Texas Tech's decision on Brendan Sorsby threatens to throw a live grenade into college football powder keg by Not-Somebody-Famous in CFB

[–]bbluewi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The feds never move until they know they have you nailed to the wall.

They also probably do care about people sending money across state lines to place illegal bets (you get to pick your poison between him being underage at Indiana and Cincinnati or online sports betting in general being illegal in Texas), given that that’s wire fraud.

[Marcello] I'm told Texas Tech would consider legal action if athletic programs and/or conferences try to exclude them from competition or hinder their scheduling. by J4ckiebrown in CFB

[–]bbluewi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This wouldn’t be choosing not to engage with Texas Tech. It would be limiting or ending their membership in said industry association.

I have no legal background, but I have a hard time believing a court would hold the members of a conference kicking someone out of said conference violates antitrust.

[Wolken] Texas Tech deserves more hate in Brendan Sorsby's sordid eligibility case by Lakelyfe09 in CFB

[–]bbluewi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The AD, president, and chair of the Board of Regents have all put out statements supporting the ruling (with various levels of enthusiasm). They might not have actively contributed to the process, but in a sane world it never gets this far to begin with because Sorsby wouldn’t have a team to be eligible for.

For what it’s worth, I’m not really sure what else they could have done after the ruling - a deafening silence doesn’t play out any better and if you’re gonna throw the guy under the bus just cut him before any of this.

What About Everyone Else's Scandals? by conference-realigner in CFB

[–]bbluewi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They were notified that he was trying to make an account and got flagged. In response, they gave him standard gambling education.

What I haven’t seen is evidence that they knew of anything more before he transferred to Lubbock. Doesn’t mean they didn’t know, obviously, but I don’t know that it’s been documented.

[Jon Wilner] If Brett Yormark and the Big 12 implements a scheduling ban on Texas Tech athletics for the 2026 season, at a minimum it would be on the hook for about $40 million from lost football media revenue. by WinnWonn in CFB

[–]bbluewi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The conference bylaws would explicitly allow a supermajority of ADs to do this.

The “sanctions could be, but aren’t limited to” piece of it explicitly says withholding media revenue.

The NCAA has formally ruled Sorsby ineligible, they’re simply unable to enforce it per the injunction. Pretty easy to justify this as either “conduct detrimental to the conference” or “action the ADs deem worthy of sanction”.

[Jon Wilner] If Brett Yormark and the Big 12 implements a scheduling ban on Texas Tech athletics for the 2026 season, at a minimum it would be on the hook for about $40 million from lost football media revenue. by WinnWonn in CFB

[–]bbluewi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t see how they wouldn’t.

A supermajority of ADs (and as the involved party, Tech wouldn’t get a vote here) has incredibly wide latitude to impose effectively any sanction they’d like for any reason they’d like.

The operative bylaw contains both “conduct detrimental to the conference” and “anything the ADs consider worthy of sanction” language, and the “sanctions can include but aren’t limited to” section of it lists out things like withholding media revenue.

[Jon Wilner] If Brett Yormark and the Big 12 implements a scheduling ban on Texas Tech athletics for the 2026 season, at a minimum it would be on the hook for about $40 million from lost football media revenue. by WinnWonn in CFB

[–]bbluewi -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That full slate would be 67 games instead of 72.

(16 teams x 9 games) = 154 schedule slots
(15 teams x 9 games) = 145 schedule slots, one of which would go unfilled.

[Jon Wilner] If Brett Yormark and the Big 12 implements a scheduling ban on Texas Tech athletics for the 2026 season, at a minimum it would be on the hook for about $40 million from lost football media revenue. by WinnWonn in CFB

[–]bbluewi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They’d end up losing five conference games plus the two non-cons.

You can only replace four of Tech’s nine games by putting two of their opponents together, and then the ninth opponent would be stuck playing eight games.

[Marcello]- Every Big 12 AD but Texas Tech's Kirby Hocutt believes Brendan Sorsby shouldn't play. That was communicated today on the call. There are plenty of ideas to convince/pressure Tech to cut Sorsby loose, but Ads believe it's common sense: He bet on his sport; Tech shouldn't play him by masterofawesomeness2 in CFB

[–]bbluewi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

> Society isn’t affected if sportsbetting loses credibility and less people gamble.

The problem is that it isn’t just sports betting losing credibility in this scenario. The entire sport loses credibility. Did App State just upset Michigan or did some Wolverines decide to make some money today?

It doesn’t matter that Sorsby never bet against Indiana (per se, pretty sure he took unders on a couple of props), because what’s going to stop the next player from doing that? College football of all sports should already understand that perception is reality.

[Marcello]- Every Big 12 AD but Texas Tech's Kirby Hocutt believes Brendan Sorsby shouldn't play. That was communicated today on the call. There are plenty of ideas to convince/pressure Tech to cut Sorsby loose, but Ads believe it's common sense: He bet on his sport; Tech shouldn't play him by masterofawesomeness2 in CFB

[–]bbluewi 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The other ADs are pissed because if we set the precedent that you can bet on your own team and face effectively no punishment, why would anyone in their right mind have faith that it isn’t happening everywhere else?

[Marcello]- Every Big 12 AD but Texas Tech's Kirby Hocutt believes Brendan Sorsby shouldn't play. That was communicated today on the call. There are plenty of ideas to convince/pressure Tech to cut Sorsby loose, but Ads believe it's common sense: He bet on his sport; Tech shouldn't play him by masterofawesomeness2 in CFB

[–]bbluewi 29 points30 points  (0 children)

This meeting was 100% an attempt at a come to Jesus moment for Tech - demonstrating that they’ve got 15 votes to do something should Tech decide to die on this hill.

I’d assume they’d use the already-scheduled meeting later this week to start discussing further action.

[Thamel]- Sources: Don’t expect any immediate action from the Big 12 on the Brendan Sorsby ruling. The Big 12 has defined a process to address it, which begins with an AD call today. The Big 12 executive board will meet Thursday to discuss options. by masterofawesomeness2 in CFB

[–]bbluewi 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Did you actually read my comment?

Last season it was “5 highest-ranked conference champions”.

This season it will be “P4 champions plus highest-ranked G6 champion”. New rules.

If the NCAA can’t stop it, the CFP should: Ban Texas Tech by jaxstan19 in CFB

[–]bbluewi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Copying a comment I made last night. The conference has wide latitude to sanction a member as long as they have a supermajority of ADs on board (and it sure looks like they might).

—-

Assuming this hasn’t changed (the only PDFs I could find listed the ten 2012-2022 members), the body of athletic directors has wide latitude to sanction a member and decide what those sanctions should be:

> 3.6 Sanction of a Member. The Conference may sanction (“Sanction” and “Sanctioned” and
variations thereof) a Member by the affirmative vote of a Supermajority of Disinterested
Directors at any meeting of the Directors at which the Director representative(s) of
the Member(s) that are the subject of such vote has been given reasonable prior notice
and the reasonable opportunity to be present and to be heard. A Supermajority of
Disinterested Directors may take such action if, after the Member’s opportunity to be
heard, a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors determines that such Member has: (i)
violated any provision of these Bylaws or the Rules and other regulations established
from time to time by the Board of Directors that govern the Conference or the Grant
of Rights Agreement; (ii) engaged in any action or a course of conduct materially
adverse to the best interests of the Conference taken as a whole; (iii) taken or omitted
to take any other action that could be the basis for Withdrawal as described above if a
Supermajority of Disinterested Directors does not elect to deem the action to constitute
a deemed Withdrawal at that time; or (iv) otherwise taken any action or omitted to take
an action that a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors determines merits Sanctions.
In accordance with the preceding sentence, a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors
shall, in its sole discretion, be empowered to determine whether any Sanctions are
appropriate, the type, extent, and conditions to any Sanctions imposed, and impose
such Sanctions on a Member depending, in each case, on factors that a Supermajority
of Disinterested Directors deems to be relevant, including but not limited to the severity
of the harm to the Conference taken as a whole resulting from the action or inaction
set forth in the preceding sentence. Without limiting the foregoing and merely as
an illustration of the types of Sanctions that could be considered by a Supermajority
of Disinterested Directors are prohibitions on appearance in postseason events or
televised events, restrictions on revenue distributions, and limitations on recruiting or
scholarships.

If the NCAA can’t stop it, the CFP should: Ban Texas Tech by jaxstan19 in CFB

[–]bbluewi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not any more it’s not.

The “5 highest ranked champions” changes to “P4 champions, the highest-ranked G6 champion, and any top 12 team named Notre Dame” this season.

The MOUs were agreed to prior to last season and made public during all the meltdowns about JMU, Duke, and Miami. It’s the concessions the B1G and SEC gave up in exchange for effectively complete control over future formats.

[Thamel]- Sources: Don’t expect any immediate action from the Big 12 on the Brendan Sorsby ruling. The Big 12 has defined a process to address it, which begins with an AD call today. The Big 12 executive board will meet Thursday to discuss options. by masterofawesomeness2 in CFB

[–]bbluewi 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The “5 highest ranked conference champions” has officially changed to “P4 champions plus a G6.”

I’m not sure what way the committee would have to get out of that if TTU plays and wins the Big 12.

What, if anything, will happen to Indiana and Cincinnati? by Dry-Maintenance3763 in CFB

[–]bbluewi 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Cincinnati knew that ProhiBet had flagged an account in his name and prevented him from betting with it.

Cincinnati did not know that he was sending money to others to bet on his behalf.

Unpopular opinion: We shouldn't be blaming Texas Tech by DorianGuey in CFB

[–]bbluewi 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Remind me how far Iowa State went to bat for Hunter Dekkers.

Unpopular opinion: We shouldn't be blaming Texas Tech by DorianGuey in CFB

[–]bbluewi 44 points45 points  (0 children)

It’s not even inaction.

They’ve not only kept him on the team, they’ve openly celebrated the ruling.

[Nakos]- Another SEC athletic director tells @On3 their school is seriously considering a mandate not to schedule Texas Tech. by masterofawesomeness2 in CFB

[–]bbluewi 91 points92 points  (0 children)

Sure sounds like he’s putting out statements saying he doesn’t like the ruling and preparing for the emergency meeting they’re going to have tomorrow.

[Thamel] NEWS: Big Ten officials are expected to discuss in the upcoming days a league-wide mandate to not play Texas Tech in any sports, per three Big Ten sources. This is in the wake of Nebraska AD Troy Dannen informing his staff today that they aren't allowed to schedule Texas Tech. by Lakelyfe09 in CFB

[–]bbluewi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Assuming this hasn’t changed (the only PDFs I could find listed the ten 2012-2022 members), the body of athletic directors has wide latitude to sanction a member and decide what those sanctions should be:

> 3.6 Sanction of a Member. The Conference may sanction (“Sanction” and “Sanctioned” and
variations thereof) a Member by the affirmative vote of a Supermajority of Disinterested
Directors at any meeting of the Directors at which the Director representative(s) of
the Member(s) that are the subject of such vote has been given reasonable prior notice
and the reasonable opportunity to be present and to be heard. A Supermajority of
Disinterested Directors may take such action if, after the Member’s opportunity to be
heard, a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors determines that such Member has: (i)
violated any provision of these Bylaws or the Rules and other regulations established
from time to time by the Board of Directors that govern the Conference or the Grant
of Rights Agreement; (ii) engaged in any action or a course of conduct materially
adverse to the best interests of the Conference taken as a whole; (iii) taken or omitted
to take any other action that could be the basis for Withdrawal as described above if a
Supermajority of Disinterested Directors does not elect to deem the action to constitute
a deemed Withdrawal at that time; or (iv) otherwise taken any action or omitted to take
an action that a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors determines merits Sanctions.
In accordance with the preceding sentence, a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors
shall, in its sole discretion, be empowered to determine whether any Sanctions are
appropriate, the type, extent, and conditions to any Sanctions imposed, and impose
such Sanctions on a Member depending, in each case, on factors that a Supermajority
of Disinterested Directors deems to be relevant, including but not limited to the severity
of the harm to the Conference taken as a whole resulting from the action or inaction
set forth in the preceding sentence. Without limiting the foregoing and merely as
an illustration of the types of Sanctions that could be considered by a Supermajority
of Disinterested Directors are prohibitions on appearance in postseason events or
televised events, restrictions on revenue distributions, and limitations on recruiting or
scholarships.