With summer in full swing, many are already gearing up for the fall college football season. This is particularly true of central Ohio, where fans look forward to rooting for arguably the best football team in Ohio. Between summer vacations and relaxing by the pool, many may have missed that a Lubbock County, Texas judge issued an injunction against the NCAA that sides with the local Texas team, Texas Tech. While the ruling originates in Texas, its implications extend well beyond, carrying significant consequences for college football programs across the country, including here in Ohio.
The Issue
When Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby admitted to placing at least 40 bets on his own college football team in 2022, the NCAA permanently removed Sorsby’s eligibility to play college sports. The decision was in accordance with NCAA rules that strictly prohibit betting.
Unwilling to play by the rules set forth in virtually all sports, collegiate or professional, Sorsby filed a lawsuit against the NCAA in a friendly jurisdiction—Lubbock County, Texas, the home of the Texas Tech Red Raiders. Sorsby requested that the judge issue an injunction against the NCAA to prohibit the organization from enforcing his permanent ineligibility status.
On June 8, the Lubbock County judge ruled in favor of Sorsby and issued an injunction restoring his eligibility to play for Texas Tech in the 2026 season. In doing so, the judge substituted his own judgment for the NCAA’s, imposing a two-game suspension in place of the NCAA’s original penalty for violating its anti-gambling rules.
Why It Matters
Although the NCAA has appealed and Sorsby’s ineligibility could still be restored, intervention by local judges is not an isolated issue. In Mississippi, a state court judge issued an injunction against the NCAA to allow Ole Miss quarterback Trinidad Chambliss to play an additional season. In Alabama, a local judge issued a temporary restraining order allowing Charles Bediako to play basketball for the Alabama Crimson Tide. The Alabama decision was ultimately overruled after the original judge was removed from the case for being an active donor to Alabama’s athletics program.
The same problem could arise in any local jurisdiction. The NCAA has rules for a reason, and local judges with ties to home teams should not be positioned to override those rules, regardless of which program benefits.
The Texas decision also carries significance. U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and Maria Cantell introduced the “Protect College Sports Act” during the first week of June, and the bill is bipartisan with hearings already scheduled.
The proposed act, Senate Bill 4668, spans over 110 pages and covers all manner of topics, including NIL protections, sports agents, medical coverage and health standards, coaching transitions, eligibility and many others. With growing frustration over local courts overriding NCAA decisions, the bill may gain meaningful traction.
The bill does, however, contain provisions that appear to target the Big Ten and SEC conferences. In its current form, the legislation would prohibit either conference from expanding its membership or merging to form a larger conference. It also includes a voluntary option for conferences to pool media rights, a provision both the Big Ten and SEC currently oppose.
While the timing of the Texas decision may be coincidental, it easily could be the fuel the NCAA is looking to use to push the Protect College Sports Act. The bill still has a long way to go before it gets a final vote. If it passes, the central question for Ohio fans will be whether it effectively addresses judicial overreach without unintended consequences for the programs they support.
Contact
To discuss further, contact KJK Litigation attorneys Dan Matusicky (DJM@kjk.com) and Tiffany Carwile (TLC@kjk.com).