NFL / College Football News and Live Watching

Court Grants Injunction Allowing Texas Tech QB Brendan Sorsby to Play Despite Massive Betting Scandal

A Texas judge temporarily blocked the NCAA's lifetime ban, ruling that a permanent suspension would cause irreparable career damage while Sorsby undergoes treatment for a diagnosed gambling addiction.

 
a-mart said:
Court Grants Injunction Allowing Texas Tech QB Brendan Sorsby to Play Despite Massive Betting Scandal

A Texas judge temporarily blocked the NCAA's lifetime ban, ruling that a permanent suspension would cause irreparable career damage while Sorsby undergoes treatment for a diagnosed gambling addiction.

Click to expand...

This one is beyond explanation.

the judge should be disbarred/unseated over this.
 

A judge's decision to rule Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby eligible on Monday morning roiled college sports, with reactions ranging from doomsday predictions to informal chatter about Big 12 schools attempting to not play the Red Raiders this season.

The reaction around college sports was nearly unanimous, with the idea of Sorsby playing in 2026 after admitting to thousands of bets on sports -- including 40 on his own team -- representing the latest crossroads for an industry that has faced a dizzying number of them in recent years.
Click to expand...
 
Tito Orcheese said:
Click to expand...

I don't buy into the doomsday argument.... I think the damage here will be similar to the damage (or lack thereof) the NFL took during all the BLM/Kaepernick take a knee stuff.

Lots of people will talk, and I'm sure some will be 'outraged' enough to adjust their habits... lots of others though will feign outrage but not adjust their behavior at all. I highly doubt it's not going to translate into meaningful damage to the bottom line.

Many gamblers are going to continue to gamble based on a combo of boredom, addiction, compulsion and greed.

Fans will continue to attend games. You might see some kind of impact on Texas Tech ticket sales, but I could see that going either way. Might be 'boycotts', but there also might be angry students who will pay even more for the opportunity to get into the game and hold their stupid protest sign up.

TV ratings shouldn't be negatively impacted by this across the board. Fans are conditioned to watch their favorite team every Saturday and lots of gatherings/parties are set up around those traditions.


I think the judges ruling is ridiculous. I've already heavily scaled back on my gambling on sports in general (mostly because the books don't offer enticing promos in Illinois anymore, it's much harder to consistently make money), but I realize I'm an outlier in that. I'll continue to watch college football though, especially the marquee matchups. I'm sure most others will as well.



Also, if I'm wrong and the ratings do tank/there is damage, I'm sure Congress will step in at that point and force the issue (even if all of this didn't happen, Congress was likely to get involved)
 
Brick said:
I don't really see this as that big of a deal. In the NFL, the Jets, Giants and Commanders already don't play in their home city/states.
Click to expand...
49ers too
 
Brick said:
I don't really see this as that big of a deal. In the NFL, the Jets, Giants and Commanders already don't play in their home city/states.
Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings on it.

I'm glad that the state of Illinois didn't match Hammond's latest offer.

I'm disappointed/'outraged' that JB, Lightfoot and Johnson let it get to the point where Hammond could swoop in and make the sweetheart offer that they did. It never should have got to that point and it was a complete dereliction of duty on the part of state and Cook County officials for years.


The way I see it... Hammond's offer somewhat makes sense for them as there's a lot of undeveloped/underdeveloped land out that way. The addition of an NFL stadium opens the door for all kinds of new infrastructure and revenue opportunities for northwest Indiana.

Chicago (or Arlington Heights) matching Hammonds offer made no sense. Downtown Chicago is already heavily developed and Arlington Heights is also very developed (and surrounded by relatively expensive residential homes, which poses a problem if you're trying to further develop that area). There's just not really the upside to offering the Bears huge tax breaks to build a stadium in an already heavily developed area.


End of the day, if they end up moving to Hammond it is what it is. Arlington Heights would have been awesome for me, as I live 15 minutes away (sure it would have driven up home prices in my area even more)... but it wasn't in the cards.


Oh, and that isn't stopping a lot of people out this way from completely overreacting. That's normal though, everyone out here is bored and looking for new windmills to tilt at.
 
osubuckeye4 said:
I don't buy into the doomsday argument.... I think the damage here will be similar to the damage (or lack thereof) the NFL took during all the BLM/Kaepernick take a knee stuff.

Lots of people will talk, and I'm sure some will be 'outraged' enough to adjust their habits... lots of others though will feign outrage but not adjust their behavior at all. I highly doubt it's not going to translate into meaningful damage to the bottom line.

Many gamblers are going to continue to gamble based on a combo of boredom, addiction, compulsion and greed.

Fans will continue to attend games. You might see some kind of impact on Texas Tech ticket sales, but I could see that going either way. Might be 'boycotts', but there also might be angry students who will pay even more for the opportunity to get into the game and hold their stupid protest sign up.

TV ratings shouldn't be negatively impacted by this across the board. Fans are conditioned to watch their favorite team every Saturday and lots of gatherings/parties are set up around those traditions.


I think the judges ruling is ridiculous. I've already heavily scaled back on my gambling on sports in general (mostly because the books don't offer enticing promos in Illinois anymore, it's much harder to consistently make money), but I realize I'm an outlier in that. I'll continue to watch college football though, especially the marquee matchups. I'm sure most others will as well.



Also, if I'm wrong and the ratings do tank/there is damage, I'm sure Congress will step in at that point and force the issue (even if all of this didn't happen, Congress was likely to get involved)
Click to expand...
Keep in mind he doesn't say he's clear to play no matter what it's just temporary injunction

But it can't still be considered outrageous!
 
a-mart said:
Keep in mind he doesn't say he's clear to play no matter what it's just temporary injunction

But it can't still be considered outrageous!
Click to expand...

He is cleared to play (after serving the 2 game suspension his legal team offered up) until the case is resolved.

The case will not even be scheduled to be heard until after the national championship game has been played. The legal system moves at a snails pace here in the Land of the Free.

Prior to the case going to trial, and after the end of Texas Tech's football season, Sorsby and his legal team will drop the case (because there's zero chance of them winning)


That is the reason why Congress needs to get involved. This is a loophole that is going to keep getting exploited because unlike the normal legal system where a case will actually play out and precedent will be set (closing the loop)... with these jokers, they just drop the case before it's ever heard (and why wouldn't they, it costs money to go to trial) and future players will keep pulling the same stunt. It'll be impossible for the NCAA to enforce just about any rule against a player that can afford adequate legal representation (who will follow this blueprint, which is similar to the one that Diego Pavias legal team used last year)
 
osubuckeye4 said:
He is cleared to play (after serving the 2 game suspension his legal team offered up) until the case is resolved.

The case will not even be scheduled to be heard until after the national championship game has been played. The legal system moves at a snails pace here in the Land of the Free.

Prior to the case going to trial, and after the end of Texas Tech's football season, Sorsby and his legal team will drop the case (because there's zero chance of them winning)


That is the reason why Congress needs to get involved. This is a loophole that is going to keep getting exploited because unlike the normal legal system where a case will actually play out and precedent will be set (closing the loop)... with these jokers, they just drop the case before it's ever heard (and why wouldn't they, it costs money to go to trial) and future players will keep pulling the same stunt. It'll be impossible for the NCAA to enforce just about any rule against a player that can afford adequate legal representation (who will follow this blueprint, which is similar to the one that Diego Pavias legal team used last year)
Click to expand...



Right on que:


Big 12 to talk options as Sorsby trial gets February date​


A Texas court scheduled Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby's trial against the NCAA for Feb. 8, 2027, two weeks after the College Football Playoff National Championship is scheduled to be played at Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas.

The 99th District Court in Lubbock County, Texas, where Texas Tech is located, scheduled the trial Monday, the same day a judge granted Sorsby a temporary injunction that might clear him to play for the Red Raiders in 2026 even after the NCAA declared him ineligible for wagering on college sports.

The NCAA has already appealed Judge Ken Curry's ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas in Amarillo.

Each of the four justices in the Seventh District -- Chief Justice Judy Parker and Lawrence Doss, Alex Yarbrough and Laura Pratt -- are graduates of the Texas Tech School of Law, according to their online bios.

Curry's ruling was met with outrage by coaches, athletic directors and conference commissioners after Sorsby admitted to making thousands of bets on college and professional sports during his career at Indiana, Cincinnati and Texas Tech.

Big 12 athletic directors are scheduled to have a conference call Tuesday with commissioner Brett Yormark. While TCU athletic director Mike Buddie and Kansas State AD Gene Taylor have suggested that the league's other teams might elect not to play the Red Raiders this season, the league was still determining what action it could take in light of Curry's ruling.

No immediate action is expected from the Big 12, sources told ESPN's Pete Thamel. The Big 12 has a process to address the ruling, and the executive board will meet Thursday to discuss options. That call will likely be followed by a full Big 12 board call early next week.

"The ramifications of today's ruling are significant and could have broad impacts across college athletics, creating great concern amongst our membership," Yormark told ESPN on Monday. "I've been consulting with our key stakeholders and have scheduled meetings with our conference ADs and executive board this week."

Prominent college sports attorney Thomas Mars, who helped Ole Miss quarterback Trinidad Chambliss obtain a preliminary injunction to play for the Rebels this season after the NCAA denied his application for a retroactive medical redshirt for the 2022 season at Division II Ferris State, said he believes the Big 12 can take action against Texas Tech for using a player who was ruled ineligible by the NCAA.

The NCAA ruled Sorsby ineligible after it discovered he wagered approximately $90,000 on professional and college sports over four years, including 40 bets involving Indiana football when he was a freshman with the Hoosiers in 2022. The NCAA denied Texas Tech's appeal for reinstatement Friday.

"There is no question that the Big 12 could impose draconian sanctions on Texas Tech, and the type of sanctions would only be limited by their creativity," Mars told ESPN on Tuesday. "The Big 12 is not party to the Texas lawsuit and is, therefore, not enjoined from doing anything."

Big 12 Bylaw 3.6 allows for the conference to sanction a member with a supermajority vote of disinterested directors after "representatives of the Member(s) that are subject of such vote has been given reasonable prior notice and the reasonable opportunity to be present and to be heard."

Among other reasons, the bylaw allows for the Big 12 to discipline a member for being "engaged in any action or a course of conduct materially adverse to the best interests of the Conference taken as a whole."

The bylaws allow for the disinterested directors to "be empowered to determine whether any Sanctions are appropriate, the type, extent, and conditions to any Sanctions imposed." The bylaw allows for discipline that includes "prohibitions on appearance in postseason events or televised events, restrictions on revenue distributions, and limitations on recruiting or scholarships."


If the Big 12 elects to discipline Texas Tech, it wouldn't be the first time a college sports conference doled out punishment to one of its members. In November 2023, the Big Ten suspended Michigan football coach Jim Harbaugh for the remainder of the regular season under its sportsmanship policy amid the NCAA's investigation into the Wolverines' in-person sign-stealing ring.

Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti had sole discretion to discipline Harbaugh and Michigan under that league's bylaws.

Attorneys representing Michigan and Harbaugh filed a breach of contract complaint in state court and sought an emergency temporary restraining order against the Big Ten, which would have allowed Harbaugh to continue coaching.

Michigan and Harbaugh later dropped the complaint.

In October 2018, the Big 12 fined Baylor University $2 million for "reputational damage to the conference and its members" stemming from a sexual assault investigation that engulfed the school's football program.

After an independent report found that the university failed to follow Title IX legislation and adequately investigate allegations of sexual assault against members of the football team, Baylor fired coach Art Briles. President Kenneth Starr was demoted and later resigned, while athletic director Ian McCaw was suspended and resigned.
 

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. -- Denver Broncos linebacker Jonathon Cooper was arrested Thursday night on multiple charges that he violated a protection order that was filed against him earlier in the week.

It is the second time this month that Cooper has been arrested. In addition to multiple charges from his first arrest, including a felony charge, he is facing new charges: one for harassment from repeated phone calls and one for the violation of a protection order, according to records.

The protection order had been placed for Cooper's girlfriend after two additional charges, including a felony charge of second-degree assault by strangulation, were added from his June 4 arrest in Parker, Colorado, according to court records.

According to the arrest affidavit, Cooper allegedly sent 20 messages and made two unanswered phone calls to his girlfriend Thursday before going to her apartment and knocking on her door before leaving when she called 911. When police went to Cooper's home, officers said he told them that he had not been served with a protection order.
Click to expand...

I'll never understand how people can't just move on. Instead of finding someone else, they'd rather just bring all kinds of legal trouble on themselves. Weird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top