The Big 12 filed a lawsuit in federal court Monday over the Brendan Sorsby saga, asking the court to bar Texas Tech and the state attorney general from preventing the league’s sanctioning of Texas Tech if it plays the quarterback in the 2026 college football season.
It’s the latest step in the escalations over Sorsby’s eligibility, following a district court ruling one week ago in Lubbock County preventing the NCAA from deeming Sorsby ineligible for violating various NCAA gambling rules, including betting on his own team while at Indiana. The NCAA officially filed an appeal of that ruling on Monday, in addition to a motion for the appeal to be expedited in time for Week 1.
The Big 12’s filing lists the Texas Tech University System, its chancellor, president, athletic director Kirby Hocutt and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton as defendants. Last week, Paxton sent a letter to the Big 12 warning against any sanctions against Tech. (Under state law, the Texas attorney general represents Texas Tech in court.)
The Big 12 seeks a declaratory judgment that the conference can sanction Texas Tech under its bylaws, that those bylaws are protected by the First Amendment and injunctive relief barring the defendants from punishing the Big 12 for exercising those rights. Sorsby is not listed as a defendant in the complaint.
“The Big 12 has long spoken out about the dangers of sports wagering by student-athletes and remains committed to protecting the competitive integrity of conference competition,” the Big 12 board of directors said in a statement later on Monday. “Universities should not field players who have bet on their own team’s games in college athletics.”
Among the potential penalties the Big 12 controls, according to the filing, are postseason bans or restrictions on revenue distributions for Texas Tech if the school were to play Sorsby in games.
“The Big 12 and its Member Institutions (apparently save TTU) have no interest in being required to endorse or even appearing to endorse unethical and indeed unlawful conduct that strikes at the heart of athletic integrity,” the filing reads.
The Athletic has reached out to Texas Tech for comment and will update this story if they respond.
The filing states that, in the past week, Texas Tech has communicated to the league its intent to play Sorsby in conference football games, while the league has asked it not to do so. That claim is further than Texas Tech officials have said publicly, describing Sorsby’s situation as being taken one day at a time.
The Big 12’s board of directors has expressed a desire to vote on potential sanctions if Sorsby does play, but no vote has taken place due to legal uncertainty created by Paxton, per the filing. The Big 12 presidents are scheduled to meet Monday to discuss potential sanctions, though immediate action following that meeting is not expected.
The filing notes that a supermajority of Big 12 members has the power to enforce sanctions according to the league’s bylaws, as it did to Baylor in 2016 in the wake of a sexual assault scandal. This would require a vote from at least 12 of the 15 league members, not including Texas Tech.
By his own admission, Sorsby has wagered at least $90,000 on more than 9,000 bets over the course of his college career, with stops at Indiana and Cincinnati before Texas Tech. Sorsby also transferred money to others to gamble under proxy sports betting accounts, including since he transferred to Texas Tech in January. (Mobile sports betting is illegal in Texas.)
The Big 12’s complaint argues that in addition to “violating the laws of three states” — Indiana, Ohio and Texas — “Sorsby’s conduct contravenes core Big 12 ethical principles.” The filing states that college athletes gambling on sports, particularly bets on their own team, “undermines the public’s confidence that contests are free from wagering influence” and that playing Sorsby would cause “reputational harm” and “irreparable damage” to the conference and its member schools.
The Big 12 is not seeking damages nor challenging the Texas state ruling against the NCAA (which will likely take too long for an appeal to affect the season). Rather, the Big 12’s lawsuit asks a federal court for the power to enforce its own conference rules.
“To be sure, given the result in the NCAA injunctive relief case, TTU can choose whether or not to compete with Sorsby,” the filing reads. “And TTU can pay him consistent with the law. But the freedom to do so is by no means a freedom from consequences. It is well within the right of the Big 12 to discern and implement an appropriate sanction in response to TTU’s decision to compete with a student-athlete who has extensively, unethically, and unlawfully bet on college football.”
Later Monday, Kansas’ attorney general Kris Kobach released a statement saying that the “antitrust claims made by the Texas Attorney General’s Office are incorrect,” echoing a similar letter of support from Oklahoma’s attorney general last week. The attorney general and governor of Utah, which is home to two Big 12 members, also sent the Big 12 a letter echoing the Oklahoma attorney general’s support.
Separately on Monday, the NCAA officially filed appeal documents, including an emergency motion to stay Sorsby’s temporary injunction order that was granted in Lubbock County court last week, as well as a motion for an expedited appeal and briefing schedule in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas.
The NCAA requests an appeal decision be made by Aug. 28, 2026 — before the start of the 2026 college football season— to “ensure a timely resolution and prevent the severe and escalating harm that will otherwise result if the appeal remains pending into the season,” according to the motion.
Without an expedited schedule, the appeal process could take six to nine months, if not longer, which would deliver a decision near the end of or after the upcoming season. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas is located in Amarillo, Texas, and features four justices who are all graduates of Texas Tech University School of Law.
The NCAA’s motion to stay the temporary injunction describes that ruling as “unlawful” and a “sweeping judicial overreach,” requesting a stay to restore the status quo. The motion argues that granting Sorsby the injunction and allowing him to play in 2026 “teaches all athletes that when you break the rules and receive discipline, the solution is not to take responsibility, but to find a different umpire.”
