Sorsby to enter supplemental draft

Apparently it was too late

 

So, what was the outcome of this case

 

It seemed like an inevitable outcome based on the foundation of the NFL and what their bread and butter is. I never believed they were going to just let this gambling addict that plays the most influential position on the field in any sport be able to dictate the terms of how he enters the league. There were far too many things here that can adversely affect the integrity of the NFL and the entire betting platform that it stands upon. There is way too much at stake and at risk for that to happen in my opinion.

Some people here were acting like it was no big deal. It is a huge deal.

It is literally the integrity of the game itself and the trust of all the people that bet on the sport being in jeopardy of disintegrating overnight. It is hard to overstate how radioactive even the possibility of a gambling addict playing NFL quarterback is for the sport.

 

I do think it's true that he could have entered the regular draft this year. What I heard is that he opted not to. And that he was projected as a 3rd round grade...which I think usually means would be picked after the 3rd round (see: Mason and Howard). It would be interesting to see his projections relative to Allar.

So it's clear that his preference was to return to the NCAA (at least if he didn't have any penalties for gambling).

Then when it was clear that the NCAA was going to enforce some kind of suspension after he basically won the right to play in the NCAA, he dropped his case (even though it was already decided...so maybe he gave up if / when the NCAA appealed? I think the NCAA / Big 10 - is that the right conference? Is appealing the decision...it must be, otherwise I don't get how he can abandon the case after the decision already came down).

My understanding is that the reason he abandoned the NCAA case is because the NFL would basically auto-reject supplemental draft entry since he was eligible to return to the NCAA. But I think at this point he can't go back to the NCAA and he can't go to the NFL. Time to fire that lawyer IMO.

Seems like the NFL was very well aware of the very public court case and how he dropped his suit (after winning?) because he wanted to go to the NFL (without any penalty). I wonder how much of this was the reason for the "I'm not mad, I'm disappointed" type tone in the letter.

 

The NFL is all about optics.

Like how they only seemed to care about the Ray Rice domestic abuse because there was video.

Allowing him into the league (especially without something like a year long suspension) would tarnish the shield.

And if you're going to give him a year long suspension, why let him in the supplemental anyway. Let him wait the year without being on the payroll of an NFL team.

 

it makes perfect sense NB. If this decision was made based on “the law” then Sorsby would be at Texas Tech playing ball.

The Big 12 and the NFL clearly don’t think “the law” was applied correctly with that judges decision.

In this country you can always find a judge who will apply “the law” to make a decision in your favor.

This doesn’t mean “the law” is being applied correctly.

 

Nothing, just wasted my time while he was trying to justify why he pulled me over for NOT actually Speeding.


These "condemn" Sorsby shows are crazy because these networks and youtubers have the draft kings and Fanduel logos plastered all over while they are saying how bad gambling is. Pat Macfee was hilarious today when they broke the news as a few members of his staff were actually wearing Draft King shirts.

The only thing funnier would be if the Rooney's would have come out and said they were not interested in Sorsby because of his involvement with gambling. The Rooneys LOL... Past present and future, I wonder how many times a member of the Rooney family has bet on the Steelers while at their local OTB.

You posted about Art Rooney and the Terry Bradshaw draft and the gambling line that year for the NFL Draft. You ever wonder how much money Art Rooney had on the Steelers drafting Terry Bradshaw that year? Talk about inside information.

 

No matter how many times we see gambling commercials and banners during games or shows about sports it still doesn’t change the fact that players can’t bet on their sport.

 

The position means everything. If Sorsby played guard we probably hear less than squat about it. QB is the only position in football that moves the Vegas betting lines.

- the SCOTUS decision yesterday was a typical example. I'll let yinz google the details.

 

SCOTUS was correct that was a no brainer

Homeowner is a ****ing idiot

 

I don't think the Big 12 was involved in the case on whether he was eligible to play in the NCAA.

The dispute between the Big 12 and the NCAA is a PR issue between the Big 12 and the NCAA. If the law was being broken by not having that volleyball game (or whatever), then someone can take legal action.

My understanding is that the judge granted him a "temporary injunction". Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this means that he couldn't be punished beyond the two game suspension by the NCAA for gambling. The NCAA filed an appeal saying that it should be able to enforce it's own rules. I think the part about it being an "injunction" means that the NCAA can't apply additional punishment until the appeal is finished. Which would likely take longer than the NCAA football season. So it would be more about the NCAA fighting to be able to apply it's rules in the future. Not about Sorseby because the "horse would have left the barn" by the time the case worked it's way through the courts.

Then the Big 12 complained. Michigan, Nebraska, and Georgia cancelled games against Texas Tech (seems like the biggest deal was a volleyball game). My understanding of the ruling from the judge is that the NCAA (presumably this includes the Big 12?) could not have penalized Sorseby further no mater what these other schools did.

But Soresby abandoned that case, so I think the ruling doesn't apply anymore.

The way I read your previous comment (and I certainly could have misinterpreted what you meant) was that the judge should have ruled differently because of the PR issues between the Big 12 and the NCAA. It seems to me that public perception shouldn't be taken into account when judges make rulings. If someone is guilty of something, they should be guilty regardless of the public perception. If someone is not guilty (beyond whatever standard is required), they should be found not guilty.

Your comment here talks about the NFL. My understanding is that the ruling the judge made and the case that Soresby bought had absolutely nothing to do with the NFL. The NFL's decision has nothing to do with the judge's

 

Wrong case but ok

 

FWIW, I think the lower courts are worse than SCOTUS in the US. Especially on politically sensitive matters.

No such thing as the "rule of law" when you know what the result is going to be based on the location of the court the suit is filed in.

And while I am sometimes sympathetic to the reasoning, it's insane the number of federal judges who keep doing these injunctions that they know aren't legal just to try to gum up the process.

When I was reading about the US prior to my citizenship test, it talked about how the judicial branch was apolitical. It would be nice if they at least tried to follow this standard.

 

No, I think the ruling was wrong and the punishment should’ve been harsher.

My reasoning is due to the way the law is applied varies depending on what judge you put this in front of at the particular time.

“The law” has never been above criticism or skepticism. Prime example is the OJ verdict. Try telling anyone they can’t argue with “the law” when it comes to that verdict.

 

The point I was trying to make was that the ruling the judge made should not have been at all related to potential PR issues between the Big 12 and the NCAA...or between the different schools in the Big 12.

I'm not a lawyer, but I wouldn't have been mad about a harsher punishment either.

 

ehh.. SCOTUS is usually 6-3 right along party lines.

I agree the lower level is bad but these days its all bad IMO.

 

What happens when you stop giving people their positions based on merit but on political litmus tests. Congress has for years on both sides just been trying to get folks who root for their team appointed to the bench. Then they wonder why nothing gets done?

People focus on the President because it is high profile and because Congress has devolved most if its powers to the executive branch because they refuse to do anything that can be thrown back at them during an election cycle. It is ridiculous that the country is run by executive order and then legal challenges because the actual branch of government designed to conduct the people's business has abrogated their duty to such a degree that the founders would weep. I am old enough to remember when it wasn't POTUS that was seen as the driver of the political agenda but what Congress would allow POTUS to do.

OKAY....sorry....that rant isn't football related....but I detest every sitting member of Congress with a burning passion and have for several administrations....so it isn't what you might think. So I guess I got "triggered". Although I don't remember Roy Rogers horse buying me dinner....