Ben Stokes set to be left out of England squad for second New Zealand…

With the NCAA on the losing end of the initial Brendan Sorsby ruling (while scoring a major P.R. win), the next round will happen in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas. Sorsby and Texas Tech have a built-in advantage.

As noted by Mark Schlabach of ESPN, each of the four justices on the Seventh District appeals court (Judy Parker, Lawrence Doss, Alex Yarbrough, and Laura Pratt) graduated from the Texas Tech School of Law.

On one hand, it's an extension of the home cooking that happens when local colleges and their players file a lawsuit in state court. Here, it's possible that one or more of them will recuse themselves from the case, given their connection to Texas Tech. (There will be a standard procedure for replacing them, if that happens.) Still, Texas judges will be resolving a Texas appeal in a Texas case involving a Texas football program.

On the other hand, the outcry since Monday's ruling could have an impact on the appellate decision. Although it's possible (and it would be genius, if it was deliberate) that various conferences and athletic directors and coaches kept quiet before the decision was made in the hopes that it would spark the political push necessary to get Congress to give the NCAA and its members the antitrust exemption they crave, the cat is now out of the bag. The appeals court justices will better appreciate the stakes, and they will be bracing for the blowback if they uphold a four-page decision from Judge Ken Curry that was very light on analysis.

Judge Curry used the magic words necessary to trigger preliminary relief aimed at keeping Sorsby eligible while the case goes forward. There were no findings of fact or conclusions of law. There was no consideration of the policy arguments and the broader public interest in whether or not a player who had previously made bets involving his team should be allowed to keep playing, gambling addiction or not. His ruling could be vulnerable on appeal.

In the end, the NCAA could emerge with a double-whammy win. The original ruling could grease the skids for a federally-granted license to collude, and the appeal ruling could slam the door on Sorsby's ability to play for Texas Tech.

In most cases, few remember (or even know) what happens after the initial ruling. The McDonald's hot coffee case generated a verdict of more than $2.8 million in 1994. That became the rallying cry for so-called tort reform on a nationwide basis. The fact that the trial judge reduced the verdict by more than $2 million gets overlooked.

It will be impossible to overlook the outcome of Sorsby's appeal, since it will be the last word on whether he can play for Texas Tech in 2026. Still, a reversal of Judge Curry's ruling won't reverse the notion that the decision represents the tipping point between chaos and anarchy in college sports.

Even if Sorsby never plays another down of college football, the powers-that-be have the ammunition they need to get Congress to clean up the mess that resulted from decades of blatant and unchecked antitrust violations that kept the players in constant fear of getting a suspension if someone dared to give them a free Slurpee.