guardidoc

Dad, BYU fanatic, Air Force Veteran, and optometrist. Nothing special, but really important to a few people

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

I keep wondering what I would do if it were my school. I’m a BYU fan. A school with a track record of dismissing star players for lesser infractions. I’m pretty certain Kalani would stand on principle. That said, I suspect Cody Campbell has an outsized influence on TTU’s decision-making. Principles be damned if the sugar daddy has none and threatens to turn of the spigot, either directly or implied

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

@BobbyWilson1004 @CodyC64 @kirbyhocutt Exactly. So disappointing. So disingenuous. So self-serving

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

@JacobHarrisSBI Lucky kid. Better support system than most

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

@TreyWallace @CriddleBenjamin @dandakich And he’s not conflicted?

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

This kills me because I like Joey a lot! It’s hard for me to understand why he doesn’t see why he thinks it’s appropriate to let Sorsby play. I can only think that his bias and desire to win is clouding his judgement. I’m glad he loves his players but I wonder how much love he’d have for him if he knew Sorsby had this problem before he recruited him

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

@Barsotta Seems like you can come up with a compromise such as benching him for at least 6 games

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

@chris_kratovil Why is TTU not worried that they would likely vacate their wins if he is eventually ruled ineligible on appeal? Why take the chance?

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

@Barsotta So if that is the case, why do they want him now? I get compassion for the kid, but he would not have met their standard then, so why now?

[Ben Criddle @CriddleBenjamin]

Former BYU & NFL LB Brady Poppinga joined @espnthefan to give his take on the Brendan Sorsby situation:

Q: Brendan Sorsby allegedly placed bets involving his own team. An injunction was upheld, which could allow him to play with only a two-game suspension. The NCAA is appealing. What are your thoughts on the situation?

Poppinga:
My immediate thought goes to the NFL, NBA, and Major League Baseball because this creates a precedent. Precedent in law can be a huge problem.

If somebody can bet for or against their own team and still be allowed to play afterward, you've opened a major legal can of worms. Once that door is opened, it's difficult to close. Other leagues could face similar challenges, and suddenly the integrity of competition is hanging in the balance.

Players have access to information that the public doesn't. They know about injuries, strategies, matchups, personnel changes, a freshman left tackle getting his first start, or a young cornerback nobody knows about. That information can impact betting outcomes. Players could hedge bets, share information, or otherwise influence gambling activity.

This gets messy fast—not just for college football, but for all sports.

I don't see how this ultimately holds up. The NFL is the biggest sport in America, and I can't imagine they're looking at this and saying, "Yeah, this is a precedent we want." I would expect the NFL, MLB, and NBA to be watching closely because if players are being paid and betting is involved, people will lose trust in the system.

Once people believe games or betting outcomes might be compromised, you've killed the golden goose.

I don't think this is the last chapter in the story. I believe the proper channels will eventually lead to a suspension, and I don't think he ultimately plays. But the fact that we're even discussing it is remarkable.

Q: On one hand, I agree. But the media companies and sports-betting companies are making enormous amounts of money from gambling. Doesn't that complicate things?

Poppinga:
The value of betting comes from people believing it's fair.

The moment people start questioning the integrity of the competition, they'll stop betting. Nobody wants to place a wager and feel like the game was fixed.

I don't see how betting companies benefit from a situation where a player can potentially influence outcomes and then continue playing. Why would they want people questioning whether the results are legitimate?

Everybody with common sense should oppose that. The only person who seems to be missing the bigger picture is the judge involved in this case.

The precedent matters. If Sorsby is allowed to play after this, someone in the NFL could eventually point to that case and argue that similar conduct should receive similar treatment.

Right now, the standard is pretty clear: if you bet on games involving your team, you're done. I think that standard needs to remain in place.

Full interview: https://t.co/1uYKLdrHCJ

📸: @BYUphoto @BYUFOOTBALL

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

@mrlongshore I get the point, but maybe you should look at how BYU handled the Jake Retzlaff situation. He still comes around and is part of the family. You can uphold principles AND love the individual. They are not mutually exclusive

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

@EdLawDude Sanction UC first as a warning to Tech if they play him

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

@tStocktonTTU And yet no one thinks they are right to let him play… Defend them all you want. No one likes them

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

@justderington @DerekYoungKSO Was thinking the same thing. Might want to make them vacate wins. That may be all the deterrent TTU needs to not play him

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

@JacobHarrisSBI @SBInsiderHQ @RCMB323 @austinmasseySBI Tech needs to dismiss him. Let him find another team to play for…if he can

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

@PeteNakos @jlkurtz Waiting for TTU to do the right thing…

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

@chris_kratovil @JakeHatch TTU should do the right thing and kick him off the team

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

@RandPaul Put him under oath. He can’t take the 5th now. If he lies, you got a fresh perjury charge

[guardidoc @guardidoc]

@Samsworth_TV 30 plus years ago a gastroenterologist told me that us Mormons had it right in avoiding “hot drinks.” He was referring to this risk for esophageal cancer. BTW me and your bro serve together in the ANG 😊

[Jaynit @jaynitx]

In 1972, a Stanford psychologist gave 4-year-olds a choice.

"One marshmallow now or wait 15 minutes and get two."

Rich kid waits. Poor kid eats it immediately.

For 50 years, psychologists said this proved poor kids lack self-control.

Wrong.

Poor kids learned that promises get broken. The second marshmallow isn't coming.

Professor Jiang Xueqin spent 50 minutes explaining why the poor kids are the rational ones:

The psychologist was named Walter Mischel. He put a marshmallow in front of 4-year-olds and said: "You can have it now, or wait and get two."

He tracked them for decades. The kids who waited did better at everything.

His conclusion: success means delayed gratification. Long-term planning. Self-control.

So educators built curricula around it. Teach kids self-control, resilience, self-assessment. They'll succeed.

It didn't work.

"If you take a bad student and teach him self-control, resilience, and self-assessment, the student doesn't actually get better."

The reason is simple: correlation does not equal causation.

Successful people wake up at 4am. But waking up at 4am won't make you successful.

If you're successful, you wake up early because you're motivated. If you're successful, you have self-control because your environment rewards it.

The traits don't cause success. Success causes the traits.

Here's what actually determines success:

"We know for a fact that rich people are much more likely to succeed than poor people. School doesn't really matter. If your parents are rich, you'll be successful. If your parents are poor, you will not."

The difference starts with parenting.

A rich kid touches a hot stove. The parent says: "You made a mistake. Don't worry about it. Let me explain why fire is dangerous. You could burn yourself. We'd have to go to the doctor."

A poor kid touches a hot stove. The parent says: "Don't you ever do that again or I'll beat the crap out of you."

Same lesson. Completely different worldview.

The rich kid learns: the world is safe. I am respected. Adults explain things to me.

The poor kid learns: the world is scary. I must fear authority. Don't ask questions.

There's another difference. Rich parents keep promises. Poor parents can't.

"Next week we'll go to Thailand." Next week, you go to Thailand.

"Next week we'll go to McDonald's." But the paycheck isn't enough. "Sorry, we can't go anymore."

Rich parents offer stability. Poor parents can only offer volatility.

Now go back to the marshmallow test.

"If you believe the teacher will keep his promise, you won't eat that marshmallow. If you think the teacher is lying, you will eat it."

If you're a poor kid, you've learned that promises get broken. Adults lie. The second marshmallow probably isn't coming.

So you eat the first one. That's not lack of self-control. That's rational decision-making.

"Poor kids are not stupid. Poor kids are rational. They're responding to the circumstances they live in."

The same logic applies to resilience.

"The idea of resilience is that you believe the world will help you. If you're rich and you fail, someone will help you get up. If you're poor and you fail, that probably tells you that you shouldn't be doing this."

Why try again when trying again has never worked?

And self-assessment? "If you're a poor child who lives under a lot of stress, it's hard to be self-reflective. Because if you look back at yourself, all you think about is your pain and your stress."

Here's the deeper structure.

"As a poor person, if you want to survive, you have to obey authority. As a rich person, you maximize your outcome by negotiating with others."

Poor parents command their children because that's what the world will demand. Obey the police. Obey the boss. Don't talk back.

Rich parents teach their children to debate, argue, negotiate. Because that's their game.

"From day one, rich kids know they're playing a different game."

Here's something stranger.

500 students took an IQ test. Then they guessed their ranking.

The top 5% thought they were top 20%. The test was easy for them, so they assumed it was easy for everyone.

The bottom 5% thought they were average.

"People who are stupid lack the capacity to know they're stupid."

This is the Dunning-Kruger effect. And it explains why the most confident people are often the least competent.

"This helps explain why the world is why it is. Often the people in power are stupid. They don't know they're stupid. They were confident."

Can poor kids escape?

"Yes. But it means leaving your community. You have to be extremely individualistic. Very ambitious. High risk tolerance. Most people don't have that."

The professor is one of them.

"I'm a poor kid who succeeded. My father was a dishwasher. But I left Canada for the United States. I got lucky."

"You can work as hard as you want, but the chances are against you. It takes luck. And that's often the exception to the rule, not the rule itself."

Here's what he wants you to understand:

When we see differences in success, our default explanation is differences in ability or effort.

We forget that a poor kid eating the marshmallow isn't weak. He's learned that waiting doesn't pay.

We forget that a poor kid giving up isn't lazy. He's learned that no one's coming to help.

We refuse to admit that the traits we associate with success are products of environment, not causes of it.

The marshmallow test is about measuring childhood, not measuring character.