Mike Florio usually has logical takes on various NFL storylines (even though they tend to be slanted in favor of the players and their agents). But I think he’s way off on this one.
When discussing Brendan Sorsby’s ability to enter the NFL without serving the punishment dished out by the NCAA, he supported the use of a precedent involving Kayshon Boutte, a player who entered the NFL with similar gambling problems, to allow Sorsby to avoid the consequences of his actions.
In 2011, the NFL suspended former Ohio State quarterback Terrelle Pryor for five games after he was taken in the supplemental draft, mirroring a pending five-game NCAA suspension. Appearing Wednesday on 105.3 The Fan in Dallas, agent Ron Slavin was asked whether the NFL may try to do to Sorsby what it did to Pryor.
“No, because ++there’s a precedent set++ with the Boutte kid out of LSU, where he had gambling and when he got to the NFL . . . he didn’t get any suspension or sit out at all,” Slavin said. “So, I think the precedent’s been set there. I mean, those conversations will still be had, but I don’t think you can really just make up rules as you go. Once you set a precedent, that’s what it is.”
In theory, Slavin is right. In practice, well, the NFL has a bit of a reputation for making up rules as it goes.
There’s a difference between Boutte and Sorsby that, on the surface, is irrelevant. But it could cause the league to reach a different outcome.
In Boutte’s case, his gambling addiction, underage betting, and wagers placed on LSU games while playing for LSU didn’t come to light until after Boutte’s rookie season with the Patriots had ended. For Sorsby, it’s all out in the open as he enters the league, after losing his NCAA eligibility.
As to Boutte, a suspension would have put a spotlight on the NFL’s failure to know about his betting before he entered pro football. As to Sorsby, everyone knows. It has become a major story. It will be harder for the NFL to look the other way.
It shouldn’t matter. The Boutte precedent should guide the Sorsby decision. The NFL, however, prefers to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, without past outcomes or prior reasoning tying its hands in a given situation.
It does matter. The NFL suspended Pryor because he was trying to enter the NFL to avoid a suspension that the NCAA had already applied. In Boutte’s situation, that wasn’t the case. He hadn’t been caught, and the NFL hadn’t administered a punishment that he would have had to serve had he continued to play college football.
Players shouldn’t be allowed to willfully break the rules in college, knowing that all they have to do is apply for entry into the NFL to avoid the consequences. That, right now, is what Sorsby is trying to do.
It will be interesting to see what the NFL does in this situation. Sorsby was ruled completely ineligible to play by the NCAA. I’m assuming that the ruling of a local judge turning that into a 2-game suspension won’t be relevant to the NFL. But what Sorsby’s ineligibility translates to in terms of NFL punishment, I don’t know.