The Brendan Sorsby case will culminate in a trial. Eventually.
Via Mark Schlabach of ESPN, the trial has been set for February 8, 2027. Given that this date lands beyond the upcoming college football season, the preliminary order allowing Sorsby to play pending trial will keep him on the field for the full 2026 campaign — minus the two-game suspension the order applied.
The only way to change that will be for the NCAA to win a reversal on appeal before or during the 2026 season. That depends on how quickly the appeal will proceed.
Attorney Christopher Kratovil, who practices law in Texas, predicts that the appeal will take 9-12 months. Which means that it won’t be resolved before the trial of the case happens.
There should be a better way to get issues like this resolved. The NCAA wants to have it done before football season. Sorsby needs to have it done by June 22, when the deadline arrives for entering the 2026 supplemental draft.
There’s a chance neither deadline will be met. Which will make Sorsby eligible for the 2026 season.
Both sides would benefit from a more expedient process. And, again, a unionized setting would include an arbitration process that would activate when required and provide a resolution when needed.
That’s how easy it would be. No more judge shopping. No more administrative delays. No more perception of unfairness. The NCAA and the players’ union would jointly appoint and jointly compensate the arbitrator. And everyone would have a final and fair answer, quickly.
With folks throughout the college sports landscape plotting ways to punish Texas Tech for trying to ensure that its starting quarterback will be available to play in 2026 (which most college football programs would be doing), two universities have taken action.
Via Amanda Christovich of Front Office Sports, Georgia and Nebraska have implemented boycotts regarding any games against Texas Tech, in all sports.
Although the practical impact of Georgia and Nebraska not facing Texas Tech in all sports (neither school is in the Big 12 conference) isn’t obvious, Texas Tech isn’t scheduled to face either school in football.
Also, it seems a little odd to extend the boycott to sports unaffected by the Sorsby situation. It all feels more performative than principled.
Again, where was the huffing and puffing while the case was pending and the likelihood of a win by Sorsby fell somewhere between probable and plausible? Everyone was silent — the schools, the conferences, and reporters/analysts.
Since Monday, the cascade of criticism has become a bit ridiculous. Especially from those who work for media companies that make millions from gambling partnerships.
Yes, the rules are the rules. Someone with an addiction isn’t automatically insulated from consequences for the behaviors flowing from it. But it’s impossible to fully assess whether Sorsby should get a pass without knowing the full details of the case. The ruling allowing him to play in 2026 contains only the most basic box-checking aimed at reinstating Sorsby’s eligibility, preventing a full assessment of whether justice was, or wasn’t, done.
Should anyone be shocked that the prevalence of gambling ads, and the ease of app-based betting, contributed to the development of an addiction? Sorsby got sucked into the handheld Vegas vortex, and he did things that people who have a gambling addiction do.
Regardless, the phony outrage from administrators and others who would have fought like hell to keep their own starting quarterbacks on the field is exhausting. And it’s predictable. With the NCAA and its members begging for Congress to give them a de facto bailout in the form of allowing them to pay players less money, the pissing and moaning is more about pursuing a legislative goal and less about preserving the integrity of sport.
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.
Monday’s ruling in the Brendan Sorsby case has had ripple effects far beyond Texas Tech and the Big 12 conference.
Pete Thamel of ESPN, citing three unnamed conference sources, reports that Big Ten officials “are expected to discuss in the upcoming days a league-wide mandate to not play Texas Tech in any sports.”
Without reviewing the schedules of the various sports at the far more than 10 schools of the Big Ten, it’s impossible to know how much of this is real or performative. For example, no Big Ten teams are scheduled to play Texas Tech in football this season.
And so pardon me if I view this as nothing more than a way to fuel the sudden outrage sparked by a ruling that was hardly a surprise. This isn’t the O.J. Simpson acquittal; everyone knew or should have known that Sorsby and Texas Tech had a real chance to get the relief they wanted from a state court, even after the local judge (who attended Texas Tech as an undergrad and as a law student) recused himself.
“Don’t mess with Texas” is the slogan, and the NCAA was trying to keep a football player in Texas from playing Texas football. While it wasn’t a slam dunk that Sorsby would win, where were all of the many voices who are now wringing hands and gnashing teeth when the table was being set for the meal that was eventually served?
Plenty of reporters and columnist treating the decision like a sneak attack on the integrity of all sport. Where was that outcry before the case was decided? Ditto for the various conferences, athletic directors, and coaches who are suddenly crowing, both on and off the record?
Most notably, Kansas State Athletic Director Gene Taylor said on Monday — on the record — that the outcome is “fucking bullshit.” He could have said something like that while the case was still pending.
It’s almost as if the various voices deliberately kept quiet when they sensed this was coming, so that they could then light the fuse on a national reaction that they hope will lead to the Congressional antitrust exemption the NCAA and its members crave.
Without understanding why and how Judge Ken Curry reached his decision (and his four-page ruling doesn’t shed much light on the process), it’s impossible to know whether he got it right or got it wrong. Regardless, everyone who is expressing strong sentiments now could have made their voices heard in the weeks before Curry put pen to paper on Monday morning and signed the order restoring Sorsby’s eligibility.
As expected, the NCAA has appealed the court decision restoring the eligibility of Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby.
Via Justin Williams of The Athletic, the NCAA has filed an official appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas.
The appeal is described as “accelerated.” Which is necessary in this case. One way or the other, Sorsby needs a final ruling by June 22, the deadline for applying for th NFL’s supplemental draft.
The four-page ruling from Judge Ken Curry is light on analysis and reasoning. That could provide an opening for the appeals court to scrap it.
The intense outcry against the decision to allow a player who admittedly bet on Indiana games while on the Indiana roster could influence the decision. Because even home cooking has its limits.
Addiction or not, Sorsby blatantly and repeatedly violated the NCAA’s rules regarding gambling. It’s hard to imagine that there will be no consequence whatsoever — beyond the two-game suspension that Judge Curry imposed on Sorsby.
