…the head-exploding court decision that Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby is eligible to Big 12 football this season.
Sorsby had admitted placing at least 40 bets on Indiana football while he was playing for the Hoosiers, and approximately $90,000 in sports wagers using other people’s sportsbook accounts. He spent four years concealing his gambling from three different schools and only came clean once law enforcement swooped down on him. Now he says he is a gambling addict, and it would be hard to dispute that. The NCAA was alerted to Sorsby’s gambling in March. The organization notified Texas Tech of its investigation in April, and Texas Tech made Sorsby ineligible while it fought to have the star reinstated. Then Sorsby’s lawyers sued NCAA on May 18, seeking an injunction that would prevent the NCAA from banning him. And they were successful.
You won’t believe why, or maybe you will if you have followed the slippery slope of progressive enabling of wrongdoing. The judge’s logic: The NCAA would be harming a recovering gambling addict—poor lamb— by enforcing a rule that every pro sports league in this country enforces. Sorsby’s gambling history is a mental health and addiction issue, so the NCAA must consider his well-being and support him rather than punish him. Judge Ken Curry ruled that the quarterback would suffer “irreparable injury” if he isn’t granted a temporary injunction allowing him to play for the Texas Tech Red Raiders this season. To deprive him of the ability to “benefit from the elite coaching, training resources, camaraderie and regimen that only being a member of a Division I college football team can provide”would be unconscionable.
The fact that there is no way to be sure the gambling addict calling the plays hasn’t placed bets on his team’s point spread or isn’t under the metaphorical thumbs of organized crime or angry bookies, and been told that if his team doesn’t lose, his mother will be fish food? Never mind.
Ethics Alarms 
Methinks the proverbial train doth left the building. The the injunction has broader implications, though: From Snell & Wilmer (not sure who they are but this reads really well): https://www.swlaw.com/publication/the-hidden-weapon-in-sorsbys-injunction-how-a-lubbock-county-court-order-quietly-neutralized-the-ncaas-most-powerful-enforcement-tool/
“In addition to prohibiting the NCAA from blocking Sorsby’s participation, the order expressly enjoins the NCAA from enforcing ‘its Bylaw 12.9.4.2 (Rule of Restitution) against Applicant, Texas Tech, any affiliate of Texas Tech, any university that competes against Texas Tech during the 2026 college football season, or any affiliate of any such university for complying with, and relying on this Order.’” That provision effectively strips any teams from boycotting games where this fellow is in the line up or even on the team.
jvb
Who is Snell and Wilmer, you ask, John! Snell & Wilmer is the firm that brought Mrs. OB and OB and their children to Phoenix. I spent five years toiling away there when it was the biggest firm in Phoenix at thirty-five lawyers. It’s now all over the southwest and employs around four hundred and fifty lawyers, last I knew.
All the sports books who have a deal with the NCAA or the Big Twelve or Texas Tech should simply refuse to handle any bets on Texas Tech’s games and subtract their anticipated profit on the handle on any of those unavailable bets from whatever they pay to those bumbling dopes. Hit ’em where they live. They’ll throw that kid under the bus ASAP.
One question that isn’t being asked is whether the “irreparable” harm caused by banning Sorsby from NCAA sports is outweighed by the damage done to Sorsby’s integrity by not punishing his transgressions. Sometimes the only way to break out of addictions is to have an irreversible loss that finally wakes you up to how badly off you really are. Maybe Sorsby is one of those people who find a slap on the wrist enough to motive a lifestyle change, but odds are against it. Most of the rest of the country is subject to the reality that some poor decisions will forever close doors. A sex crime will (or should) end someone’s career in teaching. Embezzlement or fraud should end one’s career in accounting.
I’m personally interested in the rehabilitation of criminals, and to that extent I’m opposed to punishments that are entirely punitive in nature. But what I think most people who are proponents of “restorative justice” fail to recognize is that the pain of punishment is itself rehabilitative, and often you can’t actually achieve rehabilitation without that pain. So really, what Judge Curry is saying is that it is more important that Texas Tech have a winning season than it is for Sorsby to have a fighting chance to recover from his addiction.
On the other hand, I’ve witnessed myself both in high school and at college how even poorly performing football players are treated to superstar status, with teachers bending over backward to keep them eligible, and administrators setting up special programs and rallies and the like to stoke school support of team. So I’m not surprised that a judge would find playing football more important than receiving the correct necessary to overcome a life-crippling habit (gambling, not football).