The College Football World is Rallying Against Texas Tech and Brendan Sorsby

[Matt Dillon]

The NCAA can’t enforce its rules. Some schools are taking matters into their own hands. Will it work? You never know what to expect. After all, I don’t think many anticipated that Brendan Sorsby would ever play college football again, yet here we are

Friendly local judges have replaced bag-men is a college football program’s best friend. Texas Tech had an ace in the hole deliver an injunction to allow Brendan Sorsby to suit up for Texas Tech this fall after serving only a two-game suspension for obscene sports gambling behavior. He wagered nearly $100,000 on sports during his time as a college athlete, including wagers on his own team at Indiana.

The College Football World is Rallying Against Texas Tech and Brendan Sorsby

[Matt Dillon]

It's unbelievable that a judge would have the audacity to hand down a ruling like this.

[Uncle Dave]

It's unbelievable that a judge would have the audacity to hand down a ruling like this.

The question begs to be asked....What connection, if any, does the judge have with TTU?

[Trueblujr]

The judge used the gambling addiction as a mental health problem and basically said his mental health would be "irreparably harmed" if he wasn't able to play. Gimme a break with this cooked up nonsense. Having addictions as a mental health issue doesn't excuse you from the consequences of those addictions. Does that mean employers now have to keep drunks and drug addicts on their jobs because firing them might "irreparably harm" their mental health? Seems like if Texas Tech as a University had ANY shred of common senses and decency, they would suspend him from the university or refuse to play him. after all it's a coaches decision to play him is it not? Is anyone forcing the coach to play him?

[Old School]

Here are a few very incomplete thoughts from the cheap seats on all of this.

1) Reporting on this generally hasn't been very deep or full.

2) Judge shopping and forum shopping are real issues, regardless of who you are or who your opponents are. The Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations did it and do it. Opponents of the Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations did it and do it when suing those administrations. And federal litigation of that sort is a tiny sliver of court activity nationwide. Most lawsuits, like this one, are in state courts. It happens there too, and in front of elected judges in more than two thirds of the states. Criminal defendants, corporations, your next door neighbor, your ex-spouse - any of them can go hire as their lawyer the guy who was the campaign treasurer for the judge hearing the case in which your interests are at stake, or his or her best friend in college. Most judges probably do their best to remain impartial and unbiased, even in those situations. Still, they're human, and people ought to have their cases heard by judges who aren't just trying to avoid favoring people they're naturally inclined to favor - there's a good argument that they ought to be able to have their cases heard by judges who are free of indicia of favoritism from the onset. Could we have better rules and systems in place to deal with that? Yes. I'll leave it at that since we wisely avoid political topics in these forums that are devoted to other things. Is this case one of those? Maybe. I don't know enough about those particular facts to say much about it in this case. But, generally, yeah, that's probably a valid criticism, but also overblown in that too many people make allegations like that without any shred of evidence, or in situations where it's obviously not the case. Criticism of the jury in the Karmelo Anthony murder case is one contemporary example.

3) There's fair debate to be had about the extent to which the law should or shouldn't (depending on your view) protect employees with mental health issues or force employers and others to unwillingly deal with costs or dangers posed by same. There's a ripe debate to be had about that (not on this site). But in this case, the judge based his ruling on finding that Sorsby was likely to prevail on his breach of contract and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and fiduciary duty, and that he was entitled to play not because a benching would cause irreparable harm to his mental health, but because the NCAA's own rules encouraged treating situations like this with the athlete's best interests as a major or the major consideration, and that if not allowed to play, Sorsby would suffer irreparable harm not to his mental health, but in losing "elite coaching, training resources, camaraderie, and regimen that only being a member of a Division I college football team can provide", building "the skills necessary to maximize his own success during the college football season, as well as that of Texas Tech's football team and each of its players", and making "an informed decision regarding whether to enter the 2026 NFL Supplemental Draft." That's quoted from the order. It doesn't make reference to Sorsby's mental health, in terms of irreparable harm. That's likely absent from that part of the order because if taking care of Sorsby's mental health and alleged gambling addition was the primary concern, there's a very good argument that the most prudent course of action would probably be to get him out of the situation (playing college football) in which that problem spins out of control, and have him devote that time and focus on therapy and the like. I doubt many mental health professionals would testify that someone with Sorsby's history and circumstances is more likely to successfully treat mental health issues of that sort in the stress and circumstances of fighting this case and doing everything he must do as the starting quarterback of a high profile college football team, as opposed to backing away from it all and putting that time and energy into treatment.

4) If you want to know what college sports is all about now, just look at this case and order, like it or not. What was at issue was a contractual obligation in which a student stood to lose "elite coaching, training resources, camaraderie, and regimen that only being a member of a Division I college football team can provide", building "the skills necessary to maximize his own success during the college football season, as well as that of Texas Tech's football team and each of its players", and making "an informed decision regarding whether to enter the 2026 NFL Supplemental Draft", and a judge found he had a contractual right to it. The old proposition was a school would give you a scholarship and resources to excel as a college athlete if you played hard for its team. That's worlds away now. (Incidentally, Sorsby's attorney is the attorney who secured the House v. NCAA settlement and its $2.8 billion payout.)

5) I think a lot of informed observers would very seriously question whether the judge is correct in determining that Sorsby is likely to prevail on his underlying claims. If a judge doesn't make that sort of finding, this sort of order generally can't be issued.

6) Here's the bigger story: part of that Texas state judge's order "enjoins the NCAA from enforcing “its Bylaw 12.9.4.2 (Rule of Restitution) against Applicant, Texas Tech, any affiliate of Texas Tech, any university that competes against Texas Tech during the 2026 college football season, or any affiliate of any such university for complying with, and relying on this Order.” The Rule of Restitution is the mechanism by which the NCAA penalizes schools after the fact if they are found to have played an ineligible player. A school could go ahead and play someone who was ineligible, but they'd later suffer TV bans, postseason bans, scholarship reductions, revenue losses, etc. Previously, in situations like this, a school might go to a favorable court and get an order like this, but if the school later lost, it would suffer consequences. No more. This isn't the first case in which the player suing, or his school, has had a court issue an order like this for them. But this judge went further, issuing it against "any university that competes against Texas Tech during the 2026 college football season, or any affiliate of any such university" - even though none of them were parties to this action, or afforded any notice or opportunity to be heard on the merits of the matter (to include whether this Texas state court had any jurisdiction to issue an order against, say, the University of Colorado, or the University of Cincinnati, or West Virginia University. If that becomes common, no team or institution can have any confidence that much or any agreed-upon rules will actually be enforced or meaningful with regard to their own institution or their opponents.

7) Coming back to that point about Sorsby's gambling, mental health, etc., in this instance, the court decided to supplant the NCAA's decisions and judgments about how to most appropriately handle those situations, and decided to apply its own judgment instead. We'll see if appellate courts think that was sound. But you can take a step back and see that if we're anywhere close to that - that players can gamble on their own team, etc., and the NCAA still has to let them play - this really is the wild west. When competitors can't even rely on the rules they agreed to, whether it's eligibility, benefits, gambling, or whatever else, what's left? A big part of the competition becomes finding ways to creatively wiggle out of rules that everyone else followed.

Those are just a handful of incomplete thoughts. This is complex, and much better suited for conversation at a tailgate.

[WeWant9]

The judge used the gambling addiction as a mental health problem and basically said his mental health would be "irreparably harmed" if he wasn't able to play. Gimme a break with this cooked up nonsense. Having addictions as a mental health issue doesn't excuse you from the consequences of those addictions. Does that mean employers now have to keep drunks and drug addicts on their jobs because firing them might "irreparably harm" their mental health? Seems like if Texas Tech as a University had ANY shred of common senses and decency, they would suspend him from the university or refuse to play him. after all it's a coaches decision to play him is it not? Is anyone forcing the coach to play him?

I am sure being looked at as a bad guy, being boo'd everywhere he goes, getting ripped on socials, and in the media, will do wonders for his mental health. If anyone actually cared for the guy, they would encourage him to get the help he needs, and that probably means not playing college football at this moment. But he might get some wins, so no one is really going care much for his true mental health.

[Jaxcat]

And Pete Rose was banned from baseball for 35 years for doing exactly what Soresby did. Does no one ever accept or suffer the consequences of their actions anymore?

Sports, politics, internet warriors, road ragers, et al - way too many people don't believe the rules apply to them and they won't (and shouldn't) suffer any consequences for their behavior. I'm so tired of all these excuses. Wnforce the rules/laws or do away with them all together.

And activist judges should be an oxymoron.