Texas Tech’s messaging around Brendan Sorsby has drawn fresh criticism after a Wednesday “it’s not murder” statement from coach Joey McGuire and a Thursday-night 21-minute roundtable video. The school also faces pressure over Judge Ken Curry’s four-page ruling
Brendan Sorsby’s case has never been just one fight. It has had a legal side and it has had a P.R. side. Texas Tech and Sorsby have, at least so far, won in a court of law. They’ve lost in the court of public opinion—and the school’s latest efforts to explain itself have only turned the volume up.
The timeline of Texas Tech’s communications has been swift. It began on Wednesday. when head coach Joey McGuire declared. “it’s not murder.” Then. on Thursday night. Texas Tech posted a roundtable-style. talk-show-style video—designed to address the intense criticism the school has received for supporting Sorsby. Some observers have pointed out that a press conference would have been a better approach. because questions would have been sharper and answers more revealing.
Texas Tech’s video lasted 21 minutes. After it aired, two key points stood out.
First, there is no guarantee Sorsby will be deemed ready to play by Texas Tech in 2026. The school reserves the right to decide not to play him if it ultimately concludes that doing so would be untenable. The stated aim of that kind of decision would be driven by Sorsby’s best interests. but leaving the door open gives Texas Tech an avenue to stand down if it believes the long-term harm to the program outweighs the short-term benefit of having Sorsby on the field.
Second, Sorsby’s family has expressed concern to Texas Tech regarding the blowback the school has received.
While Texas Tech’s messaging has been trying to control the narrative, the stakes for Sorsby personally remain uncertain. At least some possibility exists—based on the concerns raised—that Sorsby could decide to abandon his effort to restore his eligibility and declare for the NFL supplemental draft. The idea being that. for anyone stuck in a sufficiently problematic situation. the best solution can become to tap out of it.
The underlying factual dispute has its own hard edges. Sorsby has a medically-diagnosed condition that resulted from the easy availability of legal sports betting—something described alongside incessant advertisement and the complete normalization of it. But the account here also emphasizes when and how Sorsby reached that point: he got there by making bets before he was legally old enough to do so. in violation of NCAA rules. The addiction, the discussion continues, never would have happened if he hadn’t broken the rules—technically and legally.
That line gets repeated in the way people outside the case are framing the moral and ethical burden of the story: no one becomes addicted to gambling based on a first bet. No one becomes an alcoholic based on a first drink consumed. The behavior crossed the line before addiction drove continued action, and that cannot be overlooked.
Yet another fracture sits at the center of the broader backlash. The core problem continues to be the failure of Judge Ken Curry to explain—within his four-page ruling—why and how the interests of justice pointed to restoring Sorsby’s eligibility as the lawsuit Sorsby filed against the NCAA went forward. The result “feels unjust” to outside observers largely because Curry made no effort to demonstrate that restoring eligibility was the fair and proper outcome.
Texas Tech’s P.R. handling, critics argue, has made an already complicated matter even harder to digest. The school’s communications are widely viewed as an attempt to justify the desire to have its best quarterback available during the 2026 season. Even external voices that were conspicuously silent before Curry’s decision. the criticism says. have not helped—stoking public outrage by jumping on what’s described as low-hanging fruit.
One example singled out is TCU’s social-media response to the Texas Tech video. It is described as “funny,” but not helpful to resolving the core problem.
None of this exists in black-and-white territory. The criticism emphasizes that people are not focusing on the gray—starting with the judge who restored Sorsby’s eligibility and continuing through everyone who has an interest in whether he plays football in 2026.
The central missing question. according to the argument laid out in reaction to the case. is whether the right outcome—given Sorsby’s current condition and the admitted violation of rules that caused it—is for Sorsby to not play college football in 2026. or ever again. Not because of the rules. Not because of the law. But because the recovery—short- and long-term—potentially would best be served by not playing.
No one, the piece insists, knows the right answer. And there is no clearly objective. unbiased viewpoint positioned to make a decision purely in Sorsby’s best interests without the unavoidable pull of everyone else’s incentives: Texas Tech’s. its Big 12 rivals’ and those who might seek to leverage Sorsby’s win in court into Congressional action that would give the NCAA and its members the antitrust exemption they want.
Sorsby’s condition merits sympathy and empathy. But it should not become an all-purpose absolution for the behavior that caused it. In the end. the dispute now sits where it often becomes most dangerous—when recovery. accountability. and institutional self-interest collide—and when the public narrative starts to harden faster than the facts can settle.
Brendan Sorsby Texas Tech Joey McGuire Judge Ken Curry NCAA eligibility legal sports betting NFL supplemental draft Big 12 TCU response