The Brendan Sorsby situation, like most high-profile controversies, has two components: the legal side, and the P.R. side.
They are connected, but they’re very different. Sorsby and Texas Tech have won in a court of law (so far). They have lost in the court of public opinion.
Even though everyone involved is behaving consistently with their personal interests (indeed, the schools that are crowing about “integrity” would be circling the wagons, if they were the ones faced with losing their starting quarterback), Texas Tech has not handled the P.R. side in an ideal way. It started on Wednesday with head coach Joey McGuire declaring “it’s not murder.” It continued with billionaire booster Cody Campbell playing a combined game of “whatabout” and “they hate us ‘cause they ain’t us.”
On Thursday night, Texas Tech posted a roundtable, talk-show-style video aimed at addressing the intense criticism the school has experienced for supporting Sorsby. A press conference, as some have pointed out, would be a better approach. The questions would have been pointed, and the answers would have been revealing.
After listening to the 21-minute word salad, two significant points emerged. One, there’s no guarantee Sorsby will be deemed ready to play by Texas Tech in 2026. Two, Sorsby’s family has expressed concern to Texas Tech regarding the blowback the school has received.
As to the first point, the school reserves the right to choose not to play him, if the school ultimately decides that doing so will be untenable. While those decisions should be driven solely by Sorsby’s best interests, leaving the door open to not playing Sorsby gives the school an avenue to stand down, if the school eventually decides that the long-term harm to the program will outweigh the short-term benefit of having Sorsby on the field.
As to the second point, it’s at least possible at this point that Sorsby will decide to abandon his effort to restore his eligibility and declare for the NFL supplemental draft. For any of us, there’s a point at which a situation becomes sufficiently problematic that the best solution will be to tap out of it.
Yes, Sorsby has a medically-diagnosed condition that resulted from the easy availability (and incessant advertisement and complete normalization) of legal sports betting. But he got to that point when he didn’t have an addiction, by making bets before he was legally old enough to do so in violation of NCAA rules.
The addiction never would have happened if Sorsby hadn’t broken the rules (and, technically, the law). While his current condition should be taken seriously and he should not be punished because of its existence, the underlying actions that caused it cannot be ignored.
No one becomes addicted to gambling based on the first bet made, in the same way no one becomes an alcoholic based on the first drink consumed. Sorsby crossed the line before his addiction drove him to keep doing so. That fact can’t be overlooked.
The core problem continues to be the failure of Judge Ken Curry to explain in his four-page ruling why and how the interests of justice pointed to restoring Sorsby’s eligibility as the lawsuit Sorsby filed against the NCAA went forward. The result feels unjust to the outside observe in large part because Judge Curry made no effort to demonstrate that it was the fair and proper outcome.
Texas Tech has made the situation worse with a P.R. effort that most view as a way to justify the desire to have their best quarterback available during the 2026 season. The external voices, which were conspicuously silent before Judge Curry issued his decision, haven’t helped matters by stoking public outrage by jumping on low-hanging fruit.
And that will continue. As evidenced by TCU’s social-media response to the Texas Tech video. Funny? Yes. Helpful to best solving the core problem? No.
It’s not a black and white issue. No one is focusing on the gray. Starting with the judge who restored Sorsby’s eligibility, and continuing with everyone who has an interest in whether Sorsby does, or doesn’t, play football in 2026.
No one is raising the simple question of whether the right outcome, given Sorsby’s current condition and the admitted violation of the rules that caused it, is for Sorsby to not play college football in 2026, or ever again. Not because of the rules. Not because of the law. But because his short- and long-term recovery potentially would best be served by not playing college football.
We don’t know the right answer. No one currently does. And there doesn’t seem to be anyone with a truly objective and unbiased viewpoint who is in position to make a decision that is in the best interests of Sorsby, without regard to the best interests of Texas Tech, its Big 12 rivals, and/or those who hope to leverage his win in court into Congressional action that gives the NCAA and its members the antitrust exemption they so badly want.
Sorsby’s condition merits sympathy and/or empathy. But it shouldn’t operate as full absolution for the behavior that caused it. And the interests of others (whether based on wins and losses or “saving” college sports) should take a back seat to the question of Sorsby’s recovery.
Read the full article here