-
-
well as they say - where there is sm0oke -- alarms had to be set off, but he found other ways.Comment
-
I feel for the kid but I am not sorry about his situation. He brought it on himself. I am actually glad that the NCAA stood their ground. They have been toothless for years. However, I do not think that this is the end of the matter. It will be argued that states made it legal to gamble and the NCAA is discriminating against State laws. Just my opinion.Comment
-
So apparently he is eligible and will serve a 2 game suspension? (for now)Comment
-
And there it is. You didn’t have to be Thrasyllus of Mendes to see this coming. There are no rules anymore. This judge took it on himself to impose a two game suspension, replacing NCAA rules with his own. Money talks, nothing else matters.
Comment
-
This whole thing is a bit of a joke. No doubt the local judge was chatted up by the oil dollars.Comment
-
ESPN reported earlier and it is a big joke and has just stuck another knife into the spineless NCAA.
Brendan Sorsby granted injunction vs. NCAA, eligible to play in 2026 - ESPNComment
-
I'll "BET" the NCAA steps in & stops him from playing!
Comment
-
Texas Tech Eyes National Title After Brendan Sorsby Shocker | Fanrecap.com
It mentions the need for congressional intervention, and it may hinder against some recent banning of players found guilty of fixing games.Comment
-
Their next step would be to appeal to the 7th Court of Appeals for Texas, located in Amarillo. I had read that the four appellate judges there received their JDs' from TX Tech, which I verified.
There is general consensus around the country that this has to be stopped, including even SEC AD's (GA & FL, in particular) instructing staff not to schedule TTU in any sport and, if there are already matchups scheduled, to see what it would take to cancel.
Coaches, ADs 'disgusted,' 'stunned' with Brendan Sorsby ruling - ESPNComment
-
Big 12 schools are talking about not playing Texas Tech. Meetings scheduled among the teams.
Comment
-
Per the B12 by-laws, boycotting isn't likely.
Big 12 Bylaws § 3.6 — Sanction of a Member (paraphrased)
A member institution may be sanctioned by an affirmative vote of a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors (which is defined elsewhere in the bylaws as 75% or more), at a meeting where the targeted member's director representative has been given reasonable prior notice and a reasonable opportunity to be present and heard.
The supermajority may impose sanctions if it determines that the member has done any of the following:- Violated any provision of the Bylaws, the Rules, other Board-established regulations, or the Grant of Rights Agreement;
- Engaged in any action or course of conduct materially adverse to the best interests of the Conference taken as a whole;
- Taken or failed to take any action that could be a basis for Withdrawal under § 3.2, where the supermajority chooses not to treat it as a deemed Withdrawal at that time; or
- Otherwise taken or omitted any action the supermajority determines merits sanctions.
The supermajority has sole discretion over whether sanctions are appropriate, what type, what extent, and what conditions apply, based on factors it deems relevant — including but not limited to the severity of harm to the conference as a whole.
The bylaw provides illustrative (non-exclusive) examples of sanctions: prohibitions on appearance in postseason events or televised events, restrictions on revenue distributions, and limitations on recruiting or scholarships.
Context for the current Texas Tech situation
This is the provision that's been hovering over the Sorsby discussion. A few things worth noting:
The 75% supermajority threshold is high. With 16 Big 12 members in the current alignment (Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, BYU, UCF, Cincinnati, Colorado, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah, West Virginia), 75% means 12 of 16 affirmative votes. And Texas Tech itself would presumably be an "Interested Director" excluded from the calculation, so the threshold runs against the remaining 15.
§ 3.6(ii) — "materially adverse to the best interests of the Conference taken as a whole" — is the broad catch-all that would most plausibly fit the Sorsby fact pattern, and the illustrative-sanctions list explicitly includes "prohibitions on appearance in postseason events or televised events," which is the closest the bylaws come to authorizing the kind of competitive isolation that's being floated in the boycott talk.
Notably absent from § 3.6's illustrative list: forcing other members to refuse to play the sanctioned member. The conference can punish a member, but the bylaws don't appear to give the Board the power to order a boycott by other members. That's likely why the AD chatter has stayed informal — the formal mechanism that exists is sanctions imposed by the Board, not a coordinated schedule withdrawal.
The "reasonable prior notice and opportunity to be heard" requirement also means Texas Tech can't just be sanctioned in this week's calls — there'd be a notice-and-hearing process first.
Comment
Comment