Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby has won a temporary injunction in his fight with the NCAA, and under the terms of the order issued by Judge Ken Curry in the District Court of Texas for Lubbock County, he is eligible to play for the Red Raiders during the 2026 season. Sorsby sought the injunction after the NCAA stripped the quarterback of his remaining collegiate eligibility due to multiple violations of the governing body’s gambling policy.
However, there are some caveats to that statement. Several, in fact.
The decision comes in the wake of a hearing held in the District Court of Texas for Lubbock County at the start of June. As outlined in Judge Curry’s four-page order, finding that Sorsby would suffer “a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury” if his eligibility was not reinstated, Judge Curry held that Sorsby “demonstrated a probable right to the relief he seeks on his claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty.”
Judge Curry further ruled that Sorsby “demonstrated that the balance of equities is in his favor because of the hardship he would face in the absence of a temporary injunction.”
In the ruling, Judge Curry declared that the NCAA is barred from:
- Prohibiting [Sorsby] from practicing, playing, or otherwise participating on Texas Tech’s football team for the 2026 football season.
- Enforcing its Bylaw 12.9.4.2 (Rule of Restitution) against [Sorsby], 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.
First, Sorsby — through his attorneys — sought a temporary injunction, which Judge Curry granted. As Judge Curry noted in the order, the temporary injunction will be in place until the final judgment in this matter, and “until a full trial on the merits of this matter” is conducted.
Second, Judge Curry imposed six conditions that Sorsby is required to meet during the period of time the temporary injunction is in place. These include: (1) Commencing and continuing clinical counseling with a credentialed provider, focusing on relapse prevention, (2) Commencing and participating in peer support through Gamblers Anonymous or a comparable aid community, (3) Commencing and continuing treatment for Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, to address the “underlying anxiety that served as the primary driver of [Sorsby’s] gambling behavior,” (4) Commencing and participating in athlete-specific recovery resources, (5) Not participating in game-day activities for the first two games of the Texas Tech season, and (6) Serving on the NCAA a report detailing compliance with the five previous conditions, on or before the fifth of each month during the order, to cover the previous month of compliance.
Failure of Sorsby to comply with those conditions would allow the NCAA to “apply for emergency relief from this injunction.”
The NCAA does have the right to appeal this ruling (more on that in a moment), but for now, Sorsby is reinstated, with a two-game suspension. That would mean the transfer quarterback would miss the season opener against Abilene Christian, and the game against Oregon State on September 12.
In response to Judge Curry’s order, the NCAA released this brief statement:
“The NCAA strongly disagrees with the court’s ruling in Sorsby’s case and is deeply concerned about the damaging, far-reaching and broadly destabilizing ramifications of this outcome — which undermines and corrupts the integrity of sports. The NCAA is committed to supporting student-athlete mental health but must continue to aggressively defend against actions that defraud college athletics and threaten competitive integrity, such as betting on one’s own sport.”
As to whether the NCAA would appeal this temporary injunction, it is worth noting that the governing body would face a significant hurdle with such an appeal. Specifically, the standard of review from the appellate court. In 1919 the Texas Legislature codified the right to an appeal of a temporary injunction, declaring that a party “may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court at law, statutory probate court, or county court that … grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction.” See Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code Section 51.014(a)(4).
So while the NCAA has the right to an appeal, the problem they will face is the standard of review. Appeals of these decisions are reviewed on one standard: Abuse of discretion. Judges in temporary injunction cases are given substantial deference in deciding those matters, and to overturn the order in this case, the NCAA must convince the appellate court that Judge Curry abused that discretion, and that the ruling was arbitrary, capricious, or failed to apply the law correctly in reaching the decision.
Texas courts have defined this standard as follows: A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is “arbitrary, unreasonable, and without reference to [any] guiding [rules and] principles” or is “so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” See Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v. Rhyne, 925 S.W. 2d 664 (Texas 1996) and Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas 1992).
To find such an abuse, the reviewing court must “determine that the facts and circumstances presented [to the trial judge] ‘extinguish any discretion [or choice] in the matter.’” See F.A. Richard & Assoc. v. Millard, 856 S.W.3d 419 (Texas App. 1993). The appellate court cannot simply substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court.
When reviewing such a case, the appellate court asks two questions: Did the trial court have sufficient information to exercise such discretion, and did the trial court err in the application of that discretion?
Simply put, an appeal by the NCAA of this ruling, given the great deference appellate courts show trial courts in these matters, seems unlikely to succeed.
Still, the ruling has many wondering if the NCAA should still appeal, even given the difficult standard the governing body would face with such an appeal:
Plus, there is the matter of precedent. If the NCAA ultimately loses on this matter, it would essentially become the “first and only American sports league to allow an athlete to compete after betting on his own games,” a point the NCAA argued in front of Judge Curry.
Sorsby admitted to placing wagers of at least $90,000 on more than 9,000 bets during his time in college, including 40 bets of at least $850 on Indiana football while he was a member of the Hoosiers. Under NCAA rules, the penalty for a player gambling on their own team is permanent ineligibility.
The NCAA could appeal and argue that the fact Sorsby admitted to those bets, in clear violation of stated NCAA rules, and yet has been reinstated under Judge Curry’s order amounts to a decision that is “legally unreasonable in the factual-legal context in which it [was] made.” See Landon v. Jean-Paul Budinger, Inc., 724 S.W.2d 931. That language has been held in Texas to overturn a trial court’s decision under the abuse of discretion standard.
Given the precedent set by this decision, the NCAA likely appeals.
But whether they succeeded on that appeal is a different story.
And while the underlying case will ultimately go to trial, that might not occur until after the 2026 season is completed.
So, for now at least, Sorsby is back on the Red Raiders for the upcoming season.
![The NCAA can appeal Brendan Sorsby’s shocking reinstatement, but Texas law isn’t on their side Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby has won a temporary injunction in his fight with the NCAA, and under the terms of the order issued by Judge Ken Curry in the District Court of Texas for Lubbock County, he is eligible to play for the Red Raiders during the 2026 season. Sorsby sought the injunction after the NCAA stripped the quarterback of his remaining collegiate eligibility due to multiple violations of the governing body’s gambling policy.However, there are some caveats to that statement. Several, in fact.The decision comes in the wake of a hearing held in the District Court of Texas for Lubbock County at the start of June. As outlined in Judge Curry’s four-page order, finding that Sorsby would suffer “a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury” if his eligibility was not reinstated, Judge Curry held that Sorsby “demonstrated a probable right to the relief he seeks on his claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty.”Judge Curry further ruled that Sorsby “demonstrated that the balance of equities is in his favor because of the hardship he would face in the absence of a temporary injunction.”In the ruling, Judge Curry declared that the NCAA is barred from:Prohibiting [Sorsby] from practicing, playing, or otherwise participating on Texas Tech’s football team for the 2026 football season.Enforcing its Bylaw 12.9.4.2 (Rule of Restitution) against [Sorsby], 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.First, Sorsby — through his attorneys — sought a temporary injunction, which Judge Curry granted. As Judge Curry noted in the order, the temporary injunction will be in place until the final judgment in this matter, and “until a full trial on the merits of this matter” is conducted.Second, Judge Curry imposed six conditions that Sorsby is required to meet during the period of time the temporary injunction is in place. These include: (1) Commencing and continuing clinical counseling with a credentialed provider, focusing on relapse prevention, (2) Commencing and participating in peer support through Gamblers Anonymous or a comparable aid community, (3) Commencing and continuing treatment for Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, to address the “underlying anxiety that served as the primary driver of [Sorsby’s] gambling behavior,” (4) Commencing and participating in athlete-specific recovery resources, (5) Not participating in game-day activities for the first two games of the Texas Tech season, and (6) Serving on the NCAA a report detailing compliance with the five previous conditions, on or before the fifth of each month during the order, to cover the previous month of compliance.Failure of Sorsby to comply with those conditions would allow the NCAA to “apply for emergency relief from this injunction.”The NCAA does have the right to appeal this ruling (more on that in a moment), but for now, Sorsby is reinstated, with a two-game suspension. That would mean the transfer quarterback would miss the season opener against Abilene Christian, and the game against Oregon State on September 12.In response to Judge Curry’s order, the NCAA released this brief statement:“The NCAA strongly disagrees with the court’s ruling in Sorsby’s case and is deeply concerned about the damaging, far-reaching and broadly destabilizing ramifications of this outcome — which undermines and corrupts the integrity of sports. The NCAA is committed to supporting student-athlete mental health but must continue to aggressively defend against actions that defraud college athletics and threaten competitive integrity, such as betting on one’s own sport.”As to whether the NCAA would appeal this temporary injunction, it is worth noting that the governing body would face a significant hurdle with such an appeal. Specifically, the standard of review from the appellate court. In 1919 the Texas Legislature codified the right to an appeal of a temporary injunction, declaring that a party “may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court at law, statutory probate court, or county court that … grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction.” See Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code Section 51.014(a)(4).So while the NCAA has the right to an appeal, the problem they will face is the standard of review. Appeals of these decisions are reviewed on one standard: Abuse of discretion. Judges in temporary injunction cases are given substantial deference in deciding those matters, and to overturn the order in this case, the NCAA must convince the appellate court that Judge Curry abused that discretion, and that the ruling was arbitrary, capricious, or failed to apply the law correctly in reaching the decision.Texas courts have defined this standard as follows: A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is “arbitrary, unreasonable, and without reference to [any] guiding [rules and] principles” or is “so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” See Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v. Rhyne, 925 S.W. 2d 664 (Texas 1996) and Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas 1992).To find such an abuse, the reviewing court must “determine that the facts and circumstances presented [to the trial judge] ‘extinguish any discretion [or choice] in the matter.’” See F.A. Richard & Assoc. v. Millard, 856 S.W.3d 419 (Texas App. 1993). The appellate court cannot simply substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court.When reviewing such a case, the appellate court asks two questions: Did the trial court have sufficient information to exercise such discretion, and did the trial court err in the application of that discretion?Simply put, an appeal by the NCAA of this ruling, given the great deference appellate courts show trial courts in these matters, seems unlikely to succeed.Still, the ruling has many wondering if the NCAA should still appeal, even given the difficult standard the governing body would face with such an appeal:Plus, there is the matter of precedent. If the NCAA ultimately loses on this matter, it would essentially become the “first and only American sports league to allow an athlete to compete after betting on his own games,” a point the NCAA argued in front of Judge Curry.Sorsby admitted to placing wagers of at least $90,000 on more than 9,000 bets during his time in college, including 40 bets of at least $850 on Indiana football while he was a member of the Hoosiers. Under NCAA rules, the penalty for a player gambling on their own team is permanent ineligibility.The NCAA could appeal and argue that the fact Sorsby admitted to those bets, in clear violation of stated NCAA rules, and yet has been reinstated under Judge Curry’s order amounts to a decision that is “legally unreasonable in the factual-legal context in which it [was] made.” See Landon v. Jean-Paul Budinger, Inc., 724 S.W.2d 931. That language has been held in Texas to overturn a trial court’s decision under the abuse of discretion standard.Given the precedent set by this decision, the NCAA likely appeals.But whether they succeeded on that appeal is a different story.And while the underlying case will ultimately go to trial, that might not occur until after the 2026 season is completed.So, for now at least, Sorsby is back on the Red Raiders for the upcoming season. #NCAA #appeal #Brendan #Sorsbys #shocking #reinstatement #Texas #law #isnt #side](https://i1.wp.com/platform.sbnation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/06/imagn-29015798.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0.74496326631408%2C100%2C68.955068096497&w=1200&ssl=1 "The NCAA can appeal Brendan Sorsby’s shocking reinstatement, but Texas law isn’t on their side Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby has won a temporary injunction in his fight with the NCAA, and under the terms of the order issued by Judge Ken Curry in the District Court of Texas for Lubbock County, he is eligible to play for the Red Raiders during the 2026 season. Sorsby sought the injunction after the NCAA stripped the quarterback of his remaining collegiate eligibility due to multiple violations of the governing body’s gambling policy.However, there are some caveats to that statement. Several, in fact.The decision comes in the wake of a hearing held in the District Court of Texas for Lubbock County at the start of June. As outlined in Judge Curry’s four-page order, finding that Sorsby would suffer “a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury” if his eligibility was not reinstated, Judge Curry held that Sorsby “demonstrated a probable right to the relief he seeks on his claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty.”Judge Curry further ruled that Sorsby “demonstrated that the balance of equities is in his favor because of the hardship he would face in the absence of a temporary injunction.”In the ruling, Judge Curry declared that the NCAA is barred from:Prohibiting [Sorsby] from practicing, playing, or otherwise participating on Texas Tech’s football team for the 2026 football season.Enforcing its Bylaw 12.9.4.2 (Rule of Restitution) against [Sorsby], 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.First, Sorsby — through his attorneys — sought a temporary injunction, which Judge Curry granted. As Judge Curry noted in the order, the temporary injunction will be in place until the final judgment in this matter, and “until a full trial on the merits of this matter” is conducted.Second, Judge Curry imposed six conditions that Sorsby is required to meet during the period of time the temporary injunction is in place. These include: (1) Commencing and continuing clinical counseling with a credentialed provider, focusing on relapse prevention, (2) Commencing and participating in peer support through Gamblers Anonymous or a comparable aid community, (3) Commencing and continuing treatment for Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, to address the “underlying anxiety that served as the primary driver of [Sorsby’s] gambling behavior,” (4) Commencing and participating in athlete-specific recovery resources, (5) Not participating in game-day activities for the first two games of the Texas Tech season, and (6) Serving on the NCAA a report detailing compliance with the five previous conditions, on or before the fifth of each month during the order, to cover the previous month of compliance.Failure of Sorsby to comply with those conditions would allow the NCAA to “apply for emergency relief from this injunction.”The NCAA does have the right to appeal this ruling (more on that in a moment), but for now, Sorsby is reinstated, with a two-game suspension. That would mean the transfer quarterback would miss the season opener against Abilene Christian, and the game against Oregon State on September 12.In response to Judge Curry’s order, the NCAA released this brief statement:“The NCAA strongly disagrees with the court’s ruling in Sorsby’s case and is deeply concerned about the damaging, far-reaching and broadly destabilizing ramifications of this outcome — which undermines and corrupts the integrity of sports. The NCAA is committed to supporting student-athlete mental health but must continue to aggressively defend against actions that defraud college athletics and threaten competitive integrity, such as betting on one’s own sport.”As to whether the NCAA would appeal this temporary injunction, it is worth noting that the governing body would face a significant hurdle with such an appeal. Specifically, the standard of review from the appellate court. In 1919 the Texas Legislature codified the right to an appeal of a temporary injunction, declaring that a party “may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court at law, statutory probate court, or county court that … grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction.” See Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code Section 51.014(a)(4).So while the NCAA has the right to an appeal, the problem they will face is the standard of review. Appeals of these decisions are reviewed on one standard: Abuse of discretion. Judges in temporary injunction cases are given substantial deference in deciding those matters, and to overturn the order in this case, the NCAA must convince the appellate court that Judge Curry abused that discretion, and that the ruling was arbitrary, capricious, or failed to apply the law correctly in reaching the decision.Texas courts have defined this standard as follows: A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is “arbitrary, unreasonable, and without reference to [any] guiding [rules and] principles” or is “so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” See Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v. Rhyne, 925 S.W. 2d 664 (Texas 1996) and Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas 1992).To find such an abuse, the reviewing court must “determine that the facts and circumstances presented [to the trial judge] ‘extinguish any discretion [or choice] in the matter.’” See F.A. Richard & Assoc. v. Millard, 856 S.W.3d 419 (Texas App. 1993). The appellate court cannot simply substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court.When reviewing such a case, the appellate court asks two questions: Did the trial court have sufficient information to exercise such discretion, and did the trial court err in the application of that discretion?Simply put, an appeal by the NCAA of this ruling, given the great deference appellate courts show trial courts in these matters, seems unlikely to succeed.Still, the ruling has many wondering if the NCAA should still appeal, even given the difficult standard the governing body would face with such an appeal:Plus, there is the matter of precedent. If the NCAA ultimately loses on this matter, it would essentially become the “first and only American sports league to allow an athlete to compete after betting on his own games,” a point the NCAA argued in front of Judge Curry.Sorsby admitted to placing wagers of at least $90,000 on more than 9,000 bets during his time in college, including 40 bets of at least $850 on Indiana football while he was a member of the Hoosiers. Under NCAA rules, the penalty for a player gambling on their own team is permanent ineligibility.The NCAA could appeal and argue that the fact Sorsby admitted to those bets, in clear violation of stated NCAA rules, and yet has been reinstated under Judge Curry’s order amounts to a decision that is “legally unreasonable in the factual-legal context in which it [was] made.” See Landon v. Jean-Paul Budinger, Inc., 724 S.W.2d 931. That language has been held in Texas to overturn a trial court’s decision under the abuse of discretion standard.Given the precedent set by this decision, the NCAA likely appeals.But whether they succeeded on that appeal is a different story.And while the underlying case will ultimately go to trial, that might not occur until after the 2026 season is completed.So, for now at least, Sorsby is back on the Red Raiders for the upcoming season. #NCAA #appeal #Brendan #Sorsbys #shocking #reinstatement #Texas #law #isnt #side")
![Brendan Sorsby’s gambling allegations could end his college football career. Is NFL Supplemental Draft next? Brendan Sorsby was one of college football’s highest-paid players in the transfer portal, and he was considered a possible first-round pick in the 2027 NFL Draft. The 6’3 quarterback left Cincinnati for Texas Tech after a tremendous junior season for a reported sum of $5 million. Just when the Red Raiders were celebrating the addition of one of the country’s top QBs, Sorsby was caught up in gambling allegations that sent him to rehab and likely ends his college career.It now looks like the best bet for Sorsby’s immediate future is to turn pro through the NFL Supplemental Draft, which is expected to be held in mid July.What is the Supplemental Draft? How much interest would Sorsby really draw? Let’s dive into the history of the NFL’s other draft, with more context on what makes Sorsby such an enticing prospect.What is the NFL Supplemental Draft?What, exactly, is the NFL Supplemental Draft?Begun in 1977, the NFL Supplemental Draft is held for players that lost their remaining college eligibility after the league’s deadline to enter the NFL’s standard player entry draft. For those wondering, Al Hunter was the first player taken in an NFL Supplemental Draft in 1977, after the Notre Dame running back was suspended from the school for disciplinary reasons.Perhaps the most notable NFL Supplemental Drafts have been in 1985 and 1989. In March of 1985, Miami (FL) quarterback Bernie Kosar announced that he planned on skipping his final two years of college to enter the 1985 NFL Draft.But at that time, NFL rules only allowed college seniors and graduates to enter the NFL Draft. To work around this, Kosar had arranged an accelerated academic plan, where he would take 18 credits in the spring of 1985 and an additional six more in the summer, to meet the eligibility requirements.During his announcement Kosar, who grew up in Ohio as a Cleveland Browns fan, made it clear he wanted to play for his hometown team.However, Kosar was considered an elite prospect, and teams started angling for position in the first round for a shot at Kosar. Most notably the Minnesota Vikings executed a trade with the Houston Oilers to pick up a top pick in the first round, hoping to land Kosar.Cleveland, however, quietly executed a trade with the Buffalo Bills, acquiring Buffalo’s first pick in the 1985 Supplemental Draft in exchange for first-round picks in 1985 and 1986, as wells as a third round selection in 1985 and a sixth-round pick in 1986.Kosar did not meet the deadline to enter the 1985 NFL Draft, which came in April.That is when the rest of the league learned about Cleveland’s trade with the Bills. The Oilers threatened to sue to stop the 1985 NFL Draft from taking place, as Houston also wanted a chance to draft Kosar. Teams implored NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle to reverse the trade between the Browns and the Bills. The quarterback’s agent warned that he would sue the league if Kosar was forced to enter the traditional draft.Ultimately, Rozelle gave Kosar the choice between the two drafts, and the quarterback announced he was skipping the 1985 NFL Draft and entering the Supplemental Draft, where the Browns used their first selection to draft the quarterback.The 1989 NFL Supplemental Draft was notable for having three players selected in the first round — quarterbacks Steve Walsh and Timm Rosenbach, and running back Bobby Humphrey.To date, 46 players have been selected in an NFL Supplemental Draft, with safety Jalen Thompson in 2019 the most recent selection. Of those 46 players only one, wide receiver Cris Carter, has made the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Carter was suspended before his senior season for signing with an agent.How does the order work in the Supplemental Draft?The chaos around Kosar in 1985 forced the league to adjust how the order is determined for the Supplemental Draft.Previously, the order for the NFL Draft was the same as the order for the Supplemental Draft, but in the wake of Kosar, the league implemented the quasi-random ordering process that is in place today. Teams are divided into three pools — non-playoff teams with six or fewer wins, non-playoff teams with seven or more wins, and then the playoff teams — and teams “bid” on players, indicating in which round they would select that player. If no other team places a bid on a player in an earlier spot, then the team that placed the bid is awarded the player, and forfeits an equivalent pick in the next NFL Draft.So when the Arizona Cardinals drafted Jalen Thompson in the fifth round of the 2019 NFL Supplemental Draft, they forfeited a fifth-round pick in the 2020 NFL Draft.Why might Brendan Sorsby need the NFL Supplemental Draft?All of this leads us to Brendan Sorsby.Last year at Cincinnati, Sorsby completed nearly 62% of his passes for 2,800 yards and 27 touchdowns, against just five interceptions. He also added another 580 rushing yards and nine touchdowns for the Bearcats. But he announced in December of last year that he was transferring, and became one of the most sought-after players in the portal. In fact, ESPN rated Sorsby as the top player in the transfer portal.In January, after visiting Texas Tech and LSU, Sorsby announced he was joining the Red Raiders, with projections indicating he might surpass $5 million in NIL money.Even in a crowded quarterback class for the 2027 NFL Draft, Sorsby was one of the favorites for a first-round pick next year. Consider this list from the various “way too early” mock drafts:USA TODAY Sports: No. 13 overall, Pittsburgh SteelersPro Football Focus: No. 8 overall, Pittsburgh SteelersCBS Sports: No. 8 overall, Pittsburgh SteelersBleacher Report: No. 10 overall, Atlanta FalconsNJ.com: No. 4 overall, Cleveland BrownsThen came word in late April that Sorsby was stepping away from Texas Tech to enter into a residential treatment program for a gambling addiction. A report from ESPN outlined that Sorsby made “thousands” of online bets across various sports via a gambling app, including games on Indiana football while Sorsby was a reserve quarterback for the Hoosiers. ESPN reported that Sorsby’s bets in 2022 were on Indiana to win games, and those bets did not include the one game where Sorsby saw the field for the Hoosiers.See if you can tell, courtesy of NFL Mock Draft Database, when this news emerged:Sorsby has not been ruled ineligible for the 2026 college football season, and the NCAA said in a statement to USA Today that the governing body would not comment on an ongoing investigation. But if he is ruled ineligible by the NCAA in the coming weeks, then the NFL Supplemental Draft would be an option for him.And as you can see from the above, there is still a belief that if Sorsby is allowed to play next year, he would be a first-round pick, based on the early mock drafts for next year.However, the clock is ticking. Sorsby has until June 22 to apply for the 2026 Supplemental Draft, and then the league would review the circumstances regarding his application. As noted by ESPN’s Adam Schefter, Sorsby has hired attorney Jeffrey Kessler to try and maintain his college eligibility and perhaps speed up the process and/or negotiate a settlement on a suspension.Which brings us to the latest development.The injunction request, and what happens nextThis story took another turn on Monday.As first reported by ESPN Sorsby, through his attorneys, has filed for an injunction against the NCAA in Lubbock, Texas. In the filing, according to ESPN, Sorsby alleges that he is “currently ineligible to play for Texas Tech due to prior violations of the NCAA’s sports gambling rules” and that he would be “irreparably harmed” if the injunction were not granted.It is worth noting that the NCAA has not issued any public statement, nor has the governing body made any penalty public. This would seem to indicate that Sorsby has been notified privately of a potential penalty from the NCAA.In the injunction filing, which SB Nation has reviewed, Sorsby alleges that he suffers from a “clinically diagnosed” gambling disorder, and further states that is a “mental health condition.” The filing also alleges that the NCAA has “weaponized his condition to shore up a facade of competitive integrity, while simultaneously profiting from the very gambling ecosystem it policies.”Furthermore, the filing states that:When Mr. Sorsby took accountability for his NCAA gambling rules violations (which undisputedly did not raise any integrity issues, i.e., his bets did not threaten the fairness, honesty, and/or transparency of athletic competitions, or otherwise influence the outcome or athlete performance in those competitions), entered residential treatment, and offered to accept reasonable discipline (but not a full loss of eligibility for the upcoming season at Texas Tech), the NCAA responded not with the compassion its constitution (“Constitution” or “NCAA Constitution”) demands, but with stonewalling, pretextual information demands, delay, and silence. This is not what Texas law or common decency requires.The filing also notes that “[t]ime is of the essence.” Specifically, Sorsby is in the final year of eligiblity, a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that, once lost, can never be recovered.”Sorsby, through his attorneys, notes that:If the NCAA refuses to reinstate him and he is not awarded temporary relief, Mr. Sorsby’s only alternative is the NFL Supplemental Draft, which requires him to opt in—and forgo any effort to restore his remaining college eligibility—by June 22, 2026. The NCAA has manufactured an impossible bind: it delays its reinstatement decision while the NFL deadline closes in, forcing Mr. Sorsby to choose between surrendering college eligibility he wants to retain, while risking the loss of a full year of competitive football entirely. This is not equity. Mr. Sorsby has diligently pursued every alternative avenue for relief, but he is not obligated to continue doing so in light of the irreparable harm he now faces. Only this Court can hold the NCAA to its own rules—and provide Mr. Sorsby and Texas Tech the timely relief they are owed.The request for an injunction also seeks a hearing no later than June 15, so that “the Court has the opportunity to render a decision on his request for a temporary injunction prior to June 22, when Mr. Sorsby must determine whether to enter the NFL Supplemental Draft.” #Brendan #Sorsbys #gambling #allegations #college #football #career #NFL #Supplemental #Draft](https://i0.wp.com/platform.sbnation.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/05/Screenshot-2026-05-11-at-6.50.23AM.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=2400&ssl=1 "Brendan Sorsby’s gambling allegations could end his college football career. Is NFL Supplemental Draft next? Brendan Sorsby was one of college football’s highest-paid players in the transfer portal, and he was considered a possible first-round pick in the 2027 NFL Draft. The 6’3 quarterback left Cincinnati for Texas Tech after a tremendous junior season for a reported sum of $5 million. Just when the Red Raiders were celebrating the addition of one of the country’s top QBs, Sorsby was caught up in gambling allegations that sent him to rehab and likely ends his college career.It now looks like the best bet for Sorsby’s immediate future is to turn pro through the NFL Supplemental Draft, which is expected to be held in mid July.What is the Supplemental Draft? How much interest would Sorsby really draw? Let’s dive into the history of the NFL’s other draft, with more context on what makes Sorsby such an enticing prospect.What is the NFL Supplemental Draft?What, exactly, is the NFL Supplemental Draft?Begun in 1977, the NFL Supplemental Draft is held for players that lost their remaining college eligibility after the league’s deadline to enter the NFL’s standard player entry draft. For those wondering, Al Hunter was the first player taken in an NFL Supplemental Draft in 1977, after the Notre Dame running back was suspended from the school for disciplinary reasons.Perhaps the most notable NFL Supplemental Drafts have been in 1985 and 1989. In March of 1985, Miami (FL) quarterback Bernie Kosar announced that he planned on skipping his final two years of college to enter the 1985 NFL Draft.But at that time, NFL rules only allowed college seniors and graduates to enter the NFL Draft. To work around this, Kosar had arranged an accelerated academic plan, where he would take 18 credits in the spring of 1985 and an additional six more in the summer, to meet the eligibility requirements.During his announcement Kosar, who grew up in Ohio as a Cleveland Browns fan, made it clear he wanted to play for his hometown team.However, Kosar was considered an elite prospect, and teams started angling for position in the first round for a shot at Kosar. Most notably the Minnesota Vikings executed a trade with the Houston Oilers to pick up a top pick in the first round, hoping to land Kosar.Cleveland, however, quietly executed a trade with the Buffalo Bills, acquiring Buffalo’s first pick in the 1985 Supplemental Draft in exchange for first-round picks in 1985 and 1986, as wells as a third round selection in 1985 and a sixth-round pick in 1986.Kosar did not meet the deadline to enter the 1985 NFL Draft, which came in April.That is when the rest of the league learned about Cleveland’s trade with the Bills. The Oilers threatened to sue to stop the 1985 NFL Draft from taking place, as Houston also wanted a chance to draft Kosar. Teams implored NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle to reverse the trade between the Browns and the Bills. The quarterback’s agent warned that he would sue the league if Kosar was forced to enter the traditional draft.Ultimately, Rozelle gave Kosar the choice between the two drafts, and the quarterback announced he was skipping the 1985 NFL Draft and entering the Supplemental Draft, where the Browns used their first selection to draft the quarterback.The 1989 NFL Supplemental Draft was notable for having three players selected in the first round — quarterbacks Steve Walsh and Timm Rosenbach, and running back Bobby Humphrey.To date, 46 players have been selected in an NFL Supplemental Draft, with safety Jalen Thompson in 2019 the most recent selection. Of those 46 players only one, wide receiver Cris Carter, has made the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Carter was suspended before his senior season for signing with an agent.How does the order work in the Supplemental Draft?The chaos around Kosar in 1985 forced the league to adjust how the order is determined for the Supplemental Draft.Previously, the order for the NFL Draft was the same as the order for the Supplemental Draft, but in the wake of Kosar, the league implemented the quasi-random ordering process that is in place today. Teams are divided into three pools — non-playoff teams with six or fewer wins, non-playoff teams with seven or more wins, and then the playoff teams — and teams “bid” on players, indicating in which round they would select that player. If no other team places a bid on a player in an earlier spot, then the team that placed the bid is awarded the player, and forfeits an equivalent pick in the next NFL Draft.So when the Arizona Cardinals drafted Jalen Thompson in the fifth round of the 2019 NFL Supplemental Draft, they forfeited a fifth-round pick in the 2020 NFL Draft.Why might Brendan Sorsby need the NFL Supplemental Draft?All of this leads us to Brendan Sorsby.Last year at Cincinnati, Sorsby completed nearly 62% of his passes for 2,800 yards and 27 touchdowns, against just five interceptions. He also added another 580 rushing yards and nine touchdowns for the Bearcats. But he announced in December of last year that he was transferring, and became one of the most sought-after players in the portal. In fact, ESPN rated Sorsby as the top player in the transfer portal.In January, after visiting Texas Tech and LSU, Sorsby announced he was joining the Red Raiders, with projections indicating he might surpass $5 million in NIL money.Even in a crowded quarterback class for the 2027 NFL Draft, Sorsby was one of the favorites for a first-round pick next year. Consider this list from the various “way too early” mock drafts:USA TODAY Sports: No. 13 overall, Pittsburgh SteelersPro Football Focus: No. 8 overall, Pittsburgh SteelersCBS Sports: No. 8 overall, Pittsburgh SteelersBleacher Report: No. 10 overall, Atlanta FalconsNJ.com: No. 4 overall, Cleveland BrownsThen came word in late April that Sorsby was stepping away from Texas Tech to enter into a residential treatment program for a gambling addiction. A report from ESPN outlined that Sorsby made “thousands” of online bets across various sports via a gambling app, including games on Indiana football while Sorsby was a reserve quarterback for the Hoosiers. ESPN reported that Sorsby’s bets in 2022 were on Indiana to win games, and those bets did not include the one game where Sorsby saw the field for the Hoosiers.See if you can tell, courtesy of NFL Mock Draft Database, when this news emerged:Sorsby has not been ruled ineligible for the 2026 college football season, and the NCAA said in a statement to USA Today that the governing body would not comment on an ongoing investigation. But if he is ruled ineligible by the NCAA in the coming weeks, then the NFL Supplemental Draft would be an option for him.And as you can see from the above, there is still a belief that if Sorsby is allowed to play next year, he would be a first-round pick, based on the early mock drafts for next year.However, the clock is ticking. Sorsby has until June 22 to apply for the 2026 Supplemental Draft, and then the league would review the circumstances regarding his application. As noted by ESPN’s Adam Schefter, Sorsby has hired attorney Jeffrey Kessler to try and maintain his college eligibility and perhaps speed up the process and/or negotiate a settlement on a suspension.Which brings us to the latest development.The injunction request, and what happens nextThis story took another turn on Monday.As first reported by ESPN Sorsby, through his attorneys, has filed for an injunction against the NCAA in Lubbock, Texas. In the filing, according to ESPN, Sorsby alleges that he is “currently ineligible to play for Texas Tech due to prior violations of the NCAA’s sports gambling rules” and that he would be “irreparably harmed” if the injunction were not granted.It is worth noting that the NCAA has not issued any public statement, nor has the governing body made any penalty public. This would seem to indicate that Sorsby has been notified privately of a potential penalty from the NCAA.In the injunction filing, which SB Nation has reviewed, Sorsby alleges that he suffers from a “clinically diagnosed” gambling disorder, and further states that is a “mental health condition.” The filing also alleges that the NCAA has “weaponized his condition to shore up a facade of competitive integrity, while simultaneously profiting from the very gambling ecosystem it policies.”Furthermore, the filing states that:When Mr. Sorsby took accountability for his NCAA gambling rules violations (which undisputedly did not raise any integrity issues, i.e., his bets did not threaten the fairness, honesty, and/or transparency of athletic competitions, or otherwise influence the outcome or athlete performance in those competitions), entered residential treatment, and offered to accept reasonable discipline (but not a full loss of eligibility for the upcoming season at Texas Tech), the NCAA responded not with the compassion its constitution (“Constitution” or “NCAA Constitution”) demands, but with stonewalling, pretextual information demands, delay, and silence. This is not what Texas law or common decency requires.The filing also notes that “[t]ime is of the essence.” Specifically, Sorsby is in the final year of eligiblity, a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that, once lost, can never be recovered.”Sorsby, through his attorneys, notes that:If the NCAA refuses to reinstate him and he is not awarded temporary relief, Mr. Sorsby’s only alternative is the NFL Supplemental Draft, which requires him to opt in—and forgo any effort to restore his remaining college eligibility—by June 22, 2026. The NCAA has manufactured an impossible bind: it delays its reinstatement decision while the NFL deadline closes in, forcing Mr. Sorsby to choose between surrendering college eligibility he wants to retain, while risking the loss of a full year of competitive football entirely. This is not equity. Mr. Sorsby has diligently pursued every alternative avenue for relief, but he is not obligated to continue doing so in light of the irreparable harm he now faces. Only this Court can hold the NCAA to its own rules—and provide Mr. Sorsby and Texas Tech the timely relief they are owed.The request for an injunction also seeks a hearing no later than June 15, so that “the Court has the opportunity to render a decision on his request for a temporary injunction prior to June 22, when Mr. Sorsby must determine whether to enter the NFL Supplemental Draft.” #Brendan #Sorsbys #gambling #allegations #college #football #career #NFL #Supplemental #Draft")
