forums

Brenden Sorsby- The Gambling Addiction

Calinative said:
At absolute minimum, the CFP committee should take this into their own hands and leave Texas Tech unranked the entirety of the season.
Click to expand...
Nice idea but would also fail in court. Collusion.

And before all the lawyers here reply I’m only thinking Texas Tech, and maybe the Big 12, would file suit that the CFP is colluding against Texas Tech when all they did was use a player they were allowed to by law.

Feel free to tell me where I am wrong.
 
Last edited:
GirthQuake said:
Between this and Trinidad’s extra year. What’re we doing. Can judges just over rule anything the ncaa has in place?
Click to expand...
Yes they can. And when you have judges that are from that state, probably went to, or have many family and friends who attended such school....

Id say youre more inclined to **** off a small powerless entity in the ncaa than ****ing off your state, fans, friends, family, alumini etc. Especially i believe judges need votes from their ppl to keep their position.
 
I like what Texas Tech is doing. Pirate behavior. They are forcing Congress’s hand.

The current set up of the sport is illegal. Everybody knows it and it’s the reason the NCAA always loses in Court.

Everybody also knows the status quo is unsustainable. We need rules. The fight is over who makes the rules.

The fairest thing for the players would be collective bargaining like every other sport. But nobody with power is looking after the players.

So you have two sides battling. The Big 10 and the SEC are on one side and Cody Campbell is on the other side. The current bill before Congress is favorable to Campbell’s side, because it greases the wheels for the bundling of media rights. The Big 10 and the SEC don’t want that because they make more money negotiating media rights on their own. Teams like Texas Tech want the bundle and argue that other less popular leagues (like the NBA) make more than college football because they sell media rights in a bundle.

We aren’t in the Big 10 or the SEC. I don’t want Miami to be left behind while they are taking in tens of millions more in media revenue per year. So I side with Cody Campbell.
 
DMoney said:
I like what Texas Tech is doing. Pirate behavior. They are forcing Congress’s hand.

The current set up of the sport is illegal. Everybody knows it and it’s the reason the NCAA always loses in Court.

Everybody also knows the status quo is unsustainable. We need rules. The fight is over who makes the rules.

The fairest thing for the players would be collective bargaining like every other sport. But nobody with power is looking after the players.

So you have two sides battling. The Big 10 and the SEC are on one side and Cody Campbell is on the other side. The current bill before Congress is favorable to Campbell’s side, because it greases the wheels for the bundling of media rights. The Big 10 and the SEC don’t want that because they make more money negotiating media rights on their own. Teams like Texas Tech want the bundle and argue that other less popular leagues (like the NBA) make more than college football because they sell media rights instead a bundle.

We aren’t in the Big 10 or the SEC. I don’t want Miami to be left behind while they are taking in tens of millions more in media revenue per year. So I side with Cody Campbell.
Click to expand...


This is one of those rare occasions when I'm going to call you out for those first two pargraphs.

Complete bullcrap.

Whether a player can bet on his sport or his own team has nothing to do with "the current set up of the sport is illegal". I could agree with you on NIL issues. I can't possibly agree with you on gambling on the sport itself (by participants).

And this is NOT "forcing Congress's hand". Until now, there has NEVER been an issue or a question or a clause in any ridiculous Congressional bill that dealt with the regulation of gambling on ones's own sport/team.

You can still choose to be bothered by the procedural rules around payment of players, NIL, and the transfer portal. I agree with you on collective bargaining being the only viable solution to THOSE issues.

But acting like the support for a player who gambled on his own sport and his own team is somehow "fighting the good fight" is just a bridge too far.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
This is one of those rare occasions when I'm going to call you out for those first two pargraphs.

Complete bullcrap.

Whether a player can bet on his sport or his own team has nothing to do with "the current set up of the sport is illegal". I could agree with you on NIL issues. I can't possibly agree with you on gambling on the sport itself (by participants).

And this is NOT "forcing Congress's hand". Until now, there has NEVER been an issue or a question or a clause in any ridiculous Congressional bill that dealt with the regulation of gambling on ones's own sport/team.

You can still choose to be bothered by the procedural rules around payment of players, NIL, and the transfer portal. I agree with you on collective bargaining being the only viable solution to THOSE issues.

But acting like the support for a player who gambled on his own sport and his own team is somehow "fighting the good fight" is just a bridge too far.
Click to expand...
Of course Sorsby was wrong. If there were any rules, he wouldn’t be playing.

And if there were any rules, Mensah wouldn’t be our quarterback.

A set up with actual rules mean no gambling on college football (obviously) and binding pay-for-play contracts.

But since there are no rules, we both have quarterbacks.
 
TemplarCane said:
Why? I’m not an attorney, and you are. Millions of dollars involved here.
Click to expand...


So? The CFP is not the NCAA. As such, they are not bound by this ruling, and can choose to do whatever they think is right to do.

If they believe that allowing a team to compete using a player whose eligibility is in serious doubt is wrong (which it is), they can take whatever action they wish to take.

"Millions of dollars involved" is not a defense. That's not a criticism, it's just a reality.

No matter what some dip**** retired judge in Texas says, the NCAA is likely to prevail on the merits (as to ruling Sorsby ineligible). As such, if the CFP does not want to take a chance on allowing Texas Tech to compete, and then hand back its fraudulently-earned title, it has an easy remedy of not ranking Texas Tech. If they can exclude F$U from the CFP playoff because Jurdan Travis got hurt, I'm not sure why they can't use the same approach for Texas Tech.

I simply ask anyone on this board to name ONE SINGLE CASE where the NCAA's suspension and/or banning of a player for betting on his sport and/or his own team was overturned ON THE MERITS during a full trial.

I'll wait.
 
Perfect opportunity to use those Bethune cookman-esque matchups as a giant program-wide payday

Bet bigly on the under since betting on games you have a hand in is apparently acceptable.

Prop bet that DB Chuckle**** will have 2 interceptions…I have no idea how the guy got the ball thrown right at him 3 times when he wasn’t covering a single soul, but eh that’s just football baby!
 
DMoney said:
Of course gambling on your own team is wrong. If there were any rules, he wouldn’t be playing.

And if there were any rules, Mensah wouldn’t be our quarterback.

A set up with actual rules mean no gambling on college football (obviously) and binding contracts.

But since there are no rules, we both have quarterbacks.
Click to expand...


You can't just say "if there were any rules". There absolutely are rules.

But there is a difference between rules such as limitations on earning power and transferability, and OTHER rules.

Yes, the NCAA rules on NIL and the Portal have been found to be violative under Antritrust analysis, as they are not narrowly-tailored enough to prevent the perceived problem in the least harmful manner.

But that is not the case with rules on recruiting and gambling and professionalism (vs. amateur standing). Those are viewed as internal competition-oriented rules, and are not being overturned every day by moronic judges issuing overly-powerful TRO.s.

How did the Charles Bediako case turn out? Are you saying there were "no rules" in that case? If so, what "no rules" were upheld then?
 
TheOriginalCane said:
DMoney said:
Of course gambling on your own team is wrong. If there were any rules, he wouldn’t be playing.

And if there were any rules, Mensah wouldn’t be our quarterback.

A set up with actual rules mean no gambling on college football (obviously) and binding contracts.

But since there are no rules, we both have quarterbacks.
Click to expand...


You can't just say "if there were any rules". There absolutely are rules.

But there is a difference between rules such as limitations on earning power and transferability, and OTHER rules.

Yes, the NCAA rules on NIL and the Portal have been found to be violative under Antritrust analysis, as they are not narrowly-tailored enough to prevent the perceived problem in the least harmful manner.

But that is not the case with rules on recruiting and gambling and professionalism (vs. amateur standing). Those are viewed as internal competition-oriented rules, and are not being overturned every day by moronic judges issuing overly-powerful TRO.s.

How did the Charles Bediako case turn out? Are you saying there were "no rules" in that case? If so, what "no rules" were upheld then?
Click to expand...
What do you think had more of an impact on competitive integrity, a backup QB betting props on DraftKings or a national power stealing the star QB off a conference champion the day before the Portal closed?

Campbell is smiling because this kind of a result will push Congress to act. And he likes the bill that’s currently on their desks.

No other professional sport has these issues with their internal rule enforcement. There are no rules. I hope when the rules get laid down, they favor teams like Texas Tech and Miami and not the SEC and Big 10.
 
DMoney said:
What do you think had more of an impact on competitive balance, a backup QB playing on DraftKings or a national power stealing the QB off a conference champion the day that the Portal closed?

Campbell is smiling because this kind of a result will push Congress to act. And he likes the bill that’s currently on their desks.

No other professional sport has these issues with their internal rule enforcement. There are no rules.
Click to expand...


If there are no rules, then there is no sport. Why doesn't our DT just murder the QB? There are no rules, after all. We just find a judge in Miami to issue a TRO during halftime, and he's back on the field for the third quarter.

It's a ridiculous argument to argue the extreme. Are there issues with the rules? Sure. I've been criticizing the NCAA for years for, quite literally, doing NOTHING after the Alston case, and then crying for Daddy Congress to change the NCAA's dirty diapers.

And I don't give a **** about some argument about which thing "impacted competitive balance" more. ****, if "impacting competitive balance" was the issue, then the entire NCAA should have sued Alabama for tampering with Saban while he was under contract with the Dolphins.

The reality is that issues on transferability (which EVERY college student has the right to do) and compensation have valid grounds on which individuals have SUCCESSFULLY prevailed, in a wide variety of cases, including Alston, which was NOT an NIL case, but an academic achievement award case.

But that is different from bedrock principles involving the betting on one's own sport or team. And don't try to minimize it by playing it off as a "competitive balance" issue. By that measure, Jameis Winston should have never been disciplined for anything in college, because he only raped a couple of girls, which had no bearing on competitive balance.

I realize you're a big fan of professional wrestling, which is a performative event where the outcome is already scripted in advance. If you allow the participants in a sport to gamble and take self-interested positions in the outcome of the contest, you no longer have a sport. You have professional wrestling. Which is kabuki theater in which you are NOT allowed to bet on the outcome, because the outcome is fixed.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
So? The CFP is not the NCAA. As such, they are not bound by this ruling, and can choose to do whatever they think is right to do.

If they believe that allowing a team to compete using a player whose eligibility is in serious doubt is wrong (which it is), they can take whatever action they wish to take.

"Millions of dollars involved" is not a defense. That's not a criticism, it's just a reality.

No matter what some dip**** retired judge in Texas says, the NCAA is likely to prevail on the merits (as to ruling Sorsby ineligible). As such, if the CFP does not want to take a chance on allowing Texas Tech to compete, and then hand back its fraudulently-earned title, it has an easy remedy of not ranking Texas Tech. If they can exclude F$U from the CFP playoff because Jurdan Travis got hurt, I'm not sure why they can't use the same approach for Texas Tech.

I simply ask anyone on this board to name ONE SINGLE CASE where the NCAA's suspension and/or banning of a player for betting on his sport and/or his own team was overturned ON THE MERITS during a full trial.

I'll wait.
Click to expand...
Fair. For all we know the injunction may be overturned and this discussion is moot.

The Florida State the situation was different. Jordan Travis was injured and unable to play so the committee, based on established selection criteria, excluded Florida State from the final four.

I don’t believe the situations are similar unless your comment is based on Texas Tech qualifying for the playoffs only to lose Brendan Sorsby to ineligibility. If this were the case, I would agree the committee could use the same option to not include Texas Tech in the final 12. The Red Raiders would no longer be the same team.

I am referring to the other post that the CFP should exclude Texas Tech because they believe Sorsby should not be allowed to play.

The SEC, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, etc signed a contract with the CFP to stage the playoffs. Part of the agreement is agreeing how teams are selected. The CFP is contractually bound to how to select teams.

Show me where the CFP agreement allows the CFP to exclude a team it would normally include because a specific player is participating.

There well may be such a loophole.
 
Back
Top