptiness in their lives that should be fulfilled in other ways. And turning this to Rutgers, this is one thing I really like about Greg Schiano and his staff-they seem to care about their players and well-being. It's not all about winning all the time. But can we win just a little bit more, please and still be nice?
I think that is a double-edged sword that cuts two different ways.
1. What is the guy going to do for a living when he loves the sport and he is extremely talented? What person would walk away from that much money and opportunity?
2. On the other hand, if it destroys you personally and professionally, is all that money and fame worth it.
I know how I would answer. But other people would answer differently. My answer is not universally right. It is right for me. I made choices like this with alcohol early in my life with alcohol, and it worked out well. Other people that I am close too did not make those choices--for some, they are getting by OK, and for others, they would have been better off doing what I did. But I am me, and I am unique. Something caused me to make the decision. Not everyone has that level of self-control, or they are pushed or driven by others. And nowadays, with social media, young people are driven by the buzz, likes, clicks, fame, etc. I'm glad I'm old!!!
The one year sit out seems like it could make sense here for Sorsby. But I doubt Texas Tech would be supportive of that. Do they really care about Sorsby as a person? Of course they don't. Wealthy boosters have a bloodlust for winning it all, driven by some emptiness in their lives that should be fulfilled in other ways. And turning this to Rutgers, this is one thing I really like about Greg Schiano and his staff-they seem to care about their players and well-being. It's not all about winning all the time. But can we win just a little bit more, please and still be nice?
Either way you look at it though, this is sending a terrible message. A rule was established by the NCAA. The punishment for not following that rule was made clear upfront and a player broke that rule. Now a court has determined that an acceptable argument to get out of the consequences of breaking this rule is mental illness (in this case - gambling addiction). Doesn’t that just enable the behavior to continue and promote others engaging in the behavior? Suffering from alcoholism does not get your license unsuspended after getting hit with a DWI. Imagine if it did?
I am not sure what you are suggesting here. If I believe have been civilly wronged, or have been wrongfully charged with a crime, are you saying I have no right to "lawyer up"? Or maybe I do, but "certain people" don't? Which people, and who decides?
Yes, our judicial system sometimes produces outcomes we do not like. That's been true for 250 years and isn't changing anytime soon. But I don't think this problem is indicative of societal collapse. And I shudder to think of what the solution to the problem might be.
Not saying that at all.
Would you say that if you attacked a random person on the street, stabbed them, tried to behead them and removed one of their eyes for no good reason, you could defend yourself on some flimsy excuse such as "he called me a name I did not like."
Or you stabbed someone to death on a sideline of a sports game after the person did nothing more than push you, and you simply could have turned away to avoid further conflict?
When evidence that you murdered someone is so overwhelming, including footprints of the victims blood on your rare shoes, DNA evidence, cuts on your hands, a history of violence, you get off all because the jury felt the police doing the investigation were bad people?
Or you do something that you know is morally and ethically wrong and against the rules of the NCAA, namely bet on your own team, yet you proceed to challenge the authority of the rules you know you violated, knowing that you will be allowed to play football and ultimately will be found that you violated a rule you know you violated.
One of the examples is more than 30 years old. It set a precedent, however. It's called behaving appropriately in a civilized society, and relying on some flimsy excuse or a purported insult as a justification to break the law or rules.
it’s awful. Perhaps the worst of all of the rulings, and to be fair, this one isn’t on the NCAA. They too seem to be horrified by the decision of the court.
I don’t care that he didn’t technically bet against his team. He bet the under on some games and he’s in the locker room. He has information that the general public does not have about the state of his own team. Full stop. Insider trading laws don’t apply to gambling in the way they do with the stock market, because it would be impossible to oversee that. But that’s the whole damn reason it’s left to leagues and governing organizations to set rules with consequences.
If he wants to bet on hockey or even the NBA I have no problem with that. Go for it. I have a hard time accepting that his addiction caused him to place bets specifically on his own team and he was incapable of limiting his bets to every other team besides his own.
To your first two hypotheticals: No, I don't think those defenses would be persuasive to anybody, nor should they be. But if those defenses were the best I had, and I wasn't offered a plea, then damn right that's what I'm going with. Because if we as a society ever get to the point where we say, "Your guilt is so heinous and so obvious that you are not entitled to a defense", well that's not a society in which I would care to live.
To your OJ example... it's complicated. Yeah, it's pretty clear that he did it. But the rules are that a jury gets to decide on the basis of the evidence presented to them. Clearly, the defense dream team overpowered the county prosecution. They pounded the racism aspect, which was magnified by the Fuhrmann debacle. Ultimately, the jury made a good faith decision that reasonable doubt did exist. Or maybe they said f'it, he's getting off because we feel like it. At any rate, I know of no better alternative to this system. Should we say every accused gets only a public defender, no more no less? That would be equal I guess, but would it be fair?
On to Sorsby. He wasn't trying to get away with anything. He acknowledged his guilt, but felt that the punishment was excessive. (I disagree, but it ain't about me.) A judge made his ruling. The process continues. LOL at those on this board who instinctively "knew" that judge was either a deep pocketed booster or was on the take.
Our judicial system is imperfect, but until somebody comes up with a better one, it will have to do.
Add this ( which was posted in another thread on boycotting playing TT
Nick makes a valid point as well as you reminding us thew American Justice system might not be perfect.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
NickRU714 said:
Do you remember all the "Rutgers shouldn't join the Big Ten and be associated with Penn State" threads and outcry?
The Big 12 considering a scheduling ban for PSU?
Big Ten having discussions on kicking PSU out of the conference?
Me neither.
I guess everyone found their integrity badges this week.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
I think we must just plod on the best we can do and try to be consistent when we feel something is wrong
I’m still not understanding why this case even made it to court. It’s not a NIL judgement entangled in all the Anti-trust nonsense - correct? The NCAA has a clear written policy on gambling activities that players are not permitted to engage in with a clearly stated consequence for non-compliance. At least they thought they did until the courts shot it down. To my knowledge, individuals can’t take an entity to court simply because they think a rule is too harsh. Private organizations have the autonomy to establish their own ethical standards - at least I thought they did. Even in a more vanilla employment law case - if my company had a policy forbidding online gambling from a work computer subject to termination and I engaged in this activity after hours and got caught and fired for it - I wouldn’t have legal grounds to sue them by claiming gambling addiction (and even if I had a gambling problem it wouldn’t matter - they still can fire me). How is this different? Why does the NCAA have to allow him to participate in their football league?
Not sure if you are aware, but sentencing for that exact scenario happened earlier this week...in Texas.
Murder of Austin Metcalf - Wikipedia
Yes, and the outrage by the usual hustlers is gallingNot sure if you are aware, but sentencing for that exact scenario happened earlier this week...in Texas.
Murder of Austin Metcalf - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
All of this self back patting by Texas Tech reminds me of We Care a Lot- chorus- it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it:
Last edited:
Oh the sweet irony of that ESPN article. This is what appears on the screen while reading the article:
"GAMBLING PROBLEM? CALL 1-800-GAMBLER or 1-800-MY-RESET, (800) 327-5050 or visit gamblinghelplinema.org (MA). Call 877-8-HOPENY/text HOPENY (467369) (NY). Call 888-789-7777/visit ccpg.org (CT), or visit www.mdgamblinghelp.org (MD), 1-800-981-0023 (PR). 21+ and present in most states. (18+ DC/KY/NH/PR/WY). Void in ONT. Eligibility restrictions apply. Terms: draftkings.com/sportsbook. On behalf of Boot Hill Casino (KS). Pass-thru of per wager tax may apply in IL.
Copyright: © 2026 ESPN Enterprises, LLC. All rights reserved."
"GAMBLING PROBLEM? CALL 1-800-GAMBLER or 1-800-MY-RESET, (800) 327-5050 or visit gamblinghelplinema.org (MA). Call 877-8-HOPENY/text HOPENY (467369) (NY). Call 888-789-7777/visit ccpg.org (CT), or visit www.mdgamblinghelp.org (MD), 1-800-981-0023 (PR). 21+ and present in most states. (18+ DC/KY/NH/PR/WY). Void in ONT. Eligibility restrictions apply. Terms: draftkings.com/sportsbook. On behalf of Boot Hill Casino (KS). Pass-thru of per wager tax may apply in IL.
Copyright: © 2026 ESPN Enterprises, LLC. All rights reserved."
This just gets worse and worse. I doubt any legitimate recovery program out there for ANY addiction supports the premise of dismissing any meaningful consequence for inappropriate behaviors related to the addiction. Consequences, in a sense, are broadly viewed as the best “medicine” because you can’t force someone to choose to seek recovery. They do it on their own when they’ve suffered enough. When their lives become “unmanageable”. - that’s basically the bible principle of the whole damn AA program.