With plenty of noise coming from the Big 12 and Texas Tech regarding the conference’s potential reaction to Monday’s court order restoring the eligibility of quarterback Brendan Sorsby, Sorsby has gotten involved.
His attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, has sent a letter to the Big 12 explaining the conference’s obligation to honor the ruling of the court.
“Given some of the misleading reports in the media, it is important to emphasize that Mr. Sorsby brought breach of contract, declaratory judgment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the NCAA based on the NCAA’s failure to apply its own Bylaws, Reinstatement Guidelines and related rules and procedures when evaluating whether to reinstate Mr. Sorsby’s eligibility,” Kessler writes, via Amanda Christovich of Front Office Sports. “The Lubbock County District Court judge initially assigned to the case recused himself. A different judge, from Tarrant County-nearly 300 miles away—was assigned to the case. He reviewed the evidence presented by both Mr. Sorsby and the NCAA and concluded, among other things, that Mr. Sorsby ‘has demonstrated a probable right to the relief he seeks on his claims.’ . . . Mr. Sorsby did not, and does not, challenge the NCAA’s gambling-related rules more generally.”
Kessler explains that the Big 12 is bound by the court order as an entity “in active concert or participation” with the NCAA.
“Any attempt by the Big 12 to circumvent the Order — including by sanctioning Texas Tech . . . under Bylaw 3.6 of the Big 12’s Bylaws, encouraging or facilitating its member schools to boycott Texas Tech football or Texas Tech athletics more broadly, or otherwise taking steps to prohibit Mr. Sorsby from ‘practicing, playing, or otherwise participating on Texas Tech’s football team for the 2026 football season’ — would violate and be in contempt of the Order,” Kessler explains.
More from Kessler: “Any such action would also expose the Big 12 to liability for tortious interference with Mr. Sorsby’s existing and prospective contractual relations, including name, image and likeness deals with Texas Tech and third parties. The Big 12 would be liable for all resulting damages.”
Kessler poses a broader question to the conference: “What does it say about the Big 12 if it decides to lawlessly violate a court order? What message does it send to its students if its response to a lawful court order is to be contemptuous of its terms? One would expect something more honorable from the Conference and its member schools.”
Despite the huffing and puffing from the Big 12, there’s no easy workaround to the court order. Sorsby is eligible to play, and Texas Tech is entitled to play him. Any effort by the Big 12 to punish Texas Tech for Sorsby exercising his rights under the order restoring his eligibility violates the order.
So tread lightly, Big 12. Turning your temper tantrum into action against Texas Tech will be expensive — and it will be wrong.
