FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

Started by admin, August 16, 2005, 05:19:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Redtooth and 29 Guests are viewing this topic.

hazzben

Quote from: maripp2002 on Yesterday at 11:11:59 AM
Quote from: art76 on Yesterday at 09:23:06 AMSo, what's the consensus on the "Brendan Sorsby ruling". Is this as straight forward as it seems? What's the scuttlebutt?

If the "straight forward" part is "it's completely crazy and makes 0 sense" then yes, I'm on the train. He should 100% not be allowed to take the field.

The NCAA has a lot of rules, but the one rule that it just straight up will not let you break is gambling, it's like the absolute 1 thing you can't do, and dude did it - a lot. And while some kind of sickness could be what compelled him to do it over and over, he did something wrong, and he has to live with the consequences of that action - which should be not to play.

I hope no one chooses to play Texas Tech all season. If they're going to be that selfish, they deserve not to have any games. Try winning a natty without winning a single game on the field.

It's just a bonkers ruling, and frankly a bonkers verdict by a judge, but that's the way it is in this era of college sports. 


Absolutely insane, Dekker at ISU grew up in my area of Iowa. He did a fraction of what Sorsby did, both in terms of frequency, dollar amounts, and had 1 like $10 bet on an ISU game. And he essentially got a lifetime ban from the NCAA and kicked out of ISU. And he deserved that punishment. But how the same standard can't be applied to similar behavior on a grossly larger scale is craziness.

DriftlessDuhawk

I'll go one step further and say I think that Sorsby should be going to trial for multiple felonies. Last time I checked aiding and abetting is still against the law. The fact this is getting hand waived away is ludicrous. You want to bet on who is going to win the Super Bowl as a college athlete I could really care less. An athlete betting on a game he is a participant in? Absolutely cannot happen. This conversation should not be about his NCAA eligibility...

art76

#110792
Totally tracking with you guys concerning this whole "still eligible after gambling" hoopla. I still get peeved whenever Pete Rose's name gets mentioned concerning his not being in the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. Being from Western NY I was a Big Red Machine fan in the day, (no love lost on the Yankees), but my heart was crushed when I found out about his gambling on the games. It hurt - a lot. But, he made his bed and now has to lay in it, as they say. Brendan Sorsby should be banned for life in the NCAA - that would almost assure no chance of playing at the professional level anywhere else as long as he lives. Legal matters aside...
"What draws people to be friends is that they see the same truth. They share it."
― C. S. Lewis

maripp2002

Quote from: art76 on Yesterday at 06:55:32 PMI still get peeved whenever Johnny Bench's name gets mentioned concerning his not being in the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown

I'm 99% sure you meant Pete Rose, but I'm with you all the way. Athletes gambling on the sport they participate in is just a big no-no. It's a no-brainer, which is what I also have to say about the judge that made that ruling.
A fan of good football - wherever it may be found.

art76

Quote from: maripp2002 on Yesterday at 07:05:46 PM
Quote from: art76 on Yesterday at 06:55:32 PMI still get peeved whenever Johnny Bench's name gets mentioned concerning his not being in the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown

I'm 99% sure you meant Pete Rose, but I'm with you all the way. Athletes gambling on the sport they participate in is just a big no-no. It's a no-brainer, which is what I also have to say about the judge that made that ruling.


Fixed it - yeah - brain fart.
"What draws people to be friends is that they see the same truth. They share it."
― C. S. Lewis

Texas Ole

Quote from: art76 on Yesterday at 09:23:06 AMSo, what's the consensus on the "Brendan Sorsby ruling". Is this as straight forward as it seems? What's the scuttlebutt?

The Texas Tech School of Law just became the top law school in the country.

I talked with quite a few Red Raiders who are not happy he is at Tech.  I also know a few who are pretty happy with the ruling.  The Tech connections especially in West Texas run deep.  The NCAA appealed to a court in Amarillo.  Anyone want to guess where all the judges on that court went to school?  The Big 12 schools and the regularly scheduled cast of OOC opponents Tech plays will still play them.  I am not sure what it looks like for most others.  I can assure that no SEC or Big Ten school, and probably no ACC team will play Tech.  Mainly because Tech won't schedule them.  After Tech's first loss fans are going to ask Sorsby who he bet on in the game, and that isn't going to come from just the fans of the winners.

Welcome to the world of football in Texas.  You thought the old Pony Excess was crazy; well you ain't seen nothin'.  The biggest spokesperson for Texas Tech athletics is a booster named Cody Campbell!  The only reason why (sucks to) BU got in the Big 12 was because of the Governor and other state leaders.  Go to your local country club, community event, company, church, whatever and the football trash talk runs deep.  My old boss made a coworker floor it to a meeting just so he could show him the highlights of that week's football game and flaunt that his team won.  A few years ago during an event awarding scholarships to HS seniors there was a scoreboard keeping track of how many kids were going to each school.

If anyone wants a laugh at Texas Tech I highly recommend doing a web search of Texas Tech Bell Ringer.  You'll laugh!

art76

Quote from: Texas Ole on Yesterday at 08:05:33 PMIf anyone wants a laugh at Texas Tech I highly recommend doing a web search of Texas Tech Bell Ringer.  You'll laugh!

Yes, yes you will...
"What draws people to be friends is that they see the same truth. They share it."
― C. S. Lewis

OzJohnnie

I have had a bit of a read of the ruling and it looks like the ncaa is laying on a bed of platitudes of its own making.

They did the whole mental illness excuses any behaviour rule making a few years ago and even added on a responsibility for them to treat and never punish mental illness.  So this guy gets a doctor to declare him a gambling addict, a mental illness the ncaa recognises, and Shazam!, they not only can't punish him but are obligated to help him, which they didn't according to their own policies.

Gambling is only a rules violation, it appears, if you're solely doing it because you want to make the bucks. If you're doing it compulsively because you're an addict, the ncaa is obligated to treat you and hand out no punishment whatsoever.  That's what this guy's lawyers argued and the temporary injunction affirms.

The NCAA are appealing, however, but quite a few observers think their appeal has little hope of succeeding. We'll see.

(Obviously, I think this is stupid. But even more stupid was the ncaa's vapid rule making regarding the ultimate modern get out of jail free card, mental illness however defined)