Welcome to this edition of
First Downs and Second Guesses
Blog #211 – June 2026
There were a couple of big items pertaining to college athletics this month. One was the NCAA Division I cabinet announcing a change to its age-based eligibility concept. The second, and most controversial, was the Brendan Sorsby gambling scandal and its aftermath.
First, the eligibility issue. The NCAA had proposed an eligibility requirement that a student-athlete’s five-year period of eligibility would begin at the actual or expected high school graduation date. That was adjusted to the plan that the five-year period of eligibility would start upon initial full-time enrollment at any collegiate institution or at the start of the academic year immediately following the student-athlete’s 19th birthday, whichever occurs first.
The adjustment drew commendations from college coaches and administrations nationwide. Basically, the ruling now states that student-athletes have five-years of eligibility when they enroll. The “redshirt” year has now been eliminated, as has been waivers for medical reasons or religious missions. Simply put, a student-athlete can play his/her sport for five years instead of four.
Recruiting strategies may need to be adjusted for some sports. Football should like this rule as players should be able to develop and play more often with a five-year window instead of a four-year window. Recruits who will be coming to their preferred school in the Class of 2027 may find some challenges if four-year starters at the recruit’s position decide to play their fifth year.
All in all, I think the move simplifies things for both coaches and recruits. There do need to be restrictions on how often a player can enter the transfer portal during that five-year period. There has been talk that a player can only go into the portal once in that five-year span. That would be good. Constant transferring interrupts player development from a coach’s perspective. It also plays havoc with roster-building.
The NCAA got this one right. They also got the next issue right, but not without a lot of controversy.
Brendan Sorsby became the poster boy for what’s wrong when the courts get involved in a controversial issue. Sorsby was the highly-skilled quarterback for the University of Cincinnati during the 2025 season. He portalled himself to Texas Tech to the tune of a $6 million NIL deal in the off-season.
Then word got out that Sorsby had been betting on college football games for several years. His Cincinnati team played Nebraska in Kansas City at the beginning of the 2025 season. He almost single-handedly won the game for Cincinnati before throwing a last-minute interception. I was in attendance at that game. Sorsby presented himself as a big-time player and NFL-bound candidate. I’m wondering now if he had bet on that game.
After an investigation, the NCAA found that Sorsby had placed bets on a variety of sports through a gambling app, a violation of longstanding NCAA rules, and he was declared ineligible for the 2026 season.
In late April 2026, Texas Tech announced that Sorsby was checking into a residential treatment program for a gambling addiction. In mid-May, Sorsby filed a lawsuit against the NCAA in district court in Lubbock County, Texas, seeking an injunction that would make him eligible to compete in the 2026 season.
That same day, Texas Tech declared Sorsby ineligible after finalizing “an agreed-upon stipulation of facts” between the university, the NCAA and Sorsby. The school added that it intended to “quickly initiate the reinstatement process” while the “primary focus remains supporting Sorsby’s health and well-being.”
In late May 2026, the NCAA denied Sorsby’s request for reinstatement for the 2026 season. Texas Tech said it planned to appeal the NCAA’s ruling. Court filings indicated that Sorsby’s bets had totally at least $90,000.
Then on June 8, 2026, a bombshell ruling came from the Texas district court. District Court Judge Ken Curry granted the temporary injunction against the NCAA, making Sorsby eligible to compete in the 2026 season after sitting out the first two games of the season against Abilene Christian and Oregon State.
Curry’s ruling led to a widespread anger across the college football world. Georgia athletic director Josh Brooks and many Big Ten officials stated that discussions regarding “a league-wide mandate to not play Texas Tech in any sports” would commence.
On June 11, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sent a letter to the Big 12 conference noting that any effort to sanction Texas Tech would “constitute a violation of federal and state law and expose the conference and its members to antitrust liability.” The letter drew a response from attorneys general in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Utah, all of whom said they would back the Big 12 in any legal activity.
On June 15, 2026, the Big 12 sued Texas Tech in district court in Dallas for the right to sanction the school if Sorsby competed in any games, and the NCAA filed an appeal of Curry’s ruling.
Faced with mounting legal challenges, Sorsby and Texas Tech agree to part ways, ending his career at the school without ever taking a snap. Sorsby supposedly was able to keep the $6 million from the NIL deal with the university. Sorsby’s legal team stated that Sorsby would enter the NFL supplemental draft.
On June 23, 2026, the NFL announced that it would not hold a supplemental draft in 2026, blocking Sorsby’s path to compete in the NFL in 2026. As of this writing, Sorsby’s attorneys will seek talks with the NFL Players Association to find options for Sorsby to play in the NFL this year.
What a fiasco the Sorsby case turned into. It was commendable that athletic department officials throughout the country took strong stands against Texas Tech. Curry’s decision was widely ridiculed and his reputation had to have been harmed.
Looking back, it was speculated that Cincinnati knew about Sorsby’s gambling addiction and kept the knowledge hidden. That speculation has not been proven true. Texas Tech may have been given information about Sorsby’s gambling addiction before making an offer, but that speculation has not been proven either.
A huge message was sent during this case: Gambling among college athletes will be closely monitored going forward. Gambling is the red line in college sports. You get caught and your playing career will be ended. There will be few people in your corner defending your actions.
It would also behoove college athletic departments to not partner with gambling entities for marketing dollars for the department. There is hypocrisy when college athletic departments would accept gambling entity advertising dollars while banning sports betting among its athletes.
The Sorsby case opened up a can of worms within college athletics. Hopefully, it makes college athletic officials more cognizant of any pervasive problem that may be occurring on their campuses.