Usage Score
30.6
Player Dossier
2022-2025Indiana
Brendan Sorsby
QB • 6'3" • 235 lbs • Corinth, TX, USA
Pass-first distributorEfficient finisher
Brendan Sorsby is a pass-first distributor with 28.5 usage in the latest tracked season.
Efficiency
57.8
Consistency
70.2
Season Value
53.4
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2025 Regular Season · Cincinnati
22232425
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 2
- Seasons Tracked
- 4
- Program Path
- Indiana • Cincinnati
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Texas Tech
Scouting Read
Best season and peak-game context are pinned here so the rest of the page can stay analytical without losing the headline story.
Brendan Sorsby, QB. Best season Best season by value score: 2025 Regular Season · Cincinnati. Brendan Sorsby is a pass-first distributor with 28.5 usage in the latest tracked season.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2025 Regular Season
Cincinnati paired 3,366 primary output with 70.6 efficiency.
Supporting note
2023 Regular Season role shape
pass-led usage with 57.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2025 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Multi-stop career journey
Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across Indiana, Cincinnati.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Illinois
Loss with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Season Workbench
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2023 Regular Season · Indiana
Games
10
Primary Metric / G
187.3
Efficiency
57.8
Usage
30.6
Consistency
70.2
Best Game by takeover score
Purdue
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
12345678910
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Ohio State: 56. Unknown: 136. Maryland: 109. Michigan: 74. Rutgers: 175. Penn State: 266. Wisconsin: 194. Illinois: 342. Michigan State: 251. Purdue: 270
Volume vs Efficiency
Low volume / high quality
High volume / high quality
Low volume / lower quality
High volume / lower quality
Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.
Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Ohio State: 21 by 46.4. Unknown: 22 by 64.8. Maryland: 16 by 69.3. Michigan: 28 by 46.9. Rutgers: 42 by 56.7. Penn State: 31 by 61.8. Wisconsin: 45 by 54.3. Illinois: 50 by 64.7. Michigan State: 48 by 61.3. Purdue: 46 by 51.6
Split Comparison
Losses192.9 · n=8
First Half110 · n=5 · -154.6 vs Second Half
Second Half264.6 · n=5 · +154.6 vs First Half
All Games187.3 · n=10
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
10 games
Featured metric
Total Offense
Top game by takeover score
Illinois
Best efficiency game
69.3 vs Maryland
| Result | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 11/25 | @ Purdue3+ TD | L 31-35 | 17 | 31 | 226 | 54.8 | 3 | 3 | 51.6 | 15 | 44 | 2.90 | 0 | 11 |
| Sat 11/18 | vs Michigan StateDual-threat | L 21-24 | 19 | 34 | 192 | 55.9 | 2 | 0 | 61.3 | 14 | 59 | 4.20 | 0 | 25 |
| Sat 11/11 | @ Illinois3+ TD · Dual-threat | L 45-48 | 22 | 33 | 289 | 66.7 | 3 | 1 | 64.7 | 17 | 53 | 3.10 | 2 | 18 |
| Sat 11/4 | vs Wisconsin | W 20-14 | 19 | 31 | 186 | 61.3 | 1 | 0 | 54.3 | 14 | 8 | 0.60 | 1 | 13 |
| Sat 10/28 | @ Penn State3+ TD | L 24-33 | 13 | 19 | 269 | 68.4 | 3 | 1 | 61.8 | 12 | -3 | -0.30 | 0 | 7 |
| Sat 10/21 | vs Rutgers | L 14-31 | 15 | 31 | 126 | 48.4 | 1 | 0 | 56.7 | 11 | 49 | 4.50 | 1 | 11 |
| Sat 10/14 | @ Michigan | L 7-52 | 6 | 15 | 44 | 40.0 | 0 | 0 | 46.9 | 13 | 30 | 2.30 | 0 | 16 |
| Sat 9/30 | @ Maryland | L 17-44 | 7 | 11 | 84 | 63.6 | 2 | 0 | 69.3 | 5 | 25 | 5 | 0 | 9 |
| Fri 9/8 | vs Unknown | — | 9 | 16 | 108 | 56.3 | 0 | 0 | 64.8 | 6 | 28 | 4.70 | 0 | 11 |
| Sat 9/2 | vs Ohio State | L 3-23 | 8 | 15 | 58 | 53.3 | 0 | 0 | 46.4 | 6 | -2 | -0.30 | 0 | 11 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Indiana
2022-2023
Opening stop
- 2
Cincinnati
2024-2025
Final stop
Season Progression
2022202320242025
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 Regular Season | Indiana | 0 | 23.6 | 5.9 | — |
| 2023 Regular Season | Indiana | 1,873 | 57.8 | 30.6 | 1,873 |
| 2024 Regular Season | Cincinnati | 3,258 | 63.4 | 24.8 | 1,385 |
| 2025 Regular Season | Cincinnati | 3,366 | 70.6 | 28.5 | 108 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Texas Tech
Loss with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value.
478
Primary metric
478 total offense with 70.6 efficiency.
#2
Kansas
440
Primary metric
Win with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value.
440 total offense with 70.7 efficiency.
#3
TCU
341
Primary metric
Loss with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value.
341 total offense with 75 efficiency.
#4
Illinois
342
Primary metric
Loss with balanced pass-rush production and strong creator value.
342 total offense with 64.7 efficiency.
#5
Bowling Green
373
Primary metric
Win with 373 yards of offense and 82 efficiency.
373 total offense with 82 efficiency.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2025 Regular Season · Cincinnati
3,366 primary output · 70.6 efficiency · 28.5 usage
70.1
#2
2024 Regular Season · Cincinnati
65.3
3,258 primary · 63.4 efficiency · 24.8 usage
#3
2023 Regular Season · Indiana
53.4
1,873 primary · 57.8 efficiency · 30.6 usage
Milestones
16
250+ passing yards
8
300+ total offense
0
3+ takeover TD games
23
Above avg efficiency
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2026 · Rating 0.82
Australia · Australia, AUST
- Committed To
- West Virginia
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2026
Career Facts
2
Career teams
4
Seasons tracked
8,497
Career Total Offense
Data Context
Coverage spans 4 tracked seasons, 35 games, and SP opponent-strength context when available. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.