During closing arguments in Brendan Sorsby’s injunction hearing on Monday, Sorsby’s attorney Jeffrey Kessler pointed to a recent NCAA gambling case involving former Indiana assistant volleyball coach Brett Agne. Kessler argued it demonstrated a stark contrast in how the NCAA has handled gambling-related violations with different cases.
Details in Agne Case
Kessler referenced Agne, who, according to NCAA findings, placed more than 700 sports wagers totaling over $327,000 during a five-month period while employed by Indiana. NCAA investigators determined that 27 of those wagers involved Indiana football and men’s basketball games.
Despite Agne admitting he knowingly engaged in prohibited sports wagering activity after receiving NCAA gambling education, the NCAA’s negotiated resolution stopped short of a lengthy suspension. Instead, the penalties included a two-year show-cause order with a mandatory sports betting education, a requirement that he provide gambling education to his peers, and a suspension of only 10 regular-season matches, roughly 30 percent of Indiana’s volleyball season.
“A two-year show-cause order for Agne, in which any employing member school must require Agne to complete meaningful sports betting education and provide sports betting education to his peers,” the NCAA’s penalty summary stated.
How It Compares/Differs from Sorsby’s Case
Kessler used the case to argue that the NCAA has previously treated gambling violations as opportunities for education and rehabilitation rather than imposing season-long competitive penalties.
The comparison was particularly notable given Brendan Sorsby’s circumstances. The Texas Tech quarterback recently completed a residential treatment program for a gambling addiction and has publicly detailed his recovery efforts since completing the program. Kessler argued that while Agne’s case resulted in educational requirements and a limited suspension despite hundreds of wagers and more than $327,000 in betting activity, Sorsby faces the possibility of losing the rest of his collegiate eligibility.
The comparison became even more notable when examining how the NCAA described Agne’s defense. According to the NCAA report, Agne stated that he used an unregulated computer program that automatically placed wagers based on an algorithm and claimed he was unaware of which games were being bet on, including the Indiana contests. Agne did not bet on his own team as Sorsby did, but Agne also did not acknowledge knowing which bets he was placing — a key distinction from Sorsby.
“Agne stated that he used an unregulated computer program to place bets on games automatically based on an algorithm, and as a result, he was not aware of which games he was betting on, including the Indiana games,” the NCAA’s report stated.
Also on Monday, Kessler emphasized Sorsby’s treatment efforts, revealing during the hearing that a Level-1 gambling treatment specialist diagnosed the Texas Tech quarterback with both a gambling addiction and an anxiety disorder while he was receiving residential care. Kessler argued that Sorsby’s case should be viewed through the lens of treatment and recovery, noting that Sorsby has acknowledged his mistakes rather than attempting to distance himself from them.
Closing
Whether Judge Ken Curry ultimately agrees with Kessler’s comparison remains to be seen, but the Indiana case served as a centerpiece of Kessler’s closing argument on Monday. A decision on Brendan Sorsby’s request for injunctive relief is expected in the coming days, with the ruling potentially determining whether the Texas Tech quarterback will be able to continue his collegiate career.
Join the conversation with other Red Raiders on the Inside The Double T forum.
Subscribe today to get the most in-depth Texas Tech sports and recruiting coverage.
Follow us on X: @RedRaiderSports
Like and follow us on Instagram @rrs_rivals & like us on Facebook.