​Before we dive into Brett Yormark’s performative posturing at Big 12 media days, let’s anchor ourselves in some undeniable facts. In March, the NCAA disclosed that it had received a tip from an online sports book about Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby’s gambling activity, and that the sports book had been alerted by law enforcement. In April, multiple sources told USA TODAY Sports that not only was Sorsby gambling on games, but that Cincinnati — his former team for two years — was aware of it in the summer of 2025. Sorsby himself claimed in a lawsuit filed last month against the NCAA that Cincinnati knew about it.
That leads us to Tuesday’s media day, which many viewed as Brett Yormark’s grandstanding moment in the role of Big 12 commissioner and, some would say, a modern P.T. Barnum of college sports. No moment seems too big or too small to be monetized, and no moment is ever allowed to slip by without some sort of showcase. When a member of the media finally pressed a legitimate question with a microphone loud enough for everyone to hear, I’ll paraphrase: why isn’t Cincinnati part of any investigation into Sorsby’s gambling?
From the outset, Yormark began the day by announcing the Big 12’s new “entitlement” partner, a deal that will feature a patch on the jerseys of all football and men’s and women’s basketball teams in the conference, plus signage on playing fields and courts. The move reeked of the NASCARization of college sports, a branding play that many fans find distasteful even as it’s hard to miss the spectacle. When the question came about Cincinnati’s status, Yormark chose theatrics over clarity. Instead of answering with a straightforward “it’s an ongoing process,” he briskly stepped to his left, locked eyes with the journalist, and declared, “Stand up, ask that question again, and then I’m going to give you the answer I want to give you.” After being asked again, he offered, “We’re going forward as 16 strong, and that’s my answer to your question.” It was, by many accounts, one of the most performative moments you’ll see at any of these events.
Here’s the question that begged for a direct answer: if Cincinnati knew about Sorsby’s gambling, and allowed him to continue to play, there should be NCAA sanctions. If Cincinnati didn’t know, why leave the university exposed to a question that the entire conference clearly wants answered? The issue, in other words, demands a straightforward state of play: NOW OR NEVER, the expansion clock is ticking, and the Big Ten and SEC are weighing final moves; the integrity of the game demands transparency about Cincinnati’s involvement or lack thereof. Yet what we got instead was a seasoned professional attempting to frame the media member’s inquiry in a way that would make him appear small for simply asking a fundamental question.
If you’re not going to offer a direct answer, the appropriate reply would have been to acknowledge that it’s an ongoing investigation and to move the topic along. Anything short of that leaves an uncomfortable vacuum. As of now, the interaction leaves serious questions about how the Big 12 and the NCAA are handling the Sorsby situation, and about whether the conference’s public posture on accountability and due process matches the reality of ongoing inquiries. The player at the center of this controversy deserves a clearer accounting, and the fans deserve to know whether Cincinnati’s knowledge (or lack thereof) will factor into any sanctions or disciplinary actions. Until then, this remains less a revelation of substance and more a spectacle of process and posture, with the SEO-friendly centerpiece of the narrative being a single, unresolved question that keeps echoing through the echo chambers of college sports discourse.