menu
Logo
Logo
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: OK for CFB player to bet on CFB games?
Page: 1 of 2
bobcatsquared
General User
B
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 5,863
B
mail
bobcatsquared
mail
Posted: 6/8/2026 4:11 PM
settings_applications edit_note
I truly don't know what kind of universe we are living in anymore.

First, not only is it OK to violently attack our US Capitol building, but now our president wants to reward them financially for all the trouble these rioters suffered.

Then, today, a judge grants a college QB eligibility for this season after the NCAA declared him ineligible for betting on college football, including bets on his own team.
Last Edited: 6/8/2026 4:14:00 PM by bobcatsquared
FishBates
General User
FB
Member Since: 3/6/2026
Post Count: 212
FB
mail
FishBates
mail
Posted: 6/8/2026 5:30 PM
settings_applications edit_note
bobcatsquared wrote:expand_more
I truly don't know what kind of universe we are living in anymore.

First, not only is it OK to violently attack our US Capitol building, but now our president wants to reward them financially for all the trouble these rioters suffered.

Then, today, a judge grants a college QB eligibility for this season after the NCAA declared him ineligible for betting on college football, including bets on his own team.
How correct you are on both.

Is Texas Tech willing to get de facto booted from the Big12 who is threatening to cancel their league games over this? The SEC has already announced they will honor a boycott of Tech and whatever the SEC decides, the Big Ten will follow. If the ACC didn't want WVU right in their back yard, they sure as heck won't want a scandal ridden tainted Tech.

I know a former Yahoo sportwriter who has been predicting an eventual Big10-SEC super conference forever. If this destroys the Big 12 as we know it, the remaining super conference would happily absorb the best of the B12/ACC leftovers. That is what said writer has been claiming well in advance of this Texas Tech debacle.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,848
BTC
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 6/8/2026 10:16 PM
settings_applications edit_note
FishBates wrote:expand_more
I truly don't know what kind of universe we are living in anymore.

First, not only is it OK to violently attack our US Capitol building, but now our president wants to reward them financially for all the trouble these rioters suffered.

Then, today, a judge grants a college QB eligibility for this season after the NCAA declared him ineligible for betting on college football, including bets on his own team.
How correct you are on both.

Is Texas Tech willing to get de facto booted from the Big12 who is threatening to cancel their league games over this? The SEC has already announced they will honor a boycott of Tech and whatever the SEC decides, the Big Ten will follow. If the ACC didn't want WVU right in their back yard, they sure as heck won't want a scandal ridden tainted Tech.

I know a former Yahoo sportwriter who has been predicting an eventual Big10-SEC super conference forever. If this destroys the Big 12 as we know it, the remaining super conference would happily absorb the best of the B12/ACC leftovers. That is what said writer has been claiming well in advance of this Texas Tech debacle.
The same court will rule against any boycott. The Courts and labor laws run college athletics now. Only way out of this mess is a CBA. The proposed federal law is going NO WHERE and courts will strike it down as well for restraining free trade.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,798
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 6/8/2026 11:04 PM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
The same court will rule against any boycott. The Courts and labor laws run college athletics now. Only way out of this mess is a CBA. The proposed federal law is going NO WHERE and courts will strike it down as well for restraining free trade.
You may be correct that the proposed law is going no where, but if it were to pass, it's likely the courts would rule it constitutional. In his concurring opinion for the NCAA v. Alston case in 2021, Justice Brett Kavanaugh specifically highlighted that Congress holds the constitutional power —- not the courts -— to pass legislation that alters or exempts specific industries from antitrust laws.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,848
BTC
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 6/9/2026 6:01 AM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
The same court will rule against any boycott. The Courts and labor laws run college athletics now. Only way out of this mess is a CBA. The proposed federal law is going NO WHERE and courts will strike it down as well for restraining free trade.
You may be correct that the proposed law is going no where, but if it were to pass, it's likely the courts would rule it constitutional. In his concurring opinion for the NCAA v. Alston case in 2021, Justice Brett Kavanaugh specifically highlighted that Congress holds the constitutional power —- not the courts -— to pass legislation that alters or exempts specific industries from antitrust laws.
Funny, how your opinion varies from what the coaches associations feel will happen, and just like in this case the injunctions will happen and the Wild West will continue for years before it ever gets to the SCOTUS.
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,697
BLSS
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 6/9/2026 8:25 AM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
I truly don't know what kind of universe we are living in anymore.

First, not only is it OK to violently attack our US Capitol building, but now our president wants to reward them financially for all the trouble these rioters suffered.

Then, today, a judge grants a college QB eligibility for this season after the NCAA declared him ineligible for betting on college football, including bets on his own team.
How correct you are on both.

Is Texas Tech willing to get de facto booted from the Big12 who is threatening to cancel their league games over this? The SEC has already announced they will honor a boycott of Tech and whatever the SEC decides, the Big Ten will follow. If the ACC didn't want WVU right in their back yard, they sure as heck won't want a scandal ridden tainted Tech.

I know a former Yahoo sportwriter who has been predicting an eventual Big10-SEC super conference forever. If this destroys the Big 12 as we know it, the remaining super conference would happily absorb the best of the B12/ACC leftovers. That is what said writer has been claiming well in advance of this Texas Tech debacle.
The same court will rule against any boycott. The Courts and labor laws run college athletics now. Only way out of this mess is a CBA. The proposed federal law is going NO WHERE and courts will strike it down as well for restraining free trade.
Labor laws? Which ones have been cited. I missed that.
IceCat76
General User
IC76
Member Since: 12/5/2016
Location: Byfield, MA
Post Count: 307
IC76
mail
IceCat76
mail
Posted: 6/9/2026 9:09 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I truly don't know what kind of universe we are living in anymore.

First, not only is it OK to violently attack our US Capitol building, but now our president wants to reward them financially for all the trouble these rioters suffered.

Then, today, a judge grants a college QB eligibility for this season after the NCAA declared him ineligible for betting on college football, including bets on his own team.
How correct you are on both.

Is Texas Tech willing to get de facto booted from the Big12 who is threatening to cancel their league games over this? The SEC has already announced they will honor a boycott of Tech and whatever the SEC decides, the Big Ten will follow. If the ACC didn't want WVU right in their back yard, they sure as heck won't want a scandal ridden tainted Tech.


I know a former Yahoo sportwriter who has been predicting an eventual Big10-SEC super conference forever. If this destroys the Big 12 as we know it, the remaining super conference would happily absorb the best of the B12/ACC leftovers. That is what said writer has been claiming well in advance of this Texas Tech debacle.
The same court will rule against any boycott. The Courts and labor laws run college athletics now. Only way out of this mess is a CBA. The proposed federal law is going NO WHERE and courts will strike it down as well for restraining free trade.
Labor laws? Which ones have been cited. I missed that.
This isn't labor law. This is Americans with Disabilities Act. His lawyer made the case that he has a mental health issue and to not allow him to play would discriminate against him for his "affliction".
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,798
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 6/9/2026 10:36 AM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
The same court will rule against any boycott. The Courts and labor laws run college athletics now. Only way out of this mess is a CBA. The proposed federal law is going NO WHERE and courts will strike it down as well for restraining free trade.
You may be correct that the proposed law is going no where, but if it were to pass, it's likely the courts would rule it constitutional. In his concurring opinion for the NCAA v. Alston case in 2021, Justice Brett Kavanaugh specifically highlighted that Congress holds the constitutional power —- not the courts -— to pass legislation that alters or exempts specific industries from antitrust laws.
Funny, how your opinion varies from what the coaches associations feel will happen, and just like in this case the injunctions will happen and the Wild West will continue for years before it ever gets to the SCOTUS.
Congress passed anti-trust laws, and Congress has the power to change them and to grant exemptions. This not a matter, per se, of constitutional law.
FishBates
General User
FB
Member Since: 3/6/2026
Post Count: 212
FB
mail
FishBates
mail
Posted: 6/9/2026 12:36 PM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
I truly don't know what kind of universe we are living in anymore.

First, not only is it OK to violently attack our US Capitol building, but now our president wants to reward them financially for all the trouble these rioters suffered.

Then, today, a judge grants a college QB eligibility for this season after the NCAA declared him ineligible for betting on college football, including bets on his own team.
How correct you are on both.

Is Texas Tech willing to get de facto booted from the Big12 who is threatening to cancel their league games over this? The SEC has already announced they will honor a boycott of Tech and whatever the SEC decides, the Big Ten will follow. If the ACC didn't want WVU right in their back yard, they sure as heck won't want a scandal ridden tainted Tech.

I know a former Yahoo sportwriter who has been predicting an eventual Big10-SEC super conference forever. If this destroys the Big 12 as we know it, the remaining super conference would happily absorb the best of the B12/ACC leftovers. That is what said writer has been claiming well in advance of this Texas Tech debacle.
The same court will rule against any boycott. The Courts and labor laws run college athletics now. Only way out of this mess is a CBA. The proposed federal law is going NO WHERE and courts will strike it down as well for restraining free trade.
I just texted a NLRB lawyer in the family to see if she has a feeling either way on the restraint of trade angle.

She also happens to be in Texas. (not sure that matters)
100%Cat
General User
Member Since: 1/17/2013
Post Count: 2,737
mail
100%Cat
mail
Posted: 6/9/2026 3:42 PM
settings_applications edit_note
We've gone from "bet on baseball and you're barely ever allowed back in a stadium" to "bet on most of your own games and stay eligible for football" in a relatively short period of time.
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,697
BLSS
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 6/9/2026 3:54 PM
settings_applications edit_note
100%Cat wrote:expand_more
We've gone from "bet on baseball and you're barely ever allowed back in a stadium" to "bet on most of your own games and stay eligible for football" in a relatively short period of time.
We sure have. I was of the mind prior that legalizing gambling would just bring something that was happening anyhow into the light and make it easier to regulate.

I no longer feel that way. It's wild how much sports gambling has grown in a short period and how prevalent gambling is now in the US. Seems like the well's been poisoned very quickly.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,798
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 6/9/2026 7:58 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
We've gone from "bet on baseball and you're barely ever allowed back in a stadium" to "bet on most of your own games and stay eligible for football" in a relatively short period of time.
We sure have. I was of the mind prior that legalizing gambling would just bring something that was happening anyhow into the light and make it easier to regulate.

I no longer feel that way. It's wild how much sports gambling has grown in a short period and how prevalent gambling is now in the US. Seems like the well's been poisoned very quickly.
Very similar to my feeling about the Ohio Lottery when the legalization of it was on the ballot in circa 1972. I left that issue blank, as I could not decide if the state lottery would just switch illegal gambling to legal gambling (in which case I was for it), or if it would create a whole new cohort of gamblers (in which case I would be against it). Knowing what I know now, I would have been a "no" vote. I just didn't envision a world where the state lottery commission would advertise in such a way as to entice multitudes of new gamblers, and how the state getting into the lottery business would legitimize it in some peoples' minds. I should have realized both of those things, but as a young man in my 20s, I did not.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,848
BTC
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 6/9/2026 10:56 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
We've gone from "bet on baseball and you're barely ever allowed back in a stadium" to "bet on most of your own games and stay eligible for football" in a relatively short period of time.
We sure have. I was of the mind prior that legalizing gambling would just bring something that was happening anyhow into the light and make it easier to regulate.

I no longer feel that way. It's wild how much sports gambling has grown in a short period and how prevalent gambling is now in the US. Seems like the well's been poisoned very quickly.
It’s always been prevalent, it’s just now legal.

And to the clown that worships every post just wait, restraint on income will come around. Also same clown that told me the negotiated agreement would never take hold. Yeah, suck one. Because it has. If you want to out yourself by responding. Feel free to
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,848
BTC
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 6/9/2026 10:58 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
The same court will rule against any boycott. The Courts and labor laws run college athletics now. Only way out of this mess is a CBA. The proposed federal law is going NO WHERE and courts will strike it down as well for restraining free trade.
You may be correct that the proposed law is going no where, but if it were to pass, it's likely the courts would rule it constitutional. In his concurring opinion for the NCAA v. Alston case in 2021, Justice Brett Kavanaugh specifically highlighted that Congress holds the constitutional power —- not the courts -— to pass legislation that alters or exempts specific industries from antitrust laws.
Funny, how your opinion varies from what the coaches associations feel will happen, and just like in this case the injunctions will happen and the Wild West will continue for years before it ever gets to the SCOTUS.
Congress passed anti-trust laws, and Congress has the power to change them and to grant exemptions. This not a matter, per se, of constitutional law.
As a journalist, you should probably understand that all laws are subject to judicial review. Marburg vs Madison 1803. Wait and see.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,798
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 6/9/2026 11:57 PM
settings_applications edit_note
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
The same court will rule against any boycott. The Courts and labor laws run college athletics now. Only way out of this mess is a CBA. The proposed federal law is going NO WHERE and courts will strike it down as well for restraining free trade.
You may be correct that the proposed law is going no where, but if it were to pass, it's likely the courts would rule it constitutional. In his concurring opinion for the NCAA v. Alston case in 2021, Justice Brett Kavanaugh specifically highlighted that Congress holds the constitutional power —- not the courts -— to pass legislation that alters or exempts specific industries from antitrust laws.
Funny, how your opinion varies from what the coaches associations feel will happen, and just like in this case the injunctions will happen and the Wild West will continue for years before it ever gets to the SCOTUS.
Congress passed anti-trust laws, and Congress has the power to change them and to grant exemptions. This not a matter, per se, of constitutional law.
As a journalist, you should probably understand that all laws are subject to judicial review. Marburg vs Madison 1803. Wait and see.
As one who taught journalism law classes, I know the difference between constitutional and statutory law. The concept of anti-trust law came into being with the Sherman anti-trust law authored by Ohio Senator John Sherman, younger brother our famous Civil War general. Any judical review of an exemption granted to college sports would be based on analysis of current anti-trust law, not some constitutional principle. The constitutionality of anti-trust legislation has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in Northern Securities Co. v. United States in 1904. Now, that doesn't mean that some rogue district court judge might not rule against an exemption that Congress would grant to college sports, but it does mean that such a ruling would be virtually certaiin to be overturned upon appeal.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,798
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 6/10/2026 12:05 AM
settings_applications edit_note
In the previous post, I give myself 10 bonus points for figuring out a way to get in a Civil War reference. Doc, how many Scrabble points would that be worth?
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,841
GC105
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 6/10/2026 1:34 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
We've gone from "bet on baseball and you're barely ever allowed back in a stadium" to "bet on most of your own games and stay eligible for football" in a relatively short period of time.
We sure have. I was of the mind prior that legalizing gambling would just bring something that was happening anyhow into the light and make it easier to regulate.

I no longer feel that way. It's wild how much sports gambling has grown in a short period and how prevalent gambling is now in the US. Seems like the well's been poisoned very quickly.
It's broken contain and now with an app like Kalshi, you can literally bet on just about anything. It's not relegated to just sports. Is the sky gonna be blue today? I'll give you 3-1 odds. Are oil prices going to go down? 10-1. It's all really gross.
Last Edited: 6/10/2026 1:34:37 PM by GoCats105
FishBates
General User
FB
Member Since: 3/6/2026
Post Count: 212
FB
mail
FishBates
mail
Posted: 6/10/2026 1:43 PM
settings_applications edit_note
FishBates wrote:expand_more
I truly don't know what kind of universe we are living in anymore.

First, not only is it OK to violently attack our US Capitol building, but now our president wants to reward them financially for all the trouble these rioters suffered.

Then, today, a judge grants a college QB eligibility for this season after the NCAA declared him ineligible for betting on college football, including bets on his own team.
How correct you are on both.

Is Texas Tech willing to get de facto booted from the Big12 who is threatening to cancel their league games over this? The SEC has already announced they will honor a boycott of Tech and whatever the SEC decides, the Big Ten will follow. If the ACC didn't want WVU right in their back yard, they sure as heck won't want a scandal ridden tainted Tech.

I know a former Yahoo sportwriter who has been predicting an eventual Big10-SEC super conference forever. If this destroys the Big 12 as we know it, the remaining super conference would happily absorb the best of the B12/ACC leftovers. That is what said writer has been claiming well in advance of this Texas Tech debacle.
The same court will rule against any boycott. The Courts and labor laws run college athletics now. Only way out of this mess is a CBA. The proposed federal law is going NO WHERE and courts will strike it down as well for restraining free trade.
I just texted a NLRB lawyer in the family to see if she has a feeling either way on the restraint of trade angle.

She also happens to be in Texas. (not sure that matters)
So far what I heard back (Quote)

Re: the Big12

It's going to depend on where the suit takes place and what laws if any are applied. The Texas case is being appealed and a higher court might continue the suspension pending the outcome of the case. Personally, it is Texas and you know how they are about football. The court could agree that he has a gambling addiction and only give him a two game suspension.

Other:
A new suit is filed in federal court in San Francisco where two players are suing the NCAA and several conferences for called violations of antitrust among other issues. One plaintiff is at USC and the other is at Stanford.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,798
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 6/10/2026 3:43 PM
settings_applications edit_note
FishBates wrote:expand_more
I truly don't know what kind of universe we are living in anymore.

First, not only is it OK to violently attack our US Capitol building, but now our president wants to reward them financially for all the trouble these rioters suffered.

Then, today, a judge grants a college QB eligibility for this season after the NCAA declared him ineligible for betting on college football, including bets on his own team.
How correct you are on both.

Is Texas Tech willing to get de facto booted from the Big12 who is threatening to cancel their league games over this? The SEC has already announced they will honor a boycott of Tech and whatever the SEC decides, the Big Ten will follow. If the ACC didn't want WVU right in their back yard, they sure as heck won't want a scandal ridden tainted Tech.

I know a former Yahoo sportwriter who has been predicting an eventual Big10-SEC super conference forever. If this destroys the Big 12 as we know it, the remaining super conference would happily absorb the best of the B12/ACC leftovers. That is what said writer has been claiming well in advance of this Texas Tech debacle.
The same court will rule against any boycott. The Courts and labor laws run college athletics now. Only way out of this mess is a CBA. The proposed federal law is going NO WHERE and courts will strike it down as well for restraining free trade.
I just texted a NLRB lawyer in the family to see if she has a feeling either way on the restraint of trade angle.

She also happens to be in Texas. (not sure that matters)
So far what I heard back (Quote)

Re: the Big12

It's going to depend on where the suit takes place and what laws if any are applied. The Texas case is being appealed and a higher court might continue the suspension pending the outcome of the case. Personally, it is Texas and you know how they are about football. The court could agree that he has a gambling addiction and only give him a two game suspension.

Other:
A new suit is filed in federal court in San Francisco where two players are suing the NCAA and several conferences for called violations of antitrust among other issues. One plaintiff is at USC and the other is at Stanford.
These cases might provide an impetus for Congress to actually do something and pass some limited anti-trust exemption. However, it'll probably take something even more scandalous to get those turkeys to do anything.
BillyTheCat
General User
BTC
Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,848
BTC
mail
BillyTheCat
mail
Posted: 6/13/2026 12:22 AM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
I truly don't know what kind of universe we are living in anymore.

First, not only is it OK to violently attack our US Capitol building, but now our president wants to reward them financially for all the trouble these rioters suffered.

Then, today, a judge grants a college QB eligibility for this season after the NCAA declared him ineligible for betting on college football, including bets on his own team.
How correct you are on both.

Is Texas Tech willing to get de facto booted from the Big12 who is threatening to cancel their league games over this? The SEC has already announced they will honor a boycott of Tech and whatever the SEC decides, the Big Ten will follow. If the ACC didn't want WVU right in their back yard, they sure as heck won't want a scandal ridden tainted Tech.

I know a former Yahoo sportwriter who has been predicting an eventual Big10-SEC super conference forever. If this destroys the Big 12 as we know it, the remaining super conference would happily absorb the best of the B12/ACC leftovers. That is what said writer has been claiming well in advance of this Texas Tech debacle.
The same court will rule against any boycott. The Courts and labor laws run college athletics now. Only way out of this mess is a CBA. The proposed federal law is going NO WHERE and courts will strike it down as well for restraining free trade.
I just texted a NLRB lawyer in the family to see if she has a feeling either way on the restraint of trade angle.

She also happens to be in Texas. (not sure that matters)
So far what I heard back (Quote)

Re: the Big12

It's going to depend on where the suit takes place and what laws if any are applied. The Texas case is being appealed and a higher court might continue the suspension pending the outcome of the case. Personally, it is Texas and you know how they are about football. The court could agree that he has a gambling addiction and only give him a two game suspension.

Other:
A new suit is filed in federal court in San Francisco where two players are suing the NCAA and several conferences for called violations of antitrust among other issues. One plaintiff is at USC and the other is at Stanford.
These cases might provide an impetus for Congress to actually do something and pass some limited anti-trust exemption. However, it'll probably take something even more scandalous to get those turkeys to do anything.
With all due respect, you are living in a different world.
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,697
BLSS
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 6/13/2026 12:51 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
I truly don't know what kind of universe we are living in anymore.

First, not only is it OK to violently attack our US Capitol building, but now our president wants to reward them financially for all the trouble these rioters suffered.

Then, today, a judge grants a college QB eligibility for this season after the NCAA declared him ineligible for betting on college football, including bets on his own team.
How correct you are on both.

Is Texas Tech willing to get de facto booted from the Big12 who is threatening to cancel their league games over this? The SEC has already announced they will honor a boycott of Tech and whatever the SEC decides, the Big Ten will follow. If the ACC didn't want WVU right in their back yard, they sure as heck won't want a scandal ridden tainted Tech.

I know a former Yahoo sportwriter who has been predicting an eventual Big10-SEC super conference forever. If this destroys the Big 12 as we know it, the remaining super conference would happily absorb the best of the B12/ACC leftovers. That is what said writer has been claiming well in advance of this Texas Tech debacle.
The same court will rule against any boycott. The Courts and labor laws run college athletics now. Only way out of this mess is a CBA. The proposed federal law is going NO WHERE and courts will strike it down as well for restraining free trade.
I just texted a NLRB lawyer in the family to see if she has a feeling either way on the restraint of trade angle.

She also happens to be in Texas. (not sure that matters)
So far what I heard back (Quote)

Re: the Big12

It's going to depend on where the suit takes place and what laws if any are applied. The Texas case is being appealed and a higher court might continue the suspension pending the outcome of the case. Personally, it is Texas and you know how they are about football. The court could agree that he has a gambling addiction and only give him a two game suspension.

Other:
A new suit is filed in federal court in San Francisco where two players are suing the NCAA and several conferences for called violations of antitrust among other issues. One plaintiff is at USC and the other is at Stanford.
These cases might provide an impetus for Congress to actually do something and pass some limited anti-trust exemption. However, it'll probably take something even more scandalous to get those turkeys to do anything.
It's pretty clear that it's headed here. There are already multiple bills drafted and floating around, and increasingly the incentives to do something are starting to align.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,798
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 6/13/2026 6:39 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I truly don't know what kind of universe we are living in anymore.

First, not only is it OK to violently attack our US Capitol building, but now our president wants to reward them financially for all the trouble these rioters suffered.

Then, today, a judge grants a college QB eligibility for this season after the NCAA declared him ineligible for betting on college football, including bets on his own team.
How correct you are on both.

Is Texas Tech willing to get de facto booted from the Big12 who is threatening to cancel their league games over this? The SEC has already announced they will honor a boycott of Tech and whatever the SEC decides, the Big Ten will follow. If the ACC didn't want WVU right in their back yard, they sure as heck won't want a scandal ridden tainted Tech.

I know a former Yahoo sportwriter who has been predicting an eventual Big10-SEC super conference forever. If this destroys the Big 12 as we know it, the remaining super conference would happily absorb the best of the B12/ACC leftovers. That is what said writer has been claiming well in advance of this Texas Tech debacle.
The same court will rule against any boycott. The Courts and labor laws run college athletics now. Only way out of this mess is a CBA. The proposed federal law is going NO WHERE and courts will strike it down as well for restraining free trade.
I just texted a NLRB lawyer in the family to see if she has a feeling either way on the restraint of trade angle.

She also happens to be in Texas. (not sure that matters)
So far what I heard back (Quote)

Re: the Big12

It's going to depend on where the suit takes place and what laws if any are applied. The Texas case is being appealed and a higher court might continue the suspension pending the outcome of the case. Personally, it is Texas and you know how they are about football. The court could agree that he has a gambling addiction and only give him a two game suspension.

Other:
A new suit is filed in federal court in San Francisco where two players are suing the NCAA and several conferences for called violations of antitrust among other issues. One plaintiff is at USC and the other is at Stanford.
These cases might provide an impetus for Congress to actually do something and pass some limited anti-trust exemption. However, it'll probably take something even more scandalous to get those turkeys to do anything.
It's pretty clear that it's headed here. There are already multiple bills drafted and floating around, and increasingly the incentives to do something are starting to align.
Welcome to BTC alternate universe!
Victory
General User
V
Member Since: 3/11/2012
Post Count: 2,528
V
mail
Victory
mail
Posted: 6/14/2026 8:30 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Kirby Hocutt's actions of late make me ashamed to say that he was ever our athletic director.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,798
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 6/14/2026 9:45 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Victory wrote:expand_more
Kirby Hocutt's actions of late make me ashamed to say that he was ever our athletic director.
I was ashamed of him when he was still on our payroll.
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User
BLSS
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 4,697
BLSS
mail
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
Posted: 6/15/2026 9:52 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Victory wrote:expand_more
Kirby Hocutt's actions of late make me ashamed to say that he was ever our athletic director.
The people in charge love to act like it's the courts that are in charge here, and their hands are tied.

But the people in charge are Kirby Hocutts and will do the wrong thing anytime it benefits them. It's morally bankrupt leadership that necessitated the courts in the first place.
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 49
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_forward
MAC News Links
chevron_left
Tuesday, July 21, 2026
chevron_right



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)