The Big 12 Exec Board is scheduled to meet on Thursday with Commissioner Brett Yormark about the Brendan Sorsby situation, after which Yormark is expected to “consider his options” regarding the Texas Tech QB, according to Brandon Marcello of CBSSPORTS.com. Big 12’s ADs have “drawn a line” in that Texas Tech “must pull their support of Sorsby.” The conference theoretically “can force Tech’s hand with threats,” though no one is “seriously considering invoking a bylaw to kick Tech out of the league. Regardless, the “onus is on Tech,” as nothing is stopping the school from “ending this debacle by showing Sorsby the door” (CBSSPORTS.com, 6/10). SI’s Pat Forde wrote the entire conference is “outraged by the Sorsby scam, to the point of contemplating radical action.” An outright boycott of playing Texas Tech would “likely violate the league’s media-rights agreements, which would not go over well with its media partners.” But declaring all Big 12 games in which Sorsby plays a forfeit “could be on the table.” The league has “rather wide disciplinary discretion, per its bylaws, which allow for sanctioning members via a supermajority vote” (SI, 6/10).
TOUGH TO LEAD: In Columbus, Rob Oller wrote it will be a “hard time finding a sports governing body anywhere in the world that considers athletes betting on sports to be anything but a dangerous slide down a slippery slope.” The NCAA is “wrong on so many issues, but so right on this one.” The NCAA was obligated to ban Sorsby from further eligibility, but the court determined that doing so was “punishing the criminal despite the crime.” Except in this case, the “crime impacts not a single victim but organized sports as a whole” (COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 6/10).
GOT TO KNOW SOMEBODY: In Houston, Kirk Bohls wrote the NCAA rules are “very clear on this subject” and Sorsby “should not be allowed to play.” Bohls: “I’d have more respect for Sorsby if he would drop his intent to play for the Red Raiders and move on to the NFL.” If he does play for Texas Tech after serving a two-game game suspension to start the 2026 season, it will “set a wild precedent and tell other athletes do not, under any circumstances, gamble in college unless of course you have strong lawyers and a friendly judge or two who went to your school” (HOUSTON CHRONICLE, 6/10). In Honolulu, Dave Reardon wrote a “very clear, very bright line that anyone can see has been crossed.” Sorsby would “not suffer ‘irreparable injury,’” as his lawyers claim, if he does not play college football this fall. But if he does, college sports “as we know them might” (Honolulu STAR ADVERTISER, 6/10).
DO YOU HAVE POWER? THE ATHLETIC’s Stewart Mandel wrote if the NCAA is “powerless to act against behavior that endangers the integrity of the games, why would anyone trust that others aren’t doing the same?” If this all ends with Sorsby suiting up Sept. 18 against Houston, we are “going to find ourselves on the cusp of a full-on crisis ... that dwarfs all the modern NCAA legal challenges before it.” Schools make the rules the NCAA is enforcing, so if a school like Texas Tech is “going to blatantly ignore them -- and a judge supports that effort -- then why bother with any of it?” Mandel: “Just have ‘the NCAA’ focus on what it does best: staging tournaments and championships” (THE ATHLETIC, 6/10).
WILL THIS RUIN THE GAME? In Austin, Cedric Golden wrote if Sorsby plays one snap for Texas Tech this fall, the “precedent will be catastrophic.” What should “be a cautionary tale will become a license to break the rules with zero regard for authority.” Golden: “Want to ruin college football forever? Allow a gambling addict who bet on games to strap on a uniform” (AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN, 6/10). USA TODAY’s Matt Hayes writes the “nonstop negativity and weekly chaos would kill just about any other sport.” but “here we are with college football…still standing strong.” Hayes: “All will be forgotten (and forgiven) with the sweet arrival of fall Saturdays. Because the damn sport is bulletproof” (USA TODAY, 6/11).
