Texas Tech booster Cody Campbell defends Sorsby after backlash

Texas Tech booster Cody Campbell doubled down on his defense of Brendan Sorsby after criticism of the decision to restore the quarterback’s eligibility, calling it the “outcome of a broken system” before shifting to argue that rival schools fear Texas Tech’s c

Texas Tech booster Cody Campbell sounded like a man staring at two different versions of the same headline.

On Monday, he called the decision restoring Brendan Sorsby’s eligibility an “outcome of a broken system.” By Wednesday, though, he was leaning hard into a different explanation—one that left little room for sympathy toward the schools criticizing Texas Tech.

“He’s upset about the court ruling,” Campbell told Dan Dakich on Wednesday, via Sam Khan Jr. of The Athletic, and his message landed with sharp edges. “This kid did not impact the integrity of a single game,” Campbell said. “He didn’t bet on a single game he played in. He didn’t hurt anybody. There are kids that will suit up this fall who have actually hurt people and done bad things. and nobody’s talking about boycotting them or not playing them. . . . There are kids that are playing that have gotten DUIs. that have beaten up women. kids that have committed horrible acts. Nobody boycotted Penn State when that horrible situation happened there.”.

Campbell’s logic then turned toward why the backlash, in his view, has found a target: Texas Tech.

“It’s because the college football world doesn’t think that Texas Tech should be as good as we are. ” Campbell said. “We’ve been a disruptor, just like Indiana has, so we’ve been a target. The volume has gone up and a lot has been directed at me. Coach McGuire. and our university. but that’s not fair.”.

He argued the criticism would look different if the same circumstances had landed somewhere else. “If this had happened at LSU, people would say, ‘Ah, it’s LSU. They’re always going to do what they do.’ But it happened at Texas Tech. and people don’t want to compete with us. Of course ADs in the Big 12 are saying crazy things that they don’t want to play us. They don’t want to play us because they know he’s good and they don’t want us to be as competitive. They want to have a better chance at winning the conference. So they’re inherently conflicted in their opinion.”.

Then came the tension Campbell didn’t try to hide: he knows Texas Tech would be doing the same play if the tables were flipped.

“But Campbell is conflicted, too,” the thrust of his argument continued. “And if this had happened at another Big 12 school, Campbell would be trying a lot harder to leverage the situation into the legislative action for which he has been pushing so hard.”

He also pointed to how predictable he thinks the reactions are across the sport. insisting that critics would act in their own self-interest if they were facing the same stakes. “Likewise. any of the schools that have criticized Texas Tech would be doing the same thing Texas Tech is now doing. if they were the ones facing the loss of their starting quarterback for the 2026 season. It’s all obvious, and it’s all predictable.”.

Underneath the politics and posturing, Campbell said the core issue is not in dispute: Sorsby developed a gambling addiction. “The fact remains that Sorsby developed a gambling addiction. No one is disputing that,” he said in the broader framing of the situation. “The addiction caused him to place many bets. He made bets on Indiana when he was on the Indiana team, but not when he was playing.”.

What Campbell took aim at next was the legal path that brought Sorsby back. “The main problem continues to be the lack of any real reasoning or legal analysis in the bare-bones. four-page court order restoring Sorsby’s eligibility. ” he said. “Judge Ken Curry merely checked the boxes and recited the magic words necessary to reach the desired outcome. without explaining himself.”.

The criticism, in his telling, is that the order doesn’t show the reasoning that leads to the result. “There’s not much black and white in the legal system. Most issues land in a wide patch of gray. where it’s easy to start with the preferred outcome and work backward to justify it. That’s much easier to do when the final order makes no effort to show why the interests of justice lead to the result.”.

Campbell’s bottom line is a sense that everyone around the case is moving in the direction that benefits them. even if those moves collide with what others think is right. “Ultimately. everyone connected to the situation is doing what they would be expected to do. ” the case is described as playing out: “A Texas judge issued a favorable ruling for a Texas school. Texas Tech is supporting Sorsby. Other schools are attacking Texas Tech. And the broader apparatus of college sports hopes that the Sorsby case and its aftermath will become the ‘thunderbolt moment’ that sparks Congress to partially restore the NCAA’s ability to pick the pockets of players who are now getting paid what they deserve.”.

“To date, no one has done the objectively ‘right thing.’ Instead, they’re all saying and doing the things that are right for them.”

Texas Tech Cody Campbell Brendan Sorsby eligibility ruling Ken Curry college football Big 12 gambling addiction court order