Big 12 v. Texas Tech: Conference takes Red Raiders to court, 3 states stand with Yormark

Monday's episode of "As the Big 12 Turns" did not feature a vote to sanction Texas Tech for its plans to play quarterback Brendan Sorsby, who gambled on his own team four years ago as an Indiana redshirt. But it wasn't without a plot twist of the highest order.

The conference revealed that it has filed a legal complaint against the Red Raiders in federal court seeking declaratory judgment and a temporary injunction that would clear the way for the Big 12's governing board (the university presidents) to penalize Texas Tech if Sorsby sets foot on the field this fall.

Conference bylaws allow the board, by a super-majority vote (75%), to sanction member schools. Both Texas Tech and the Texas Attorney General's Office last week threatened to take action against the Big 12 if penalties were imposed.

The complaint is in response to that threat.

"(Sunday night), the Big 12 filed a legal complaint asking a federal court to protect the constitutional and contractual rights of the Conference and our member institutions to take actions expressly permitted under our Bylaws," the conference said in a statement released Monday afternoon.

"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. Universities should not field players who have bet on their own team's games in college athletics.

"This situation is evolving with pending legal matters and the upcoming start of the football season, and the Conference hopes for a timely resolution of these issues. The Board continues to keep all options on the table."

The situation is as unprecedented as it is messy — poor optics for the Big 12 and an unimaginably bad look for the Rogue Raiders and their billionaire board chair, Cody Campbell, who supports Sorsby's return while proclaiming himself the savior of college sports.

"Everybody but Texas Tech, 99.9% of the people who follow college football, thinks Sorsby shouldn't play football this season," an industry source said. "It's a specter hanging over the NCAA."

Our reaction to the latest developments:

— Sorsby was banned by the NCAA for breaking the most unbreakable rule in sports (i.e., don't gamble on your own team) but received a temporary injunction from a Lubbock Court on June 8 allowing him to return following a two-game suspension.

According to the complaint filed Monday, the Big 12 asked Texas Tech not to play Sorbsy, but the school has yet to agree.

— The 47-page complaint was filed by Sidley Austin LLP, described by college sports legal expert Tom Mars as a "powerhouse law firm." It states that sanctions under consideration by the conference include banning the Red Raiders from the conference championship game.

If enacted, the penalty would prevent Texas Tech from receiving an automatic bid to the College Football Playoff. However, the Red Raiders seemingly could participate in the CFP with an at-large bid awarded by the selection committee.

— The complaint underscores the degree to which other members of the Big 12 are unified in their opposition to 1) Texas Tech's plans to play Sorsby; and 2) the school's threat to sue the conference for enforcing bylaws that Texas Tech itself has supported in the past.

For example, the complaint notes that during the Baylor sexual assault scandal a decade ago:

"TTU participated in and supported the Conference Board's unanimous vote to sanction Baylor. TTU's representative on the Board of Directors voted in favor of the resolutions imposing these sanctions. TTU raised no objection to the Conference's authority under Section 3.6 of the Bylaws to sanction a member institution for conduct that the Conference Board determined warranted sanctions."

(Now, because they would be sanctioned, the Red Raiders are claiming the use of Section 3.6 is unlawful.)

The unity extends well beyond the 15 campuses. The attorneys general of Oklahoma, Kansas and Utah have authored letters supporting the Big 12's right to sanction its members.

"BYU and Utah deserve honest competition," Utah AG Derek Brown wrote Monday on the social media platform X. "(Gov. Spencer Cox) and I stand behind the Big 12 and support its right to enforce its own rules."

— Separately on Monday, the NCAA filed its request for an expedited appeal of the Lubbock court ruling that granted Sorsby a temporary injunction.

Included in the filing:

"Every day this injunction remains in effect, the harm compounds: the NCAA's governance authority erodes, copycat litigation becomes more likely, and the integrity of every contest in which an ineligible athlete competes is called into question."

Notably, the appeal would be heard by the Texas Seventh Court of Appeals in Amarillo, where every judge is a Texas Tech graduate.

— The stakes are significant on multiple fronts.

While the injunction granted in Lubbock is not viewed as legal precedent for courts elsewhere, the reality of Sorsby taking the field after gambling on his own team would kneecap the integrity of Big 12 competition this season.

Additionally, it could lead to players across the sport doing the same because they don't fear repercussions.

(Sorsby's two-game suspension, imposed by the Lubbock court, is not viewed as a strong deterrent given the severity of his actions.)

— The Big 12's legal complaint also carries ramifications for the conference's ability to enforce its bylaws on a broad level, against any school for any transgression.

In that regard, commissioner Brett Yormark's authority is on the line.

To this point in the process, his tepid public pronouncements have frustrated many Big 12 fans opposed to Sorsby's return. Clearly, Yormark was following the advice of his legal counsel to avoid statements that could jeopardize the conference's ability to respond.

The latest twist in the Big 12's summer soap opera suggests he is well aligned with every member of the governing board ... except one.

Related topics