LUBBOCK, Texas (KCBD) — Attorneys for Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby sent a letter to Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark and Chair of Board of Directors of the Big 12 Douglas Girod on Thursday giving the conference formal notice of a temporary injunction that blocks the NCAA from keeping Sorsby off the field, and warning the league against taking steps they say would undermine the court order.
The letter, sent to KCBD by Sorsby’s counsel, cites a June 8 injunction in Sorsby v. NCAA issued by a state district court in Lubbock. Sorsby’s attorneys said the filing was intended to provide “actual notice” of the order under Texas rules, and they pushed back on what they called misleading media reports about the lawsuit.
According to the letter, Sorsby’s claims against the NCAA center on contract and related duties, alleging the NCAA failed to follow its own bylaws and reinstatement guidelines when evaluating his eligibility.
The attorneys noted the judge assigned to the case reviewed evidence from both sides and found Sorsby had shown a “probable right to the relief he seeks.” They said Sorsby is not challenging the NCAA’s gambling rules more broadly.
The letter also asserts the Big 12 is bound by the injunction because it is an entity acting “in active concert or participation” with the NCAA. Sorsby’s attorneys warned that any attempt by the conference to circumvent the order — including sanctioning Texas Tech under Big 12 Bylaw 3.6, encouraging a boycott, or taking steps that would prevent Sorsby from participating — would violate the injunction and could place the league in contempt of court.
Sorsby’s lawyers further said any boycott of Texas Tech or Sorsby would violate antitrust law and expose the Big 12 and its members to significant liability. They also warned of possible claims for tortious interference with Sorsby’s existing and prospective contractual relationships, including name, image and likeness agreements.
The attorneys asked the Big 12 and its member schools to preserve all documents and electronic communications related to Sorsby, the injunction, or contact with the NCAA, and requested the letter be distributed to the full Big 12 board of directors.
Here is the full statement, as provided:
“We write on behalf of Brendan Sorsby in connection with the June 8, 2026 Temporary Injunction Order in Sorsby v. NCAA, No. DC-2026-CV-0791 (Tex. Dist.) (“Order”), which is attached hereto. This letter serves to provide the Big 12 Conference (“Big 12” or “Conference”) with “actual notice of the order” pursuant to Rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Given some of the misleading reports in the media, it is important to emphasize that Mr. Sorsby brought breach of contract, declaratory judgment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the NCAA based on the NCAA’s failure to apply its own Bylaws, Reinstatement Guidelines and related rules and procedures when evaluating whether to reinstate Mr. Sorsby’s eligibility. The Lubbock County District Court judge initially assigned to the case recused himself. A different judge, from Tarrant County—nearly 300 miles away—was assigned to the case. He reviewed the evidence presented by both Mr. Sorsby and the NCAA and concluded, among other things, that Mr. Sorsby “has demonstrated a probable right to the relief he seeks on his claims.” Order at 2. Mr. Sorsby did not, and does not, challenge the NCAA’s gambling-related rules more generally.
The Big 12 is bound by the Order as an entity “in active concert or participation” with Defendant NCAA. Tex. R. Civ. P. 683. Any attempt by the Big 12 to circumvent the Order—including by sanctioning Texas Tech University (“Texas Tech”) under Bylaw 3.6 of the Big 12’s Bylaws,1 encouraging or facilitating its member schools to boycott Texas Tech football or Texas Tech athletics more broadly or otherwise taking steps to prohibit Mr. Sorsby from “practicing, playing, or otherwise participating on Texas Tech’s football team for the 2026 football season”—would violate and be in contempt of the Order. Order at 2.
In addition, a boycott of Texas Tech or of Mr. Sorsby would be a per se violation of antitrust laws and expose the Big 12 and each of its boycotting members to substantial liability. There is no defense to a per se unlawful boycott of this type, and Mr. Sorsby will hold the Big 12 and its members fully accountable for their actions.
Any such action would also expose the Big 12 to liability for tortious interference with Mr. Sorsby’s existing and prospective contractual relations, including name, image and likeness deals with Texas Tech and third parties. The Big 12 would be liable for all resulting damages.
What does it say about the Big 12 if it decides to lawlessly violate a court order? What message does it send to its students if its response to a lawful court order is to be contemptuous of its terms? One would expect something more honorable from the Conference and its member schools.
Although we remain hopeful that litigation can be avoided, in light of the possibility that litigation may become necessary, we request that the Big 12, each Big 12 member school and their respective presidents, athletic directors, coaches, compliance officers, affiliates, employees, attorneys, independent contractors, agents and others acting on their behalf take all necessary steps to preserve, and not alter or modify, all documents and electronically stored information, including communications among or between any or all of them or with the NCAA or any representative of the NCAA, relating in any way to Mr. Sorsby or the Order.
We ask that you please distribute a copy of this letter to each member of the Big 12 Board of Directors and to all persons who may possess, control, maintain or have responsibility for documents that may be relevant to this matter. Mr. Sorsby reserves all rights.”
Copyright 2026 KCBD. All rights reserved.