What's next in Brendan Sorsby saga? Embattled Texas Tech QB at mercy of NCAA and the precedent is clear
NCAAF College Football News, Photos, Stats, Scores, Schedule & Videos...
A $3 bet for the “over” to hit in a college football game.
A 50-cent bet for a “ball” on the next pitch of an MLB game.
Some bets made by Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby were less than a dollar; most of them not more than three figures.
But the thousands of tiny wagers Sorsby placed over four years — a total value of less than seven figures but not insignificant — has placed his future, as well as Texas Tech’s 2026 football season, in doubt.
Sorsby’s actions are at the center of an NCAA investigation that could result in the end of his college football career. His actions led to him seeking treatment for a gambling addiction, as announced Monday by the university.
One of the most sought-after players in the 2026 transfer portal, Sorsby’s situation gripped the college football world, churning up plenty of questions.
Will the NCAA ban him from competition?
Did his former school, Cincinnati, know about this before his transfer in January?
How did the NCAA learn about it?
How long did Texas Tech know of this?
Those from various camps spoke to Yahoo Sports about the industry’s most high-profile player gambling scandal in recent memory.
But before diving into unanswered questions on the situation, there are these facts to be had: Sorsby bet on MLB, the NFL and the NBA. But his biggest issue is a handful of bets he made on his own team, Indiana, during his freshman season there in 2022, where he attempted six passes in a single game played.
What will be the punishment?
The NCAA’s stringent gambling policy includes “permanent loss of eligibility" for those wagering on their own team, even if they didn’t influence the game or play in it.
These bets on his own team were made four years ago. The timing of such wagers normally does not impact the NCAA’s punishment. In fact, there is precedent for the NCAA to ban Sorsby from ever playing again.
However, the first step in that process is for the enforcement staff to conclude its investigation. In order to complete that investigation, NCAA officials need to speak with Sorsby, which may not happen for a while as he’s in a treatment facility.
Less than two weeks ago, the NCAA contacted Texas Tech about the investigation, revealing troves of transactions of Sorsby’s online betting history. Treatment began after the NCAA revealed its findings, but at least two people contend that Sorsby did not place bets since arriving at Texas Tech.
After the enforcement staff concludes its investigation, the NCAA is likely to recommend that Sorsby, having bet on his own team, be deemed ineligible. In normal protocol, the school — in this case, Texas Tech — would rule Sorsby ineligible for his final season of eligibility in 2026 (what was supposed to be his first in Lubbock).
The next step in the process is Texas Tech filing for reinstatement of Sorsby’s eligibility — or at least a portion of it. A denial of such from the NCAA is certain to spark a legal challenge from Sorsby in a case that may even be backed by Texas Tech.
After all, the school is believed to be compensating Sorsby at $5 million this year. Ironically enough, the Red Raiders targeted Sorsby over others like Arizona State transfer Sam Leavitt for off-the-field reasons.
Now, he may need a local Lubbock judge to reclaim his eligibility.
If that fails, he’s likely to enter the NFL supplemental draft in June.
Did Cincinnati know about this?
Cincinnati is declining comment about Sorsby’s situation. But several of those familiar with the situation and close to the quarterback believe that the university knew of Sorsby’s gambling exploits since at least last fall.
Avoiding reporting such knowledge to the NCAA is grounds for another investigation to be opened. Is there evidence that the Bearcats actually knew? NCAA enforcement officials are certain to pry around.
Sorsby’s move from Cincinnati to a fellow Big 12 conference mate was a divisive issue. The Red Raiders are believed to have at least quadrupled Sorsby’s compensation. In fact, Cincinnati filed suit earlier this spring against Sorsby over a $1 million buyout the school believes he owes. In interesting timing, Sorsby’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the suit on Monday, arguing that it violates Ohio law, is unenforceable and is unreasonable.
At even its lowest levels, the college sports industry has been rooted in the practice of one school turning in another school for cheating — a decades-old dalliance even more excessive with the advent of athlete compensation (see Dabo Swinney vs. Pete Golding).
Did that happen here?
What can Texas Tech do?
Sorsby is an essential piece to a Texas Tech roster that oil money (and other funds!) built to compete not just for a conference title but a national championship. His backup, Will Hammond, while proven to be a talented player, continues his recovery from a torn knee ligament (ACL) suffered last fall.
Tech finds itself in a real bind after an NCAA rule change in March. The rule prohibits what the association calls “ghost transfers,” which are players who move schools outside of the transfer portal window. Schools accepting and playing transfers who moved without entering the portal will suffer serious penalties, including a half-season suspension of their head coach.
In addition to that, the NCAA last year eliminated the spring transfer portal window.
Sorsby’s trip to a treatment facility is likely a step toward (1) getting real help for someone clearly with an addiction problem and (2) offering the NCAA a pathway to empathize with a sympathetic ruling.
In fact, Sorsby, when confronted with the NCAA findings by Texas Tech officials, acknowledged his actions. He plans to do the same with NCAA enforcement staff — come fully clean.
Will this lead to a relaxed ruling in an age where athlete freedoms are top of mind and NCAA policies are crumbling under antitrust law?
Just a few months ago, as it turns out, college sports leaders decided to dramatically change their sports gambling policy. Under the change, athletes could wager on pro sports. However, power conference leaders rallied to overturn that decision, keeping in place a policy that prohibits all sports gambling.
The NCAA policy is quite clear:
(1) players playing in and influencing their own games, or knowingly providing information to influence their games, or wagering on their own games or on sports at their own schools … are permanently banned.
(2) players wagering on their own sport — even if at another school — will lose as much as 50% of a season of eligibility.
(3) and those betting on pro sports face penalties based on how much money they bet (10% loss of season for more than $200 bet; 30% loss for more than $500; potential permanent ban for more than $800).
The Brendan Sorsby Saga is far from over. You can bet on that.
More at NCAAF College Football News, Photos, Stats, Scores, Schedule & Videos