You’ve dodged the question. I asked you what would change. Saying precedent gives strength to either side says nothing. I’m questioning what an abuse of discretion precedent does. There’s precedent already that a single state ruling doesn’t have a multi state reach now so. This is another one you can’t have both ways.
The own team betting law would work. It’s a good idea. It’s not relevant to Sorsbys case though. So what’s the precedent? I don’t disagree with you at all. Just wondering if you see it the same way.
Nothings going to chance immediately, never does. What the NCAA should want is a decision and to get this into federal court which yes isnt that hard unless they just give up.
Not sure why you wont acknowledge the conical diagnosis aspect or how in the world a own team team betting law wouldnt apply to someone that admitted to it.
Again it comes down to what the NFL is telling him and the language in his NIL deal for what he will do. Until its June 23rd its all hypotheticals
@Basebal21 said:
Nothings going to chance immediately, never does. What the NCAA should want is a decision and to get this into federal court which yes isnt that hard unless they just give up.
Not sure why you wont acknowledge the conical diagnosis aspect or how in the world a own team team betting law wouldnt apply to someone that admitted to it.
I am. I really don’t disagree with you. It’s funny for me because it’s the premise I started this discussion with. If this happens it’s a messy mess.
I’m agreeing that there is a precedent but we’re not stating what it is. What is the precedent? It’s not good. It’s not mental health or gambling related although I think we get a nod to an existing rule out of this so someone - I don’t know who - the people perhaps - can take a victory lap.
Bottom line, the judge who issued the injunction couldn't be more wrong, the NCAA is correct and Sorsby needs to have his ban from NCAA participation reinstated.
Nothing else needs to be said or posted unless you like to type and hear the sound of your own voice.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
@Maywood said:
Bottom line, the judge who issued the injunction couldn't be more wrong, the NCAA is correct and Sorsby needs to have his ban from NCAA participation reinstated.
Nothing else needs to be said or posted unless you like to type and hear the sound of your own voice.
It’s an interesting decision. You don’t explain why the judge is wrong. You don’t ever provide anything other than a strong opinion and random insults. Educate yourself.
Here’s an example why I think it’s big news worthy of discussion.
What this changes. Integrity rules have been the one area where the NCAA has been safe from this very sort of injunction manipulation using the courts in the past. Transfer and NIL sure - courts jumped in and mostly sided with the players. This is new. Now it’s opened the door to even the most agreed upon, bright line, rules are fair game for “sympathetic” courts to enjoin. File in a friendly court and argue irreparable harm. The blueprint is here now. Thanks Sorsby.
i find it interesting the number of schools that want no part of Tech on their schedule now. read an article last night about Big 12 ADs contemplating a boycott.
if you think this is an isolated incident, you're grossly kidding yourself. he's a single DWI casualty from the sea of drunks who left the bar.
The stuff out of Georgia and Nebraska? is puffery mostly but the discussions in the Big 12 have my attention. If they were to boycott the ripple of that would destroy college football. that would be it.
Comments
You’ve dodged the question. I asked you what would change. Saying precedent gives strength to either side says nothing. I’m questioning what an abuse of discretion precedent does. There’s precedent already that a single state ruling doesn’t have a multi state reach now so. This is another one you can’t have both ways.
The own team betting law would work. It’s a good idea. It’s not relevant to Sorsbys case though. So what’s the precedent? I don’t disagree with you at all. Just wondering if you see it the same way.
Nothings going to chance immediately, never does. What the NCAA should want is a decision and to get this into federal court which yes isnt that hard unless they just give up.
Not sure why you wont acknowledge the conical diagnosis aspect or how in the world a own team team betting law wouldnt apply to someone that admitted to it.
Again it comes down to what the NFL is telling him and the language in his NIL deal for what he will do. Until its June 23rd its all hypotheticals
Fire AJ Preller
I am. I really don’t disagree with you. It’s funny for me because it’s the premise I started this discussion with. If this happens it’s a messy mess.
I’m agreeing that there is a precedent but we’re not stating what it is. What is the precedent? It’s not good. It’s not mental health or gambling related although I think we get a nod to an existing rule out of this so someone - I don’t know who - the people perhaps - can take a victory lap.
Bottom line, the judge who issued the injunction couldn't be more wrong, the NCAA is correct and Sorsby needs to have his ban from NCAA participation reinstated.
Nothing else needs to be said or posted unless you like to type and hear the sound of your own voice.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
It’s an interesting decision. You don’t explain why the judge is wrong. You don’t ever provide anything other than a strong opinion and random insults. Educate yourself.
Here’s an example why I think it’s big news worthy of discussion.
What this changes. Integrity rules have been the one area where the NCAA has been safe from this very sort of injunction manipulation using the courts in the past. Transfer and NIL sure - courts jumped in and mostly sided with the players. This is new. Now it’s opened the door to even the most agreed upon, bright line, rules are fair game for “sympathetic” courts to enjoin. File in a friendly court and argue irreparable harm. The blueprint is here now. Thanks Sorsby.
couple of thoughts
i find it interesting the number of schools that want no part of Tech on their schedule now. read an article last night about Big 12 ADs contemplating a boycott.
if you think this is an isolated incident, you're grossly kidding yourself. he's a single DWI casualty from the sea of drunks who left the bar.
The stuff out of Georgia and Nebraska? is puffery mostly but the discussions in the Big 12 have my attention. If they were to boycott the ripple of that would destroy college football. that would be it.