In my eyes this does away with just about any rule that can be levied against a player or team.If the non gambling rule is seen as too restrictive on the player then that just about seals the death of college sports in my eyes.It goes straight to the matter of seeing that games and individual results are on the up and up.Once the public loses confidence that the results are legitimate, then game over.
Soresby Ruling
- Thread starter CreekSnake
- Start date
While I agree, I don't think the ADs or conferences have the balls to stand up to this.
College sports, football in particular, have become a joke.
No, I don’t think so. They would lose revenue by not playing in the games and that’s not happening. I will say, however, the response from across the world of college football has been unanimously, shocked, and appalled at this ruling. I don’t know when I have last seen this level of unanimity in the sport.
One athletic Director said he now feels compelled by the precedent of this ruling to bring in a advisor from Las Vegas to teach his players how to bet on the sport to help them figure out which games they should cover the spread and not cover the spread so they can win the most amount of money.
The argument was actually that gambling addiction is a health issue, a mental health issue.
Regardless. A horrible precedent has been set which opens the door for torrents of abuse.
Ironically, it was 23 years and 1 week ago today that Rick Neuheisel was fired from Washington for betting in an NCAA tournament bracket pool. A sport he wasn't even involved in.
The AD was probably being a bit sarcastic but makes a good point. If gambling is now legal and a way for athletes to increase earning potential, you have an obligation from a competitive advantage angle to maximize your own student athletes' earning potential from gambling.
Not that I expect this to happen, but it would go a long way if TTU's head coach to Sorsby that he won't be QB1 regardless and that he needs to transfer
He's trying to make a point to a legal system ignoring laws and that's anything but blind. Judges have become laser focused on agenda rulings.
So is DUI but they still take away their drivers license
The NCAA's appeal will be heard by the Seventh Court of Appeals comprised of 4 judges who all graduated from...you guessed it...Texas Tech.
I don't see how it's even possible to have all these judges involved in cases involving their former schools. In my regulatory job, I'm permanently barred from working on any issue involving a former employer. For life. Doesn't matter if I worked for a company for 3 months 30 years ago. I can never be involved in a regulatory decision for that company.
I don't see how it's even possible to have all these judges involved in cases involving their former schools. In my regulatory job, I'm permanently barred from working on any issue involving a former employer. For life. Doesn't matter if I worked for a company for 3 months 30 years ago. I can never be involved in a regulatory decision for that company.
I only briefly read part of one article. Was the ruling really that it would "cause harm" to not let him play? So he gets an injunction that allows him to play this year while the NCAA and his lawyer argue?
If so, unbelievable. I really hope something happens to correct this, or what's the point of having any rules?
If so, unbelievable. I really hope something happens to correct this, or what's the point of having any rules?
Yes, it would cause him irreparable harm to miss out on the coaching, camaraderie and preparation for the NFL.
Can't verify the information, but one article said he is the first athlete ever who was shown to have bet on his own team who was allowed to keep playing. In professional sports, this gets you a lifetime ban. Irreparable harm or not.
Okay, that is BS. HIS actions caused him irreparable harm, not the NCAA's. This should be cut and dry, but the injunction means he plays while we argue. Which i think is ridiculous.
I now hope other schools really do start to refuse to play TT.
Yes. Judges have taken it on themselves to shield college athletes from repercussions of their own actions.
You gotta wonder what kind of $$ is flowing behind all of this. TTU has some very wealthy boosters.
Was the judge an alumni? It could even be as simple as that too.
Last edited:
So we have a new card to add to the deck of excuses/justifications (gambling addiction card).
Pete Rose shudda played the G-card.
I did not say I agreed with it, did I? And if a DUI came before THIS judge who knows?
I don't think so. Ironically, the judge originally assigned to the case recused himself b/c he was a TTU graduate.
Yes. It seems an apparent and massive conflict of interest, but I guess not,
I would think they would all recuse themselves and the Chief Justice would then assign a special panel to hear the appeal. Usually, Judges do try to avoid the appearance of impropriety, even if in their heart/mind they know none exists. Per the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct:
Canon 2: Avoiding Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All of the Judge’s Activities
A. A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
B. A judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
C. A judge shall not knowingly hold membership in any organization that practices discrimination prohibited by law
Canon 2: Avoiding Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All of the Judge’s Activities
A. A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
B. A judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
C. A judge shall not knowingly hold membership in any organization that practices discrimination prohibited by law
You would think. Judges in these NCAA cases, thus far, have not done so. Except for the judge originally assigned the Sorsby case.
Judicial standards in general left the courtroom long ago. The judicial system now operates much like the rest of society when it comes to overlooking standards, morals and character and is no longer an institution to be looked up to.
Not gambling on your own team is the most sacrosanct rule in all of sports because it mortally threatens the integrity of the game. This judge saying that Sorsby should not have to deal with the direct consequences of his own actions, sends the message that there is zero accountability...for anything. If you're going to allow a player who bet on his own team to play the game, there's essentially no disqualifying infraction.
YAWN.
UGA and Nebraska are in 2 seperate conferences. So no chance they would end up scheduling TT.
And now with mandatory 9 conference game mandate, this is nothing more than performance posturing.
The rules that apply to folks like you and me with our employers do not apply to business elites, politicians of all stripes, laywers and judges.
Every employee at our company was recently required to complete our annual ethics disclosure forms. These require our signature. They govern how we are not to accept any gifts or participate in any business or serve on any board that contracts with or competes with our company. Our legal department makes a big deal out of it. Me and a number of my coworkers laughed at these forms. They are meaningless. If judges, attorneys, politicians, and CEOs can play these games, we can too.
I'll just say we all signed the form- but we didn't exactly disclose what we do. LOL. Some of us aren't going to play the two tiered games anymore. We do what we want. It's none of our employer's damn business.
When you hear those folks talk about "ethics" they are worth laughing at because they have none.
No one gives a damn anymore. No reason to try to uphold these rules. They are as antiquated as a teenager wanting to take his girlfriend out in his Ford Pinto to impress his friends.