Sorsby granted injunction and is eligible after gambling on his own team

quote:

---

This is insane. A local judge just ruled Sorsby at Texas Tech can play this year. He bet on college sports and bet Indiana games while on the roster. I’m actually at a complete loss.

Bediako was ruled ineligible because he spent one year in college and then played G League.

---

Yeah, I hate College Sports so much as things stand.

quote:

---

I thought getting caught placing bets on games your team participated in was supposed to be automatic permanent ineligibility.

---

It is. He should be more concerned with jail time. But a Lubbock judge ruled in his favor. This is going to be the straw that breaks the camels back. If you can’t control people calling the legitimacy of the sport into question then there’s no point having games.

Posted this on the rant too. I rarely say these words, but hopefully Congress passes legislation ASAP. This using the courts to literally circumvent any rules and get anything they want has to stop. Can people with functioning brain cells not just take a step back and see this insane lunacy going on in college athletics?

Up next...the first team out of the cfp suing the committee. Judge Buford in Podunk USA issues an injunction to prevent "irreparable harm" to the aggrieved school's financial interests.

I don't know if Rose is still doing this but for years, he was literally selling autographed baseballs with the inscription, "I'm sorry I bet on baseball. Pete Rose" for $5 per ball. Dude had reportedly sold tens of thousands of them.

quote:

---

I don't know if Rose is still doing this but for years

---

I hate to bring the bad news to you bud, but Pete Rose died in 2024

quote:

---

Bediako was ruled ineligible because he spent one year in college and then played G League.

---

Sometimes it seems that graduates of Bama in high profile jobs do all they can do to not make themselves look biased in any way shape or form. They even go to the extremes to put us at a disadvantage compared to other schools alumni who pimp the school out on TV or have judges that will rule in the University's favor.

When I say compelling I mean him personally. He left school early because he couldn't make NIL money as a Canadian and wanted to come back and play for that exact same school without having played in an NBA game. That's so much more sympathetic of a person than some 26 year old European who has played professionally since he was 17 and never had any interest in attending college, for free, in Europe.

quote:

---

It is. He should be more concerned with jail time. But a Lubbock judge ruled in his favor. This is going to be the straw that breaks the camels back. If you can’t control people calling the legitimacy of the sport into question then there’s no point having games.

---

What's wild is all the betting platforms should be joining forces to get this ruling reversed. If they can't prove that the games aren't compromised, then they stand to lose legitimacy and a lot of revenue. No one is going to bet on rigged games.

quote:

---

When I say compelling I mean him personally. He left school early because he couldn't make NIL money as a Canadian and wanted to come back and play for that exact same school without having played in an NBA game. That's so much more sympathetic of a person than some 26 year old European who has played professionally since he was 17 and never had any interest in attending college, for free, in Europe.

---

I understand what you are saying and agree with you. I was just stating that we can remove compassion and sympathy from the Bediako case because the NCAA really had created the open door policy for professionals and G-league players to return in the 5 year window. Bediako didn't go before a judge, hat in hand, asking for another shot and special treatment, he asked to be granted the same permissions that the NCAA had already applied to others. Bediako's case was grounded in the fact that he qualified for a return just as much as any other player the NCAA had allowed to come back. For that judge, it should have been a pretty straight forward injunction. He didn't have to like it and could express his opinion that he thought it was bad for everyone, but he still didn't present a logical argument of why he denied it.