“Guns Up” – Time for the Big 12 to Take on Texas Tech

—

“Guns Up” – Time for the Big 12 to Take on Texas Tech

—

From the Texas Tech website … The “Guns Up” sign is the widely recognized greeting of one Red Raider to another. It is also the sign of victory displayed by the crowd at every athletic event. The sign is made by extending the index finger outward while extending the thumb upward and tucking in the middle, little and fourth fingers to form a gun.

Well, it’s time for the Big 12, or at least the 15 conference members of the Big 12 not named Texas Tech, to go “Guns Up” on Texas Tech.

For historians, December 7th, 1941, represents “a date which will live in infamy”. For college football and its fans, that date could be June 8th, 2026.

For it was on June 8th that Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby was granted a temporary injunction against the NCAA to allow him to play during the 2026 season. Sorsby received the decision from Lubbock judge Ken Curry.

As part of the decision, Sorsby is required to sit out the first two games of the season, two walkover games against Abilene Christian and Oregon State. It’s significant to note that the Judge went with what Sorsby offered – sitting out two games and not three. With the ruling Sorsby is now conveniently eligible to return for the Big 12 opener on September 18th against Houston. Here’s guessing that if Tech’s game four against Sam Houston, had instead been game three, Sorsby would have gallantly offered to sit out Tech’s first three games (Sorby’s first road game, as it turns out, could be against Colorado in Boulder on October 3rd).

Sorsby had been ruled permanently ineligible by the NCAA after admitting to placing thousands of bets over four years, including multiple on his own team while redshirting at Indiana. NCAA rules hold that any player who gambles on their own team or another in their athletic department will not be allowed to participate in college athletics.

The NCAA immediately filed an appeal, but it will likely never be heard. The four-judge Seventh Circuit appellate panel (all four judges being, ahem, Texas Tech graduates) promptly set the vital matter for hearing … on February 8, 2027, two weeks after the end of the college football season. As a result, there is no chance of the legal system righting the wrong of Curry decision on its own.

Opposition to the decision brought together almost every coach, athletic director, fan, podcaster, pundit and commentator in college football …

• Georgia athletic director Josh Brooks condemned Texas Tech’s decision to play Sorsby after the ruling. “True integrity means holding your program accountable when things go wrong, not buying custom legislation or running to a local courtroom to bypass the rules”. Georgia, along with Nebraska, would go on to declare that their programs would no longer schedule games against Texas Tech;
• Utah athletic director Mark Harlan called Sorsby’s actions “clear violations of NCAA policies and ethical guidelines,” and warned they may result in permanent damage;
• “I’m stunned that there would be a question at the court level that this is acceptable,” Florida athletic director Scott Stricklin told ESPN. “That’s not a judgment on the young man. It’s just that was a pretty fundamental tenet of American sports, that if you’re going to participate, you can’t gamble, especially on your own team”;
• NCAA president Charlie Baker called the Sorsby ruling a “new low”. “The judge looks up, sees that one student athlete and makes a decision based on that, but the consequences ripple all over the place,” Baker told the Sports Business Journal. “I think it’s about as good an example as you’re ever going to have of a thunderbolt moment”.

Colorado athletic director Fernando Lovo also weighed in: “The injunction issued regarding Brendan Sorsby is troubling as his admitted actions are a clear violation of long-held standards of integrity in college athletics,” Lovo said in a statement given to the Daily Camera. “Caring for student-athletes is important but so is accountability, and this injunction is a clear affront to the competitive principles that [have] been the foundation of college sports for more than a century.”

An unidentified athletic director perhaps put it best: “This is total fucking bullshit”.

But will anyone be able to do anything about it?

Georgia and Nebraska have declared they won’t play any games against Texas Tech, but neither school currently has anything scheduled – in any sport – against the Red Raiders.

As a result, it will be up to the Big 12, and its commissioner, Brett Yormark, to draw a line in the sand.

Big 12 athletic directors conducted a conference call the day after the Sorsby decision was announced. “We had a thoughtful and productive conversation with our athletic directors today as we continue to work through the broader implications of this situation,” Yormark said in a statement from the Big 12. “Many of our athletics directors voiced their opinions. We will continue to have open and honest dialogue amongst the group and until there is something to report, these conversations will remain within the conference.”

Despite the relatively mild language from the press release, Texas Tech went on the offensive.

“We were not a part of this lawsuit in any way”, said Texas Tech athletic director Kirby Hocutt declared. “We did not pay for his lawyer. This was not Texas Tech taking the NCAA to court. What we did was support our player that is an addict. And that has been done at Texas Tech as long as Texas Tech has been a university, supporting their student-athletes and their students.”

Setting aside for the moment the excuse that Texas Tech didn’t pay for Sorsby’s attorney – while paying him millions so he could afford his own attorney – the school clearly missed an opportunity to do the right thing.

“We support Brendan, and will continue to do so”, the statement could have – should have – read. “We will support his treatment, and will pay him what we promised. However, gambling on your own team is a line over which no one in any organized sport in the world is allowed to cross, so we will not allow Brendan to play in any of our games. We will support his development and training, and help him prepare for the 2027 NFL Draft as a valued (sideline) member of our team this fall”.

Of course, Texas Tech could have made that statement as soon as Sorsby admitted to betting on his own team, when Sorsby entered rehab two months ago.

But since when can schools be counted on to do the right thing, especially if it runs contrary its own self interest?

Texas Tech mega booster (and, don’t forget, Board of Regent chair) Cody Campbell, never one to shy away from a microphone, has gone ballistic over potential sanctions against Texas Tech which haven’t yet even been proposed.

“It’s because the college football world doesn’t think that Texas Tech should be as good as we are. We’ve been a disruptor, just like Indiana has, so we’ve been a target,” Campbell said. “The volume has gone up and a lot has been directed at me, Coach McGuire, and our university, but that’s not fair.

“If this had happened at LSU, people would say, ‘Ah, it’s LSU. They’re always going to do what they do.’ But it happened at Texas Tech, and people don’t want to compete with us. Of course ADs in the Big 12 are saying crazy things that they don’t want to play us. They don’t want to play us because they know he’s good and they don’t want us to be as competitive. They want to have a better chance at winning the conference. So they’re inherently conflicted in their opinion.”

No, Mr. Campbell, it’s not about the jersey Sorsby plans to wear – it’s about betting on football. Sorsby bet thousands of times. He used family members and friends accounts to hide his betting … He knew it was wrong. Otherwise, why try and hide his actions? He broke the law (he was underage whilst betting when at Indiana. He used other people’s accounts to bet. He sent money across state lines to friends to place bets for him. Oh, and, um … anyone think Sorsby properly reported his gambling winnings to the IRS? Asking for a friend).

Perhaps the most telling factoid – Sorsby didn’t go into rehab until after he was caught.

(Side note … Had Sorsby admitted his mistakes voluntarily while still at Indiana, sat out a medical redshirt year while going through rehab, then applied for reinstatement, I believe that many fans, myself included, would have had some sympathy for his request. As it is,  Sorsby is about as far from a sympathetic character as one can get).

And if Sorsby’s actions go unpunished? (Sorry, but missing games against Abilene Christian and Oregon State don’t count). What about the next player who gets drunk and hits an innocent pedestrian with his car? Should he go unpunished, as to punish him would interfere with his treatment for alcoholism? Should a kleptomaniac be allowed to steal at will, as sending him to jail might harm his rehab?

Yes, punishing Sorsby would affect his mental health … that’s what punishments are supposed to do.

Not only are Campbell and fellow Texas Tech apologists not backing down, however. They are doubling down.

The office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sent a formal letter to the Big 12 Conference on Thursday on behalf of Texas Tech University, stating any sanctions imposed by the Big 12 against Texas Tech regarding quarterback Brendan Sorsby would be considered “unlawful” and met with legal action.

“Texas Tech is confident the Big 12 will choose to act within the confines of the law and respect both the judicial process and its own Rules and Bylaws,” the letter reads. “However, should the Big 12 seek to sanction Texas Tech for acting consistent with the (court) Order, Texas Tech will pursue all legal avenues to protect its interests and those of Texas Tech’s student-athletes.”

Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark, though, was not interested in being bullied.

“We moved forward with our Executive Board today in preparation for our full Board meeting on Monday”, Yormark said in a statement.” We had a good and informative discussion. Sentiment among the Executive Board was no different from what we heard from the ADs earlier this week. Our discussion with the full Board will determine our course of action, and all options remain on the table.”

Not to be outdone, the attorney general for the state of Oklahoma weighed in, calling the letter from the Texas attorney general “facially absurd”.

“[Texas Tech] has shirked responsibility by running with a bogus claim to a friendly court,” Drummond wrote. “Its leadership has prioritized winning over sport, over honor and over integrity. If Texas Tech will not do the right thing, the Big 12 should. Texas Tech should be sanctioned.”

So, what are the Big 12’s options?

Big 12 Bylaw 3.6 allows for the conference to sanction a member with a supermajority vote of disinterested directors after “representatives of the Member(s) that are subject of such vote has been given reasonable prior notice and the reasonable opportunity to be present and to be heard.”

Among other reasons, the bylaw allows for the Big 12 to discipline a member for being “engaged in any action or a course of conduct materially adverse to the best interests of the Conference taken as a whole.”

The bylaws allow for the disinterested directors to “be empowered to determine whether any Sanctions are appropriate, the type, extent, and conditions to any Sanctions imposed.” The bylaw allows for discipline that includes “prohibitions on appearance in postseason events or televised events, restrictions on revenue distributions, and limitations on recruiting or scholarships.”

Texas Tech’s bluster about any action taken by the Big 12 will violate antitrust laws are non-sensical.

The Big 12 is a club.

It’s an exclusive club, with only 16 members, but, at the end of the day, it’s a club.

When you join a club, you join subjecting yourself to the rules of the club. When you join a health club or a country club, you do so understanding that there are rules of conduct to be followed … or there are consequences. We have all signed up for services online, clicking on the “I agree” icon to all the “terms and conditions” which appear before us in size 2 font.

It’s part of the deal. If you want to be a member of the club … you agree to the terms and conditions of the club.

When the Big 12 schedules came out, Texas Tech whined about having to play Houston on a Friday night, complaining that the game would interfere with Texas high school football, and make it more difficult for fans to attend the game. Texas Tech conveniently put aside the fact that the opponent, Houston, is also a Texas school, and it is the Cougars, not the Red Raiders, who are losing a day of preparation as the road team.

Colorado, as it turns out, also has a Friday night home game against Houston this fall. The Buffs will host the Cougars at 8:15 p.m., MT, on November 13th. Now, the sun will have set over three hours before kickoff of CU v. Houston in Boulder, on a date with an average nighttime temperature of 29-degrees (yes, I looked it up).

You don’t think folks in the CU ticket office cringed when the Houston game kickoff was announced?

Do you think CU has the power (or the audacity) to say to the Big 12: “Sorry, we don’t like the idea of playing a late night game in early winter, when there will be virtually no walk up ticket sales. Instead, we are moving the game to 1:30 p.m., MT, on Saturday, November 14th, and will have the game televised on NBC instead of ESPN”?

Of course not.

When you join the club, you abide by the rules of the club.

Big 12 members get $30 – $40 million in television revenue in exchange for allowing the Big 12 and its media partners dictate game schedules. That’s what all of the teams signed up for when they joined the conference.

So what does that mean for the case of Big 12 v. Texas Tech?

The Big 12 bylaws state that, if a supermajority of the members feel a program should be sanctioned, the members can do so. Not to get to far down into the weeds here, but, even under Texas law, courts defer to the internal affairs and rules of private associations and will not substitute the court’s judgment for the association’s decision (such as membership revocation, rule-making, or expulsion) unless the association fails to follow its own bylaws.

Simply put, the Big 12 can keep Texas Tech from participating in the Big 12 championship game, can withhold revenue from the Red Raiders, or provide any number of disincentives/penalties for Texas Tech if the school won’t do the right thing and keep Sorsby from playing.

The full Board of Directors for the Big 12 will meet on Monday.

The Lubbock judge had the opportunity to follow the law and do the right thing in upholding Sorsby’s suspension, but inexplicably chose not to do so.

The Seventh Circuit could have expedited the date a full hearing, giving the NCAA a chance to make the case that college football shouldn’t be the only organized sport on the planet to allow its players to gamble on its games, but the Seventh Circuit, inexplicably, chose not to do so.

Texas Tech – and Sorsby himself – have had the chance to do the right thing and accept the suspension, but inexplicably have chosen not to do so.

The Big 12 has to right the wrong. There’s no one left.

“Guns Up” Big 12 …

–

—–

This post, about the Spring/Summer game, from the 2026 Season, is filed under Article.
You can follow any comments to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment.