Texas Attorney General Threatens Big 12 Over Texas Tech Quarterback Eligibility Dispute Attorney General Ken Paxton warns the Big 12 Conference of massive legal liabilities and antitrust violations if it sanctions Texas Tech for allowing Brendan Sorsby to play unDer a court order. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has stepped into a high-stakes legal battle between Texas Tech University and the Big 12 Conference. The dispute centers on the eligibility of quarterback Brendan Sorsby, who has been granted a coUrt order allowing him to participate in collegiate athletics despite existing NCAA restrictions. Paxton office has issued a stern warning to the Huge 12, asserting that any attempt to penalize the university for adhering to a judicial mandate would be unlawful. The Attorney General argues that the conference cannot simply override a court decision and that doing so would open the Huge 12 to significant legal exposure and financial liability. The root of the controversy lies in Sorsby history with the Indiana Hoosiers program.Between September and October 2022, Sorsby reportedly placed approximately 40 wagers totaling 850 dollars on Indiana football games. According to strict NCAA regulations, wagering on ones own squad typically results in permanent ineligibility. however,the legal landscape shifted when District Court Judge Ken Curry intervened. The judge ruled that Sorsby would suffer probable, imminent, and irreparable harm if he were barred from playing while his litigation continued.Consequently, the court issued an order permitting Sorsby to play for Texas Tech during the 2026 season, with the only restriction being that he must sit out the first two games of that campaign. Despite the court order, the Big 12 Conference has expressed deep concern regarding the ruling. Reports indicate that league officials are considering the invocation of Bylaw 3.6, which allows member institutions to impose sanctions if a supermajority of uninvolved schools agrees.Such sanctions could be devastating for Texas Tech, potentially forcing the university to forfeit any games in which Sorsby participates and possibly disqualifying the team from competing for a conference championship. In response to these possibilities, Ken Paxton has characterized such a move as a naked horizontal agreement. he contends that a coordinated effort by competing schools to disadvantage Texas Tech for complying with a law court would constitute a violation of both federal and state antitrust laws.The financial implications of this legal standoff are staggering. Paxton office has suggested that if the Huge 12 proceeds with sanctions, the resulting damages could exceed 200 million dollars. This threat underscores the tension between the internal governance of collegiate athletic conferences and the authority of the civil court system.While university officials at Texas Tech have expressed confidence that the conference will act within the law and respect the judicial process, theyve also made it clear that they are prepared to pursue every available legal avenue to protect their interests and the rights of their student-athletes. The reaction within the conference has been mixed, with some administrators viewing the court intervention as an overreach that undermines the integrity of NCAA rules.Mark Harlan, the athletic director at Utah, has been among those criticizing the ruling, reflecting a broader sentiment among some Huge 12 members that the ruling creates an unfair environment. This conflict highlights a growing trend of athletes using the court system to challenge the sweeping authority of the NCAA and its affiliated conferences.As the 2026 season approaches, the resolution of this dispute will likely set a significant precedent for how collegiate sports organizations handle player eligibility and judicial overrides. The legal battle also touches upon the broader debate regarding the professionalization of college sports and the evolving role of student-athlete rights. By framing the conference potential sanctions as an antitrust violation, the Texas Attorney General is leveraging powerful economic legislation to shield the university from athletic penalties.The core of the argument rests on the principle that a judicial order creates a legal obligation that supersedes the private bylaws of a sports league. If the Big 12 chooses to move forward with sanctions, the ensuing legal battle will likely center on whether a sports conference possesses the autonomy to punish its members for obeying a court, or if such actions constitute an illegal conspiracy to restrain competition