OutKick88%

Texas Tech QB’s gambling saga now features Tom Brady’s Deflategate lawyer 53%

By Dan Zaksheske0%

5/3/2026, 7:40:50 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 30.1% saturation with 224 hits. Analysis detected 1,726 faulty-reasoning hits from 744 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52% and a BS Rank of 53% (9,961 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.00% of the article peer group.

Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby’s NCAA gambling situation just took a significant legal turn. 
Sorsby has reportedly hired high-profile sports attorney Jeffrey Kessler as he attempts to preserve his college eligibility amid an NCAA investigation into alleged sports betting activity. 
If Kessler's name sounds familiar to sports fans, it should. 
Kessler represented Tom Brady during Deflategate and was the lead attorney in the House v. 
NCAA case that helped push college sports into its current revenue-sharing era. 
Now, he appears to be involved in one of the strangest eligibility fights college football has ever seen. 
OutKick previously reported that sources around the situation believe there’s a strong chance Sorsby could be declared ineligible for the 2026 season, depending on the NCAA’s findings. 
Sorsby isn't pretending that he doesn't have a gambling problem or that he didn't bet on sports. 
The quarterback recently checked himself into a gambling addiction treatment program. 
TEXAS TECH QB BRENDAN SORSBY ENTERING TREATMENT FOR GAMBLING ADDICTION AMID NCAA INVESTIGATION 
But the investigation centers, in part, on whether Sorsby placed bets while he was on Indiana’s roster in 2022. 
He redshirted that season but did appear in one game, although there's no evidence he wagered on the one game he played. 
The NCAA has taken a hardline stance on athletes betting on their own school’s games, regardless of whether the bet is on the team to win or if the player participates in the game. 
Under 2023 guidelines, that can lead to permanent loss of eligibility. 
That’s where the Kessler hire makes things quite interesting. 
This isn’t just a Texas Tech football problem or an NCAA gambling investigation anymore. 
It’s now potentially a courtroom fight over whether one of the most expensive quarterbacks in the transfer portal can play this season. 
The result could have major ramifications moving forward, as the proliferation of legalized gambling across the United States makes these situations much more likely to happen again. 
And if the NCAA ends up across from Kessler again, it knows exactly who it’s dealing with. 
Kessler was central to House v. 
NCAA, the landmark case that helped force the NCAA and major conferences into a settlement that opened the door for schools to directly share revenue with athletes. 
In other words, one of the lawyers who helped upend the old college sports model could now be trying to keep Sorsby eligible under the new one. 
That’s quite a twist. 
CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE 
Sorsby transferred to Texas Tech after playing at Cincinnati, and OutKick previously reported the Red Raiders were set to pay him upward of $5 million for his time in Lubbock. 
That made him one of the biggest names in the portal and a potential centerpiece for Joey McGuire’s program in 2026. 
Cincinnati is currently suing Sorsby for a $1 million NIL exit fee after his transfer to Texas Tech, and he has filed a motion to dismiss the case. 
Now, Texas Tech may have to wait on the NCAA, Sorsby’s lawyers and possibly a judge before knowing whether its massive investment can actually take the field. 
It's crazy to think that college sports has come to this, but here we are. 
This is a story that seemed almost unfathomable 10 years ago but now seems almost mundane. 
None of this means Sorsby should avoid punishment if the NCAA proves he violated gambling rules. 
Sports betting by college athletes, especially when it involves their own school, is a serious integrity issue. 
But Kessler’s involvement raises the stakes dramatically. 
If this becomes a legal fight, the NCAA won’t simply be deciding whether Sorsby broke a rule. 
It could be forced to defend how much power it still has to end a player’s college career in an era where athletes are paid, represented and recruited like professionals. 
That’s why this case is bigger than one player or one school. 
OUTKICK IS NOW ON THE FOX APP: CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD 
The quarterback at the center of college football’s strangest offseason story just hired the lawyer from Deflategate. 
The NCAA may have thought it had a simple gambling investigation and eligibility ruling on its hands. 
Instead, it appears to have a potential major legal fight with one of the most powerful attorneys in the country where the result could affect the future of the organization. 
There's zero chance that's the position the NCAA wanted to find itself in. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.7%Dan Zaksheske: 6.1%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias7.7%This article: 6.5%Dan Zaksheske: 0.8%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias6.5%This article: 5.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.0%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic5.0%This article: 6.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.0%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.0%This article: 5.2%Dan Zaksheske: 0.5%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias5.2%This article: 8.1%Dan Zaksheske: 2.2%Fox Nation: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias8.1%This article: 9.4%Dan Zaksheske: 8.6%Fox Nation: 12.0%Framing Effect9.4%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.0%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias4.0%This article: 3.6%Dan Zaksheske: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.6%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Dan Zaksheske: 1.1%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias3.8%This article: 20.0%Dan Zaksheske: 7.8%Fox Nation: 10.9%Negativity Bias20.0%This article: 2.2%Dan Zaksheske: 2.9%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias2.2%This article: 2.3%Dan Zaksheske: 3.5%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error2.3%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 3.0%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Dan Zaksheske: 3.6%Fox Nation: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.6%This article: 8.9%Dan Zaksheske: 3.4%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect8.9%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.7%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.8%Dan Zaksheske: 0.7%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 5.7%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.7%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.9%Dan Zaksheske: 3.0%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority16.9%This article: 4.2%Dan Zaksheske: 2.3%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma4.2%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.7%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.1%Dan Zaksheske: 7.7%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization15.1%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.8%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.5%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.7%Dan Zaksheske: 4.3%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion11.7%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.8%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.9%Dan Zaksheske: 2.0%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.9%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.5%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.6%Dan Zaksheske: 0.9%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof3.6%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.6%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division1.6%This article: 3.6%Dan Zaksheske: 1.5%Fox Nation: 2.3%Anecdotal3.6%This article: 2.3%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman2.3%This article: 17.6%Dan Zaksheske: 1.4%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.6%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity2.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.9%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.3%Fox Nation: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.5%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 30.1%Dan Zaksheske: 18.2%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice30.1%This article: 5.2%Dan Zaksheske: 2.2%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination5.2%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 5.1%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Dan Zaksheske: 1.1%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.2%

744 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers20%attributed speech592writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageJeffrey Kessler • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageOutKick • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageNCAA • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageOutKick • 7 words • 100.0% coverageOutKick • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCincinnati • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageOutKick • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jeffrey Kessler

100%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words9.9% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-37.8 ptsWriter: 37.8%Jeffrey Kessler: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.6 ptsWriter: 6.6%Jeffrey Kessler: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%Jeffrey Kessler: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.