Big 12 Drops Lawsuit
Big 12 withdraws its federal lawsuit against Texas Tech over quarterback eligibility dispute.
Anonymous
Key Points
1
Sorsby entered a residential treatment program for gambling addiction before suing the NCAA over his eligibility.
2
Sorsby had signed a multi-million-dollar NIL agreement with Texas Tech in January after transferring from Cincinnati to the defending Big 12 champions.
3
The June injunction would have restored Sorsby’s eligibility after a two-game suspension, potentially allowing him to play during the 2026 season.
4
The Big 12’s lawsuit was intended to enforce conference bylaws and sanction Texas Tech for its plan to play Sorsby; sources told On3 that Texas Tech did not pay the conference’s legal fees in the dispute.
The Big 12 has withdrawn its federal lawsuit against Texas Tech and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over quarterback Brendan Sorsby's eligibility, ending a monthslong dispute that exposed deep tensions in college sports governance Lubbock Lights. The conference and Texas Tech said they resolved the matter internally but declined to disclose the agreement. Sorsby, who admitted to placing over 90,000 dollars in impermissible bets across three schools, has already left Texas Tech and is focusing on the 2027 NFL Draft Front Office Sports.
How a Quarterback's Gambling Led to a Conference Lawsuit
Brendan Sorsby placed at least 90,000 dollars in bets while playing for Indiana, Cincinnati, and Texas Tech, including over 40 bets tied to Indiana games IJR. None of his bets involved games where he actually played. After the NCAA ruled him ineligible, Sorsby sued and convinced a Texas judge to temporarily restore his eligibility. The Big 12 then sued Texas Tech, claiming the school violated conference bylaws by planning to play an ineligible athlete.
Sorsby's Path From NIL Deal to Treatment Program
Sorsby signed a multimillion-dollar NIL agreement with Texas Tech in January after transferring from Cincinnati Front Office Sports. The deal made him one of college football's highest-paid players. By June, he had entered a residential treatment program for gambling addiction and challenged the NCAA's ineligibility ruling in court. A Texas judge issued an injunction that would have let him play after a two-game suspension in the 2026 season.
Why Courts and Conferences Now Clash Over Eligibility
The Sorsby case showed how court orders can override conference and NCAA decisions. A Texas judge temporarily permitted Sorsby to pursue eligibility despite the NCAA's gambling ruling, forcing the Big 12 to sue its own member school Law Commentary. This created a rare three-way conflict between a court, the conference, and the NCAA—all claiming authority over a player's status.
Big 12's New Rule Aims to Prevent Future Legal Wars
The Big 12 adopted a new bylaw requiring schools to pay the conference's legal costs in similar disputes Freedom 96.9. The change shifts financial risk from the league to individual schools, making it more expensive for any member to challenge conference enforcement. Sources told On3 that Texas Tech did not cover the Big 12's legal fees in this case. The NCAA separately cleared Cincinnati of wrongdoing.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativeNEGATIVENEUTRALPOSITIVE
Publishers
14
Articles
62
Reach
76
A
AnonymousAuthor
