TLDR
- The Big 12 sued Texas Tech and Texas AG Ken Paxton in federal court on June 14
- The dispute centers on QB Brendan Sorsby, who admitted to placing over 2,900 bets totaling $30,000+
- The conference wants court confirmation it can discipline Texas Tech without breaking antitrust law
- Paxton warned the Big 12 that sanctioning Texas Tech could trigger $200 million+ in liability
- Oklahoma’s AG sided with the Big 12, calling Paxton’s position “facially absurd”
Brendan Sorsby admitted to betting on his own team. Now his eligibility has triggered a federal lawsuit that pits a major college conference against a state attorney general.
The Big 12 Conference filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on June 14, naming Texas Tech University and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton as defendants.
The conference is asking a federal judge to confirm it has the authority to punish Texas Tech for fielding Sorsby this fall.
Who Is Brendan Sorsby?
Sorsby admitted to placing at least 2,900 bets totaling more than $30,000 over four years. Forty of those bets were placed in 2022 while he was a sidelined member of the Indiana Hoosiers roster.
He later transferred to Texas Tech on a name, image and likeness deal worth at least $5 million.
Sorsby sued the NCAA after it refused to reinstate him. A state judge in Lubbock issued a temporary injunction blocking the NCAA from permanently banning him, clearing him to play this fall.
The NCAA asked for an accelerated appeal, but the court set a trial date for two weeks after the College Football Playoff Championship. That timeline left the Big 12 unwilling to wait.
What the Big 12 Is Arguing
The conference is not seeking damages. It wants declaratory and injunctive relief — essentially a court ruling that it can act.
The Big 12 builds its case on four arguments. First, it says it operates as an expressive association under the First Amendment, and that forcing it to accept Sorsby’s participation would compel speech it does not support.
Second, it argues that sanctioning Texas Tech would not violate antitrust law, pushing back directly on Paxton’s claims.
Third, the conference says its bylaws form an interstate contract across ten states. It argues Texas is trying to nullify that framework to protect a local school, which it calls economic protectionism.
Fourth, it asks the court to confirm that enforcing its own bylaws would not breach any contract with Texas Tech. Bylaw 3.6 allows a supermajority of member schools to sanction a member for conduct against conference values.
Possible penalties include fines and a ban from the Big 12 Championship Game.
Paxton Pushes Back
On June 11, Paxton’s office sent a letter to Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark warning the conference not to invoke Bylaw 3.6.
The letter argued any sanction would amount to a “naked horizontal agreement among competitors” and put the conference on notice of potential liability exceeding $200 million, including treble damages and recruiting harm.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond responded on June 12, siding with the Big 12. He called the idea that a conference cannot discipline its own members under an agreed contract “facially absurd.”
The Big 12 also stressed it holds disciplinary authority independent of the NCAA. Even if all NCAA eligibility rules vanished, the conference argues it could still act on its own standards.
Member schools are pushing for a sanctions vote now, making the federal filing the conference’s move to clear the path before the season begins.
