Big 12 keeps Texas Tech lawsuit open in Sorsby eligibility dispute

The Big 12 Conference has not dismissed its federal lawsuit against Texas Tech stemming from an eligibility dispute involving quarterback Brendan Sorsby, according to a report. The complaint was filed on Monday, June 15, and remained active even after Sorsby left the program later that day. Conference officials have not announced a public timeline for resolving the case.

The lawsuit grew out of Texas Tech’s attempt to proceed with Sorsby after he had permanently lost NCAA eligibility but secured a court order restoring it. The Big 12 challenged that approach and argued that Sorsby should not be able to play while his broader legal fight with the NCAA continued.

Later on June 15, Texas Tech reversed course and Sorsby entered the NFL supplemental draft. Even with the player no longer on the roster, the filing remains on the court docket while the parties assess what comes next.

The report said the case persists amid concern in some Big 12 circles about potential liability for the conference connected to the dispute. It also reflects broader questions about how conferences respond when a member school relies on a court order to bypass eligibility enforcement.

Legal fees and potential conference consequences

A central issue now is responsibility for legal fees generated by the dispute. The report said some within the Big 12 have questioned whether costs should be shared by all 16 member schools or assigned primarily to Texas Tech, given the school sought the court order and pressed forward with Sorsby’s availability.

An unnamed Big 12 athletic director said there may need to be consequences for Texas Tech even if the matter ends without additional courtroom action. The official pointed to legal fees already incurred and questioned whether all member schools should share costs when they did not initiate the decision to proceed with the player.

The same report noted there is also an argument that the conference helped trigger the litigation by rejecting the ruling that would have allowed Sorsby to play while his lawsuit against the NCAA proceeded. That framing could influence how members view cost-sharing and any internal accountability measures.

Governance tensions over eligibility enforcement

The dispute has highlighted friction between individual member decisions and conference enforcement on eligibility matters. In this case, Texas Tech’s position was countered by the Big 12, which opposed the idea that a player could participate while an NCAA eligibility challenge continued in court.

For the conference, the episode also raises governance questions about how aggressively it can or should intervene when eligibility disputes escalate into federal court. For member schools, it underscores the financial and administrative risk of pursuing emergency legal remedies during a season-planning cycle.

Next developments to watch are whether the parties reach an agreement on legal fees and whether the Big 12 takes any formal action related to the dispute beyond keeping the lawsuit open.