Craig Lawrence @clawrence

Investing in companies leading the energy transition @energyventures. Studied @texas_univ @Stanford. Worked @IDEO @Accel @SunEdison @SolarBridgeTech @SunPower energytransitionventures.com Austin, TX Joined January 2008

Tweets

26K
Followers

14K
Following

5K
Likes

9K

Craig Lawrence @clawrence

4 hours ago

@JasonMcNeil_78 @BrennanBaxt Not sure any of that is relevant. He gambled while on the Tech roster. He violated Tech rules against gambling. Tech is still free to punish him according to their own rules, regardless of the court findings, which don’t apply to Tech, just the NCAA.

0 0 0 28 0

View Details

Craig Lawrence @clawrence

4 hours ago

@lilsidyl23 @BrennanBaxt The ruling is against the NCAA making him permanently ineligible. Texas Tech is not a party to that ruling. They have zero obligation to play him. They are choosing to not enforce their own rule against student athletes gambling.

1 0 1 50 0

View Details

Craig Lawrence @clawrence

5 hours ago

I don’t honestly recall. Very little info was ever released about that case. But I have supported many other disciplinary actions against players and coaches at UT in the past. You may choose not believe me, but if Arch Manning gambled on Texas football games, I would support his loss of eligibility to play.

0 0 0 38 0

View Details

Craig Lawrence @clawrence

5 hours ago

@Aaron_Torres It is a crime to bet on sports in Texas. And a crime to bet under the age of 21 in an Ohio and Indiana. Sox he did commit crimes.

0 0 5 257 0

View Details

Craig Lawrence @clawrence

5 hours ago

@AustinRealtor I would not believe you if you told me it sold for $4.5 M. Listed? Who knows.

1 0 4 859 0

View Details

Craig Lawrence @clawrence

10 hours ago

@ktfuntweets Other college players have permanently lost eligibility for less egregious gambling. And lost appeals. Gambling on your own team seems like the line that should never be crossed in any sport. Gambling on other sports, other leagues - perhaps some room for debate on punishment.

0 0 1 64 0

View Details

Craig Lawrence @clawrence

10 hours ago

If I'm Hunter Dekkers, former QB @CycloneFB who permanently lost eligibility in '23 for gambling $2800 and lost his appeal, I'm pissed. His redemption arc is awesome though. Played community college, made the Saints practice squad, drafted by the UFL Houston Gamblers this year.

0 0 1 430 0

View Details

Craig Lawrence @clawrence

10 hours ago

@LoewyLawFirm That's the NCAA rule. Permanent loss of college eligibility. Other players have been kicked out for the same thing. And there is nothing stopping him from playing in the NFL if a team will take him. He's had 3 years of starting QB tape for scouts to look at.

0 0 23 609 0

View Details

Craig Lawrence @clawrence

12 hours ago

@JesseReSimonton Was his betting legal in those states? I believe he was under 21 for much of that betting, which is the legal gambling age in every state that has legalized it.

0 0 7 535 0

View Details

Craig Lawrence @clawrence

12 hours ago

@BGobannos @DanWolken Except Sorsby gambled as a Texas Tech student athlete, after his transfer. They should punish him for that.

1 0 1 61 0

View Details

Craig Lawrence @clawrence

12 hours ago

You are conveniently neglecting the 2023 player gambling scandal, where 3 Iowa State players were caught gambling. The starting QB Hunter Dekkers was ruled permanently ineligible by the NCAA (same penalty as Sorsby). He appealed and lost. The other two players left the team and college football before the NCAA levied a penalty. That doesn't excuse the 2025 Iowa State coaching gambling scandal which occurred later - they did get off easy. Although 4 of the 5 left coaching, and one is still working at Iowa St as a Director of Analytics, not a coach.

1 0 0 30 0

View Details

Craig Lawrence @clawrence

13 hours ago

@NathanGiese Yes. Sorsby's lawsuit against the NCAA. Texas Tech is not a party to the suit. And that ruling does not prevent Texas Tech from enforcing their own rules however they see fit. And their rules call for up to two years of eligibility lost.

5 0 10 290 0

View Details

Craig Lawrence @clawrence

13 hours ago

@the469don @DanWolken It's a bad deal all around. Not Tech's fault he gambled.

1 0 1 66 0

View Details

Craig Lawrence @clawrence

13 hours ago

No - the injunction is just against the NCAA for their permanent ineligibility punishment. Tech was not a party to the court case. If Tech sidelined Sorsby or kicked him off the team, in theory, Sorsby could then sue Tech and try to get a similar ruling. But even then, that would not force Tech to actually play Sorsby. Just may prevent them from kicking off the team. No court has ruled that Tech has to start Sorsby.

1 0 3 72 0

View Details

Craig Lawrence @clawrence

13 hours ago

People are calling for Sorsby to be punished - not Texas Tech. If Tech just followed their own code of conduct for Student athletes and said that he couldn't play, nobody would be upset at Tech and threatening to boycott them, etc. And if those prior schools knew about the gambling and did nothing, then they SHOULD be punished.

0 0 0 21 0

View Details

Craig Lawrence @clawrence

13 hours ago

For what? For enforcing their own rules? Nothing stops anyone from trying to sue anyone. This goes not just for gambling, but for enforcing any rule in the Tech rulebook. Should we not enforce any rules because someone might sue? Texas Tech's code of conduct for student athletes states clearly that gambling is not allowed and provides guidelines on punishment. Any player that previously was suspended or kicked off the team for violating any rule in that handbook could now sue Tech for punishing them.