system. This is not a small matter.

on all sides of this situation is rampant. At its core it is a straight forward gambling matter for which the penalties are clearly defined. You throw in the B1G and the SEC trying to play the self righteous victim and then add the judiciary clown show on top and it is just another indictment how far off track college athletics has strayed. For good measure we now have the comedy of Congress which rarely solves anything aside from their own reelection desires being touted as the savior. You really cannot make this circus up.

were discussions that the rule breaking and NIL situation has become "fraudulent", "ungovernable", etc. And that the NCAA will do nothing to enforce the rules. So the SEC, while working to bring in other conferences, want to create rules and enforceent at the conference level to solve these problems. I think what you are seeing now is the SEC has enough pull with other conferences and agreement from their latest meeting, to try to address some of these issues. With them already to act, it was not a good time for the shenanigans down in Lubbock. See link below.

when it was apparent the NCAA was useless from an enforcement standpoint. I think the big question is one of reciprocity - like interstate uniform acts that are codified into different state codes, conferences that have adopted and codified a uniform set of rules and enforcement mechanisms should have reciprocity, meaning they should have no problem playing each other in inter-conference contests. Frankly, this is what the NCAA is supposed to be, this arrangement just takes moves the enforcement arm from there to the individual conferences. Frankly, if they want it to have teeth, then they need to focus on severe penalties enacted upon the member schools that decide to break or circumvent the pay-to-play rules, or that engage in direct or stochastic lawfare so they can play athletes that the rules clearly say should be ineligible, rather than putting all the focus on the penalties to the athletes themselves. That's the only way you get the dogs to heel.

I read before and thanks for the link. It was a good read the second time around and people that have not read it might want to. Morehead, UGA and the SEC wanting to rewrite the rules is a thinly veiled breakaway threat. It is also akin to the fox volunteering to design the henhouse security system. You are right that the timing of the Lubbock shenanigans was not good. However, when the SEC is talking about rules it is likely little more than really trying to manipulate the system for their own benefit. The SEC's biggest problem with TT is not Sorsby and gambling but, that now that pay to play is legal others have raised their game to match the old under the table SEC bagmen. Georgia is ironic and their hands are less than clean, one only need look at the amateur road racing circuit they sanction complete with get out of jail free cards. Both the SEC and B1G are trying to play self righteous victim cards with altruistic motives. However, the reality is they are looking for ways to restore prior advantages that were diminished with courts and the NIL. This isn't the first time Greg Sankey and the SEC(UGA, etc.)has professed to be working for the good of the game when in reality they were being self serving at the expense of others, the CFP negotiations should serve as a reminder of that. It is also the reason Sankey/Morehead likely have neither the credibility or integrity to lead the charge for reform, at least IMO.

had enough support/agreement to push for new enforcement measures at the conference level prior to this event. If they didn't have the support, I doubt UGA and Nebraska would have been so vocal. ** Edited by JM397 at 6/9/2026, 5:39:51 PM

My conspiracy guess is one of two things. 1. This is a message to Cody Campbell who has been very vocal and engaged with the proposed legislation in Congress. This could be to influence him or silence him to get the legislation more favorable to the P2. 2. This could be the start of the realignment war. If the BIG takes this step to blacklist a single school, then it’s a short step to also threaten/blacklist anyone who plays that school (the entire B12). They could use this to unofficially “break off” and only play other P2 schools while still within the current NCAA structure. Option 2 is by far the most scary because it removes scheduling options for the other conferences. It would be a major escalation if this happens. But all just speculation. No matter what, it’s a bold move and clearly has some motivation other than some anti-gambling spin.

There's no P2 power play conspiracy here to be had - this is a major crisis moment in the sport. Sorsby wasn't even doing what Pete Rose catches 9 circles of hell for doing - at least Rose was betting on his own team to win the games. He was betting that the point total would not go over a certain number in games his own team was playing. That is a text book setup for point shaving. This goes to the very integrity of the game. Assuming he still plays this year, and I'm sure he will, every single time he throws an incomplete pass, or slides, or anything that is looked at as remotely negative to the prospect of his team winning a game, there will be a legitimate, sincere concern that he's shaving points. He should be banned for life from playing any sport that wants to be taken seriously. The fact that some **** kicker judge in Texas entered an injunction that will effectively nullify a punishment for committing an infraction that, a year ago, everyone agreed was absolutely beyond the pale is absolutely mind blowing. Everyone joked there were no rules before. Now, there really are no rules. Zero. None. You can do whatever you want and cannot be punished for it. They just perma-banned all those guys from Iowa and Iowa State last year or the year before for doing this exact same thing, and their position was that they weren't actually making the bets, other people were using their names - Sorsby admits to everything and making $100k in bets, including on his own team in games he was active for, but now it's totally fine? Heck with what the Big 10's doing about it - the Big 12 should come out and say that Texas Tech automatically forfeits any conference game that Sorsby plays in. The CFP should say right now that if Sorsby plays a single down this season, Texas Tech is not eligible for CFP placement. Every program in D1 should come out right now and say if Texas Tech allows Sorsby to suit up and play, they will never schedule Texas Tech OOC again in any sport. If this BS is allowed to stand, there's no coming back from it. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 6/9/2026, 10:55:08 AM

...every single sports broadcast is having a detrimental effect on society...

does nothing but promote and reward criminals. People have to take the personal responsibility to educate themselves about the dangers of engaging with the vice, and choose whether or not they can handle it. If they figure out they can't, then it's their personal responsibility to decide they will not engage with it. Literally half the people I knew in Radford and Blacksburg were sports gambling when I was in college 25 years ago, before smart phones even existed. Just like if they wanted to get an illegal substance to party, they just had a guy, they called him on the phone, and they made it happen. So, I'm not a rube that thinks sports gambling wouldn't be a thing if they made it illegal again tomorrow - young, competitive dudes love to gamble on sports. Always have, always will. But, like anything else, if you can't handle it, and it negatively impacts your life, it's your personal responsibility to know you have to stop doing it and take the steps necessary for you to make it happen. I have no idea if Sorsby is a "problem gambler" or not. I consider a problem gambler to be someone who compulsively gambles and/or gambles with money they don't have. For all I know, he was gambling for leisure/enjoyment, not compulsively, and he could stand to lose the money he gambled with. What I know for an absolute fact is that he 100% KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that what he was doing was prohibited by the agreement he signed when he decided to play football at an NCAA member program, that he knew it each and every one of the thousands of times he did it, and he knew that the penalty for doing so if caught was permanent loss of eligibility.

I simply made the point that the constant ads promoting it/glorifying it before, during, and after every single sports broadcast these days is certainly not helping to avoid situations like this. And yes, personal responsibility is key - but our society has seemingly decided that's not really important anymore and we repeatedly give people a pass for all kinds of screw-ups that would likely have resulted in severe personal consequences in decades past. The lack of ramifications for poor decisions/behavior means a lot of young folks never "learn the hard way", which leads to a society full of adults that don't know how to act.

The fact that TT has not already ruled him ineligible and pulled his scholarship and NIL deal is mind blowing. Do those idiots not realize that we are all watching them? I am hoping that is Sorsby plays, the lead and continuous TV story will be his gambling. The lead question in every post game interview should be asking the coach if he is in on the action.

Even if they win every game and win the CFP, I don't think it will be like previous recent cases (i.e., Ohio State, Auburn, Michigan etc.) where they win the championship, it comes out afterward that, yeah, they were actually cheating just like everyone thought, and nobody really cares. In that case, Sorsby would drop his lawsuit at the end of January, the injunction against enforcement would disappear, and the NCAA would retroactively punish TT by stripping them of every win and accomplishment Sorsby was involved with and imposing massive sanctions. I'm not sure if the CFP would strip them of their championship, but, generally speaking, the same people that govern the NCAA govern the CFP, so I don't see why they wouldn't. And, that's if they win big. There's also the possibility that they lose 3-4 games, in which case they've done all this for absolutely nothing, and will still suffer massive consequences. There's no way TT comes out of this roses. I have no idea what they're thinking with this.

The same two topics that I mentioned. I just read it and they talk about Campbell. And they have SEC people saying that maybe they should only play other SEC people. This is breaking the entire system. Edit: just read some more background info and TT really dug themselves into a hole on this one. I see now the statements from the AD and President supporting Sorsby. So yeah I can see why everyone is pissed at them. But I also think some are going to take advantage of this for other purposes. ** Edited by HokieAl at 6/9/2026, 11:40:30 AM ** Edited by HokieAl at 6/9/2026, 1:35:55 PM

teams and their collective conference, can choose on their out of conference games to play who they want. For Big 10 schools there are alot of other takers who can be substituted with no drame. Its business...

This is not just normal business of choosing who they want to play in OOC games. There is very clearly more going on here, especially after the court ruling to let the QB play despite his known gambling. Add in the fact that a major TT donor is also in the thick of discussions with Congress and this is not just normal business.

as they will. TT will see them in the playoffs. It's not like TT has a long and storied history with the BIG institutions anyway. Now, how would you guys react if it was VT and not TT?

I certainly wouldn't want SMU playing a guy who bet on his own games. I don't care how good he is. Any win you acheive is tainted and any loss in which the player in question makes mistakes raises questions. And is Sorsby even that good? I struggle to see how all of the blowback TT has and will receive is worth it for a player of his caliber. We're not talking 2019 Joe Burrow here. It looks like he largely stuffed the stat sheet vs mediocre competition last year. 13-25 for 69 yards and 1 INT vs Nebraska (loss) 13-25 for 214 yards and 2 TDs vs Iowa State 12-21 for 191 yards and 2 TDs vs UCF 13-21 for 111 yards and 2 TDs vs Baylor 11-33 for 221 yards, 1 TD and 1 INT vs Utah (loss) 15-28 for 154 yards, 1 TD and 2 INT vs Arizona (loss) 25-38 for 300 yards, 3 TDs and 1 INT vs BYU (loss - but admittedly not a bad stat line) 23-33 for 282 yards, 3 TDS vs TCU (loss - but admittedly not a bad stat line)

to play TT in any sport. The Sorsby situation is indefensible in my opinion, but it puts TT in a tough position. You have a judge that has ruled that the kid can play. You also have a $5M NIL deal that TT is on the hook to pay. Do you go against a judges ruling? I would, but I don't know the legal ramifications of that. Do you give the kid his money, then cut him loose? I would, but $5M is a lot of money. This is already in the courts, so I'm not sure it's as cut and dry as we think. The bigger picture is that judges have neutered the NCAA. The Big 10 stepping to the virtue signaling plate to make a stance is one of the most hypocritical things I have seen them do since covid. The BIG has their own issues, and they should mind their own business. If conferences attempt to put rules in place, they too will be taken to court, just like the NCAA has. From where I'm sitting, the options for college football (athletics) is going down hill and fast. This ruling and situation is a much bigger deal than one kid. It's easy to say it's all TT's fault, but it could have been any school, in any conference.

This worrying about rights and legalities is getting out of hand. Who cares? He gambled on his own team in games he was active for. If you do that in the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, or any other professional sporting league on the face of the Earth, you are OUT, usually permanently. It's not his "right" to play QB for Texas Tech. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 6/10/2026, 10:29:27 AM

came down. He can play this year, and he has an NIL contract. I would cut him, and not pay him. Let him take that to court, as I would take my chances on that. This narrative that Sorsby is a kid that made a mistake makes my stomach turn. Just the fact that he signed a $5M NIL deal to play one season for a college football team makes my stomach turn. However, a double fisted middle finger to the self righteous Big Ten will stay there for the rest of my life (except for IU of course).

play vs. not play is probably only the tip of the iceberg. Even if he is only "suspended" for 1 season, that likely won't really address the problem. At least it won't serve as a deterrent to prevent other athletes from committing the same crime or influencing the outcome of games since the athletes of all the NCAA sponsored teams tend to exist in their own little subworld within the campus. If the schools are truly serious about addressing these issues, then it will likely require the schools to enter into CBAs with the athletes. Even then it may not solve the issue because the public schools could be subject to additional state laws that the private schools aren't subject to due to receiving state funding. As collegiate athletics continues to evolve, and it is evolving, I do think there is a possibility there may come a time in the future when the school (aka the academic side) may have no choice but to divest itself from the Athletic Department and the Athletic Department truly becomes an independent entity. Where the entities are subject to the same federal and state laws because there is no longer this public vs. private issue in terms of funding source. Essentially the organizations are structured the same way as any of the pro teams. Heck the organization could even go the same route as the Packers and sell "stock" to its fan base. Someone probably could make an argument that donating to the booster club or donating a seat license fee to the booster club may operate similar to how the Packers sell their "stock."

There's no way to put lipstick on this pig. We're talking about a guy that committed the ultimate cardinal sin in all of sport.

Is your position that Sorsby did nothing wrong and should suffer no consequences?

Sorsby - that is indefensible IMO. The Big 10 however, should mind their own business. It is not their place to "sanction?" Texas Tech, or cast judgments.

your school will be paying for it forever. It is not a fleeting misadventure; it is defining moment. Texas Tech better get it right.

This will have worked. Everyone sees where this could be headed. TTU has to do right thing. THis puts pressure on Big12 to pressure TTU. IMO, Soresby is DONE and soon.

I hate the Big 10 and SEC and what they're doing to the sport I used to like a lot more just as much as everyone else around here does, but this business with allowing a QB who bet on the under in games he was active and on the sideline for is absolutely beyond the pale. It really has nothing to do with Texas Tech or the Big 12 specifically, they just happen to be the program and the conference where this is happening. My attitude would be the same if it was LSU and the SEC, or Michigan and the Big 10. But Texas Tech and the Big 12 also have a major decision to make here. This guy absolutely cannot be allowed to play under these circumstances. If he does, not only does it set the precedent that there are absolutely no rules, but the integrity of every single game he is suited up and active for is destroyed.

That is the one bit of wiggle room where I’m sure the TT people convinced themselves that they were ok. They say that they will monitor him and fix him. And this makes all of TT look horrible as a result. But I can see why they might have tried this path. I do wonder if Sorsby would sue TT if they kicked him off the team. Are they “forced” to keep him on now that the courts have ruled in his favor against the NCAA?

It's not some inherent or constitutional right. The judge's opinion re: what constitutes "irreparable harm" is obvious BS, especially in light of the fact that Sorsby is clearly using the Terrell Pryor "delay until the season's over, then drop the suit" strategy. But, as things stand right now, Texas Tech is not explicitly a party to Sorsby's lawsuit, which says, in layman's terms, that the NCAA is impeding his right to be paid $5 million dollars by Texas Tech by declaring him ineligible. Texas Tech and/or the Big 12 could end this travesty right now by saying Sorsby clearly broke bright line NCAA rules and that he will not play this season. The Big 12 might; there are internal mechanisms for a majority of the conference membership to impose sanctions on a member, including financial penalties and forfeiting games. I won't hold my breath on that. Texas Tech, which is currently engaging in what will go down in history as the most shortsighted act of greed and self-serving possible, absolutely will not unless the heat currently being sent their way gets unbearable. I think what we're going to see next is the Big 10 and SEC both saying they will not schedule Texas Tech in any sport and all currently scheduled contests will be canceled. Then, the ACC will probably follow suit, because they always have their thumbs up their rear ends waiting to copy whatever the SEC does. Those declarations will be largely performative and will accomplish nothing. The only parties that can actually do something about this before February 2027 are Texas Tech, The Big 12, or the CFP. If neither Texas Tech nor the Big 12 steps in and stops Sorsby from playing, then the CFP will be the last vanguard. They could step in and say Texas Tech will not be eligible to make the CFP field if Sorsby plays a single down, at which time TT would have no choice but to cut him loose. If the CFP also does nothing, and Josh Pate is reporting that his sources at the CFP are saying they plan to do absolutely nothing, then that's it. There are no rules. Anything would go from then on. If the member institutions of the NCAA can't enforce a prohibition against gambling on your own team, something that goes directly to the basic integrity of the contests being staged, then absolutely nothing can be enforced. Eligibility? Permanent, across the board, doesn't matter if you've been in the NFL and washed out. NIL enforcement? *fart* yeah, right. Academic fraud? Who cares about school. Do players even have to be students? Why bother to even bring that up? Oh, the Heisman favorite QB for a school ranked in the top 10 raped and strangled his girlfriend? Well, he's out on bond and, sorry, he can't suffer any consequences until his criminal case has a final adjudication, which will just so happen to take until after the season, so he can suit up and play ball!

mates, the sport in general. The lawsuit is probably already written, but without the filing date. This is classic self interest.

seems to me that TT had no Idea of this when they bought (recruited) him. Are they now in a position to spend millions whether he gets kicked off the team or not?

I'm sitting, the fact that there are no rules is the point. It's the wild west with NIL, poaching other conference members, paying players (legally or not), and as you know, the list is endless. Now, the BIG says this is going too far? It's not that I disagree, but the precedent of not having rules has already been set - by the very conference that say's this is going too far. It is not just borderline hypocrisy, it is falling on deaf ears out here in flyover. Again, Sorsby should never play another college football game, on that we agree. I think we could both agree that there needs to be "rules" - but this smacks of rules for thee, but not for me.

and neither Iowa nor the Big 10 made a peep about it.

State athletes who were "suspended" in December 2023, then it worth mentioning at least 1 of them was re-instated after the NCAA granted a hardship waiver. "Back in the spring of 2023, the state of Iowa investigated sports wagering among school students using geolocation activities on their cellphones. Brands, a former Iowa wrestler, accepted placing multiple $55 bets on Iowa football to go over the points total in games. He claimed not to place wagers on any other sports in the NCAA. However, the final results did not go in his favor. He was suspended by the NCAA in December 2023 for a season. Brands was among three other Iowa wrestlers and multiple Iowa and Iowa State athletes who were also penalized. But he finally pursued a hardship waiver and the NCAA finally granted it." So I do understand why some people may say there is a bit of hypocrisy going on here. Particularly if people had no issue with the NCAA granting Brands, any of the other Iowa athletes, or Iowa State athletes a hardship waiver for an extra year of eligibility due to their gambling activities.

The Iowa athlete was actually punished, then subsequently applied for a waiver, and was granted the waiver. All within the NCAA system. He didn't run to an Iowa City judge, get an injunction against enforcement, and play out his eligibility.

Iowa State athletes were truly "banned" like what happened to Sorsby, then should a hardship waiver (or re-instatement) be given to any of them in the first place? If Iowa (and the Big Ten) knew he was going to be "suspended" for just 1 year, which happened to be his senior year, and there was a real good possibility that he would be granted a "hardship waiver," then of course Iowa (and the Big Ten) aren't going to say anything. I do find it ironic that the NCAA granted the hardship waiver given the reason he missed 1 year. If the NCAA is truly going to "ban" someone only to "re-instate" them 1 year later, then I am not sure any real lesson is learned here. It doesn't discourage other athletes from committing the same crime as the banned athlete because they know the NCAA will likely grant their request for a "hardship waiver." Instead of risking negative PR for denying their request and granting someone's else request when both are guilty of committing the same crime.

If Sorsby had done what the Iowa kid you're referring to that got the waiver did, the analysis of his situation would entirely change. So, we will just have to agree to disagree.

10.3 Sports Wagering Activities. [#] The following individuals shall not knowingly participate in sports wagering activities or provide information to individuals involved in or associated with any type of sports wagering activities concerning intercollegiate, amateur or professional athletics competition: (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07) (a) Staff members of an institution's athletics department; (b) Nonathletics department staff members who have responsibilities within or over the athletics department (e.g., chancellor or president, faculty athletics representative, individual to whom athletics reports); (c) Staff members of a conference office; and (d) Student-athletes. 10.3.1 Scope of Application. [#] The prohibition against sports wagering applies to any institutional practice or any competition (intercollegiate, amateur or professional) in a sport in which the Association conducts championship competition, in bowl subdivision football and in emerging sports for women. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07) 8/30/25 25 10.3.1.1 Exception. [#] The provisions of Bylaw 10.3 are not applicable to traditional wagers between institutions (e.g., traditional rivalry) or in conjunction with particular contests (e.g., bowl games). Items wagered must be representative of the involved institutions or the states in which they are located. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07) 12.5.2.1 Content and Purpose. Before participation in intercollegiate competition each academic year, a student-athlete shall sign a statement in a form prescribed by the Legislative Committee in which the student-athlete submits information related to eligibility, recruitment, financial aid, previous positive-drug tests administered by any other athletics organization and involvement in organized gambling activities related to intercollegiate or professional athletics competition under the governing legislation. Failure to complete and sign the statement shall result in the student-athlete's ineligibility for participation in all intercollegiate competition. Violations of this bylaw do not affect a student-athlete's eligibility if the violation occurred due to an institutional administrative error or oversight, and the student-athlete subsequently signs the form; however, the violation shall be considered an institutional violation per Bylaw 8.01.3. (Revised: 1/10/92 effective 8/1/92, 1/14/97, 2/19/97, 4/24/03, 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08, 8/7/14, 10/4/17, 6/6/25 effective 7/1/25) 8.01.3 Responsibility to Monitor and Report. An institution shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the Association in the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics programs. It shall monitor its programs to ensure compliance and to identify and report instances in which compliance has not been achieved. An institution shall cooperate fully with any enforcement efforts and shall take appropriate corrective actions, as necessary. Members of an institution's staff, student-athletes, and other individuals and groups representing the institution's athletics interests shall comply with the applicable Association rules, including rules requiring cooperation with enforcement efforts, and the member institution shall be responsible for such compliance. (Adopted: 8/1/22) Where we "disagree" is whether being suspended for 1 year truly qualifies as a "punishment" or not. At least people can't make the claim the Iowa wrestler was "banned." Once the NCAA re-instated him via a hardship waiver, the ban essentially became a suspension.

One respondent was actually punished, then asked for a hardship waiver of the punishment from the entity that punished him, and was granted it. The other respondent was assigned punishment, then ran to a sympathetic state court judge and got an injunction saying the sanctioning entity was not allowed to punish him until at least February, at which time his eligibility will be exhausted, and the sanctioning entity will have no jurisdiction to punish him, meaning there will be no punishment. No more similar than daylight is to darkness.

season back via the hardship waiver (meaning he still wrestled 4 seasons instead of only 3 seasons).

Miami USC west