NCAA lays out its case for Brendan Sorsby's banishment

Player mentions

Article text

On Monday, lawyers representing the NCAA and Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby will convene in a Texas courtroom to argue the question of whether Sorsby's eligibility to play college football should be temporarily reinstated. For now, the NCAA has articulated its position in a document filed on Friday with the judge who will decide the question. As noted by Ross Dellenger of Yahoo Sports, the NCAA's legal brief explains that permitting Sorsby to compete would make it " the first and only major sports league in America to allow an athlete to compete after betting on his own games ." That allegation traces to the fact that Sorsby made at least 40 bets on the Indiana football team and/or specific Indiana players when he played for Indiana. The only caveat offered by Sorsby's side is that he didn't actually play in any of the games on which he wagered. The NCAA is not disputing the fact that Sorsby developed a gambling addiction. Like any other addiction that potentially rises to the level of a disability, however, the person who has developed the problem is protected from the existence of the condition but not from the specific behaviors associated with it. Addiction or not, Sorsby violated the NCAA's rules, repeatedly. Using others to place wagers on his behalf shows that he knew what he was doing ran afoul of relevant NCAA gambling restrictions. Sorsby deserves sympathy. His addiction quite possibly traces to the fact that he came of age at a time when sports betting has become normalized. Still, the rules are the rules. Even if there's a hint (or something stronger) of hypocrisy inherent to the fact that the sports leagues profit directly and/or indirectly from the explosion in legalized betting, Sorsby knew the rules. The other entity that isn't directly involved in this case but that looms over it is the NFL. Given what the league did to Terrelle Pryor in 2011, when it fashioned a five-game suspension out of thin air in the apparent hopes of placating the NCAA, Sorsby and his lawyers should be concerned that the NFL could attempt to delay his eligibility to play pro football based on his violation of NCAA rules. If/when Sorsby is unable to regain his college eligibility and applies for the supplemental draft, the NFL won't be able to say that he has violated a single league rule. He would present himself to the league as a player who is recovering from a gambling addiction, with no behaviors that should disqualify him from gainful employment by an NFL team — as long as he complies with the NFL's gambling rules. Patriots receiver Kayshon Boutte managed to overcome a gambling addiction and perform in the NFL without violating the league's gambling rules. In Boutte's case, however, the situation didn't become public until he was charged after his rookie season with underage gambling. The charges were dropped , and the NFL took no action against Boutte for past NCAA rules violation that didn't come to light until after he had left LSU. (Boutte allegedly placed bets on at least two LSU games in which he played.) Sorsby should get the same treatment by the league. There should be no barrier to his participation in the supplemental draft, and there should be no punishment unless and until he violates the NFL's gambling rules. Even if Sorsby loses his case as to the NCAA, the fact that he aggressively pursued his rights kept the NCAA from dragging its feet long enough to cause him to miss the window for entering the supplemental draft. W…