NCAA investigate – Agent Ron Slavin says Cincinnati “knew for two years” about Brendan Sorsby’s heavy sports betting in violation of NCAA rules, and never acted. Cincinnati denied the accusation, but the NCAA is now being pushed to investigate whether Cincinnati allowed Sorsby t
The Brendan Sorsby saga has moved from courtroom paperwork to a sharper, messier question: what Cincinnati knew, and when it knew it.
Earlier this week. agent Ron Slavin—defending Texas Tech amid the intense scrutiny it has faced over Sorsby—said the heat should not fall only on Texas Tech. In Slavin’s telling, if anyone should be held accountable, it is Cincinnati. He argued that Cincinnati “knew for two years and never said anything and didn’t do anything about it.”.
Cincinnati responded with a statement denying Slavin’s contention.
Even with the denial, the accusation is now being framed as something the NCAA must examine thoroughly. The central issue is the period of time when Sorsby was “actively. and heavily. betting on sports in violation of NCAA rules. ” and whether Cincinnati allowed him to play despite what it knew—or what it should have known—about his eligibility. The pressure point is specific: the article notes that Sorsby placed bets on Indiana while he was on the Indiana roster. and it says that he had permanently lost his NCAA eligibility.
For Slavin’s critics, this isn’t a side detail. They argue the NCAA’s authority over its member schools still matters. even if the organization has “lost most of its bite” in cases involving players. in part because many NCAA rules are said to violate federal antitrust laws. In that framework. the firestorm around Texas Tech’s decision to allow Sorsby to play—until the Big 12 strong-armed the school into telling him he couldn’t—starts to look incomplete if Cincinnati had let him play during a time it knew. or reasonably should have known. he was ineligible.
The debate now runs deeper than one program’s handling of a single athlete. If the NCAA’s investigation finds Cincinnati had no knowledge and had nothing to hide. it would reinforce the idea that the backlash is rooted in rules being enforced properly. But if the NCAA’s inquiry uncovers that Cincinnati allowed Sorsby to play while he was ineligible. the situation becomes far harder to dismiss as just about sports integrity.
The piece also connects the controversy to a larger fight over power. It argues that how—and whether—the NCAA digs into “the Bearcat rabbit hole” may determine whether the public criticism aimed at Sorsby and Texas Tech after he secured an injunction against the NCAA was about genuine integrity. or whether it was more performative pressure designed to help push through Congress an antitrust exemption. The same passage adds that such an exemption would restore some of the NCAA’s power over the players while also reducing players’ freedom and earning capacity.
NCAA Brendan Sorsby Cincinnati Ron Slavin Texas Tech Big 12 eligibility sports betting antitrust exemption injunction
So NCAA is finally looking at Cincinnati too? About time.
Wait I thought Texas Tech was the only one in trouble. If Cincinnati “knew for two years” that’s crazy. Also how does the NCAA even have rules if federal antitrust stuff is gonna block them anyway?
Two years? That seems like a lifetime in college sports. I’m confused though because didn’t he bet while on Indiana’s roster and then he wasn’t eligible after? Like if he was permanently lost eligibility already, why was he still playing at all, and who approved it? The whole thing feels like paperwork theater.
This reads like everybody’s pointing fingers. Cincinnati says no, Texas Tech says don’t blame us, NCAA should “probe”… meanwhile sports betting is everywhere now so I’m not even shocked. If he was betting on Indiana games, wouldn’t the school’s compliance department automatically catch it? Sounds like someone dropped the ball and now everyone’s doing damage control.