When he was at Cincinnati last season, quarterback Brendan Sorsby threw for nearly 2,800 yards, 27 touchdowns, just five interceptions. The number that may matter most is 22.
At 22 years old, he sits squarely within the age group most heavily targeted by sports betting apps. Those apps have exploded in popularity among young men, part of a broader culture that includes online wagering, prediction markets, crypto-speculation and influencer-driven promises of easy money.
In April, after reports surfaced that the NCAA was investigating him for gambling violations, Sorsby entered treatment for gambling addiction and acknowledged wagering roughly $90,000 over four years — including bets on Indiana football while he was on the Hoosiers’ roster.
The NCAA permanently banned him, but a Texas judge has granted a temporary injunction allowing him to play. Now, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is threatening legal action if the Big 12 attempts to keep him off the field.
John Brice, who reports on college sports for USA Today, joined Texas Standard to discuss the situation. Listen to the interview above or read the transcript below.
This transcript has been edited lightly for clarity:
Texas Standard: For people who have not heard of Brendan Sorsby, who is he and what’s he been accused of doing?
John Brice: Brendan Sorsby is Texas Tech’s new quarterback signed out of the NCAA’s transfer portal in January of this year. He began his college football career at Indiana University as a backup quarterback, well before Curt Cignetti turned Indiana into a national power.
He then transferred to the University of Cincinnati where Sorsby became a star on the field and parlayed that into the basically free agent opportunity that he took advantage of this past January. That’s when he ultimately chose to sign with Texas Tech for a deal that we’ve been told repeatedly is worth multiple millions of dollars.
After that time, earlier this spring, legal authorities, as well as the NCAA and the Big 12 conference, were alerted to the fact that Brendan Sorsby had been a routine gambler.
They notified Texas Tech officials that Brendan Sorsby would then be investigated for his gambling activity at which point in time, Brendan Sorsby lawyered up with Jeffrey Kessler, renowned in these cases.
They devised a strategy. Brendan Sorsby entered an inpatient rehab facility. He completed that 35-day treatment plan. Then most recently, earlier this week, in a move that shocked basically the entire sports world — but certainly the entire collegiate sports world — retired County Judge Ken Curry in Lubbock County District Court ruled Sorsby eligible, despite his clear violation and admission to violating NCCA rules on contract law basis.
Judge Curry did not rule anything on the NCAA’s rules themselves, but rather on contract law basis. That’s why as of right now, Brendan Sorsby is eligible to to be Texas Tech’s starting quarterback in the fall, minus a two-game suspension that Sorsby’s legal team proposed and that, right now, the legal system has accepted.
All right, you anticipated my question a little bit, which is why a judge is weighing in on this at all. It feels like an internal matter for the NCAA to decide on and they seem pretty angry about this, that it’s been brought to a court level.
Is that a good reading of what’s happening?
Yeah, it’s an inflection point for the NCAA because this is the most inviolate rule in all of sports, really. You cannot gamble on your own team or your own sport and that’s exactly what not only Brendan Sorsby is accused of doing, but admits to having done during his time at Indiana.
He’s placed literally thousands of bets that he’s admitted to. He placed dozens of bets on his own team, the Indiana Hoosiers. He says they were all positive bets, betting on his team to have either collective or individual success, that he did it because he wasn’t playing and had an anxiety disorder and a gambling addiction.
So his legal team … argued this case on the merit of contract law, saying that the NCAA’s rules, their proposed punishment of Sorsby being ineligible for the remainder of his collegiate career, were unfair because of American with Disabilities Act. He was clinically diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and a gambling addiction.
What has Texas Tech’s role been in this? I mean, is it a co-plaintiff with Sorsby or what position has the university taken? Obviously, they have a financial interest in the outcome of what happens.
They have a massive financial interest in the outcome of what happens because Sorsby is at the centerpiece of a football roster that’s been assembled at a cost of tens of millions of dollars, along with the coaching staff that’s been assembled, at a cost, of tens of millions of dollars.
The university is not a co-plaintiff in this, but the university is making it clear that it supports Brendan Sorsby. It will continue to support Brendan Sorsby, it has welcomed him back into the program. It has welcomed him back onto the campus. It has made it clear that it will continue to support him.
Athletics director Kirby Hocutt earlier this week issued a statement basically in support of Brendan Sorsby while also saying he understands the frustrations of his peers and colleagues around the country and basically saying, well, this is a nuanced situation. Certainly critics of this move do not believe there’s any nuance in this.
Pete Rose gambled on his team as a manager, as a professional manager, and was banned for life. There have been, I think, 17 college basketball athletes who have been found guilty of betting on their own games. They were banned for life.
Now here’s Brendan Sorsby, who has admitted to gambling on his own team, and he is right now eligible to continue playing the game.
So what’s been the reaction from other schools? Texas Tech is making this argument that we are in this world where, I mean, you can’t watch a sports game without seeing dozens of betting ads being thrown in your face. And they’re saying this is just the situation that we’re in and lots of young people are susceptible to this gambling addiction.
Are other schools sympathetic to that argument or are they upset with this ruling?
No, I don’t know of a single ally, from an institutional standpoint, that Texas Tech has at this point in time.
I just mentioned on a podcast earlier today that I think, and certainly this resonates with you in Texas, if you think about SMU and the Pony Excess days of the 1980s and the cheating scandal that ultimately landed that program the death penalty… This is not collective cheating, but this has Texas Tech, in my opinion, positioned to be the most reviled program in college football since those 1980s SMU Mustangs and since those late ’80s and early ’90s Miami Hurricanes.
Right now, I don’t know of a single ally for either Brendan Sorsby or Texas Tech University at this point in time.
Does the NCAA have an appeal option here? Is that something they want to keep fighting in court?
Yes, the NCCA has filed notice of appeal. They’ve requested an expedited appeal because right now the court date has been set for Feb. 8, 2027, to hear further on this temporary injunction that’s been granted by Judge Curry that is, right now, the legal basis for Sorsby’s eligibility.
The problem there, as you well know, is Feb. 8 is exactly two weeks to the day after the college football season concludes with college football playoff championship schedule for Jan. 25.
The NCAA wants this hearing expedited as much as possible. The NCAA, I’m told by legal experts that have spoken with us this week at USA Today, is very likely to see this through. Even if they cannot get the court date accelerated, they are likely to see this through to the very end because of the dangerous precedent that it sets.
This is the one rule: If you bet on another college sport as a college athlete, other than your sport, you’re supposed to be banned for a year with the chance to then resume playing after sitting out a year and after losing a year of eligibility. When you bet on your own sport and your own team, it is supposed to a lifetime ban.
So as legal experts have explained it to me, this is truly a line of demarcation for the NCAA. And if they don’t pursue appeal all the way to its end, it risks crumbling the very foundation of the NCAA.
This article originally misstated where Judge Ken Curry is based. He is a retired Tarrant County judge who took the case after a judge in Lubbock County recused himself.
