NCAA Urges Texas Judge to Deny Brendan Sorsby’s Injunction
NCAA asked a Texas judge to deny Sorsby’s temporary injunction, arguing that letting him play would effectively sanction student-athlete sports betting and cause destabilizing effects.
The NCAA asked a Lubbock County judge to deny a temporary injunction that would allow quarterback Brendan Sorsby to play for Texas Tech while his eligibility dispute continues. The injunction hearing is scheduled Monday in Lubbock County, Texas.
In a court filing, the NCAA argued that permitting Sorsby to play would have “broad-ranging and destabilizing ramifications” and warned it “would effectively sanction sports gambling by the most vulnerable student-athletes-those suffering from a gambling addiction could continue to bet, knowing they could follow Plaintiff’s lead and rush to court if caught.”
Court documents show the association first learned of Sorsby’s wagering on March 11 after a tip from an online sportsbook that had been notified by law enforcement. NCAA officials told Texas Tech on April 14 that Sorsby was under investigation. Nearly two weeks later he entered an inpatient clinic for treatment of a gambling addiction and anxiety.
Texas Tech declared Sorsby ineligible and asked the NCAA to reinstate him on May 18; the NCAA denied that request on May 22. The school filed an appeal on Friday and is seeking a temporary injunction to let Sorsby play while the eligibility dispute proceeds.
The NCAA filed redacted student-athlete acknowledgement forms Sorsby signed at Indiana and Texas Tech showing he initialed a clause that wagering on sports would render him ineligible for practice and competition and that penalties can include permanent ineligibility. A Texas Tech and Sorsby submission to the NCAA outlines the scope of wagering the school says occurred while he was a college athlete.
That four-page account states Sorsby placed at least $90,000 in impermissible wagers while in college. It lists at least 40 bets on Indiana football during the 2022 season, placed while he practiced with the team but did not travel for road games, and says he stopped betting on Indiana football two weeks before the only game he played that season. The document also lists at least 50 bets on Indiana men’s basketball from Oct. 15, 2022, to Nov. 20, 2023, with wagers exceeding $1,400, and roughly 300 bets on other college football games between September 2022 and December 2023, risking at least $6,500.
The exhibits name multiple platforms. The records show accounts at Hard Rock Bet, FanDuel, PrizePicks and Underdog. While at Cincinnati, Sorsby provided another person more than $60,000 to deposit into a FanDuel account that he and others accessed. From Jan. 7 to Sept. 30, 2024, the filings show more than 160 impermissible wagers through FanDuel and Hard Rock, risking at least $38,000. After transferring to Texas Tech, the documents say he sent about $5,000 to someone who used the funds on Underdog, PrizePicks and Chalkboard for professional sports bets. He also acknowledged playing casino games infrequently on an offshore app.
The NCAA noted state and operator rules that bar underage betting and prohibit proxy wagering and account sharing. In Indiana, the minimum age to bet on sports is 21 while daily fantasy sports are allowed at 18. The association emphasized Sorsby signed forms indicating he knew the rules and consequences.
The filing referenced a recent association proposal that would have allowed Division I student-athletes to bet on professional sports, a proposal later rescinded by the membership. The NCAA wrote that even under that brief proposal Sorsby would have been ineligible.
Texas Tech President Lawrence Schovanec wrote to the university community expressing support for Sorsby, noting the bylaws “have not adapted to the era of widespread legalized sports betting that this generation of college athletes now has to navigate” and urging that Sorsby remain on campus while receiving treatment.
The judge will decide whether to issue a temporary injunction that would let Sorsby play while the broader eligibility dispute continues. The NCAA’s opposition frames the central legal question as whether a court should override the association bylaws that bar student-athlete wagering.
Content on BlockPort is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial guidance.
We strive to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the information we share, but we do not guarantee that all content is complete, error-free, or up to date. BlockPort disclaims any liability for losses, mistakes, or actions taken based on the material found on this site.
Always conduct your own research before making financial decisions and consider consulting with a licensed advisor.
For further details, please review our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer.








