On Monday, a judge in Texas restored the eligibility of Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby, despite numerous violations of the NCAA’s gambling rules due to a gambling addiction. On Wednesday, Texas Tech athletic director Kirby Hocutt issued a lengthy statement regarding the decision and the loud, negative response to it.
“I’ve watched the reaction to Monday’s court ruling with great respect for my colleagues across college athletics,” Hocutt said. “Many of them are people I admire. But I also owe it to Texas Tech, and frankly to the truth, to offer a few facts that seem to be getting lost in the noise.
“Brendan Sorsby has not played a single down of football as a Red Raider. He will miss the first two games of the 2026 season under the terms of the court’s ruling. What happens after that will depend, in no small part, on how his recovery continues to progress. We’re taking it one day at a time as he is. We’ll evaluate his recovery, compliance and readiness as we go. We are watching closely, we are deeply committed to his progress and well-being, and we are not operating on blind faith. We are operating on a comprehensive clinical and compliance structure that we committed to before the court ruled in Brendan’s lawsuit against the NCAA and that Brendan committed to as a condition of his return to our football program.
“Texas Tech is not a party to Brendan’s lawsuit. We did not file it. We did not fund it. A young man in treatment for a clinically diagnosed addiction exercised his legal right to seek a remedy in court, and a judge agreed with him. Our role has been to support his recovery, not to engineer his eligibility.
“I’ve heard the word ‘integrity’ used a great deal in the last 48 hours. As someone who has dedicated his career to college sports, I, too, believe integrity is central to our industry’s success. I also think integrity applies on more than one front. The integrity of sport matters. So does the integrity of how we treat a 22-year-old who sought help, entered residential treatment, and is working every day toward recovery. Those two things don’t have to be in conflict.
“I have two sons, including one who recently graduated from Texas Tech and played football. Throughout this process, I’ve kept asking myself: How would I approach this situation if this were my own son?
“Let me be direct about what Texas Tech’s position actually is: we are glad Brendan is still part of our community, because that is where we can extend him the best possible support in his ongoing recovery. Clinical care, device monitoring, financial oversight, outpatient therapy — that infrastructure exists because we take our responsibility to this young man seriously. We spent Monday after the judge’s ruling getting those systems stood up for him, not thinking about X’s and O’s. Pulling him out of a structured environment, away from his team and his support system, does not protect anyone. It might be a cleaner headline, but it wouldn’t be the right one. And it wouldn’t be true to the institutional values that guide us every day.
“To my colleagues: I understand the frustration. This situation is hard, it is new, and there is no perfect answer. The system we’re operating within is binary, but the situation is not. We are open to ongoing conversations about how to best handle these issues as an industry going forward. We will continue to be transparent in our decision-making. Most importantly, we will keep doing what we have always done, put our students first.”
While Texas Tech isn’t a party to Sorsby’s lawsuit, it appealed the NCAA’s decision to eliminate his eligibility for 2026. And Texas Tech, for basic competitive reasons, wants to have its starting quarterback available this year.
But let’s be realistic. If these facts had played out at a different school, Texas Tech would likely be among the voices opposing the outcome — and the school impacted by the potential ineligibility of its starting quarterback would be supporting it.
Still, there are two sides to this. Unfortunately, the bare-bones, four-page decision from Judge Ken Curry did nothing to explain how the specific facts of the case, the relevant NCAA rules, and the applicable provisions of Texas law came together to make a temporary injunction restoring his eligibility the fair and just result.
