-
Mark Schlabach
Multiple Authors
Texas attorney general Ken Paxton sent a letter to Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark and board of directors chairman Douglas Girod on Thursday, notifying the league that it would be exposed to “substantial liability” if it takes action against Texas Tech for playing quarterback Brendan Sorsby.
The Big 12 Conference’s presidents were scheduled to meet Thursday to discuss whether the league can invoke bylaw 3.6 to sanction the Red Raiders if they decide to play Sorsby, who was declared ineligible by the NCAA for wagering on college sports. Texas Judge Ken Curry granted Sorsby a temporary injunction to play for the Red Raiders on Monday. The NCAA plans to appeal the ruling.
“We are aware that the Big 12 is considering invoking Bylaw 3.6 of the Big 12’s Bylaws to sanction Texas Tech for respecting the Order and continuing its support of Mr. Sorsby as a student-athlete,” Paxton wrote in the letter. “This letter serves to notify the Big 12 that any such action would be unlawful and would expose the Conference to substantial liability.”
Big 12 athletics directors held a conference call with Yormark on Tuesday, in which the league’s other 15 universities unanimously opposed the Red Raiders playing Sorsby this season.
TCU athletic director Mike Buddie and Kansas State AD Gene Taylor have suggested that the league’s other teams might not play Texas Tech this season if Sorsby plays.
In the letter, Paxton warned that the Big 12 would be exposed to damages for “Texas Tech’s lost football revenues, damages to its alumni contributions and damages to its recruitment, plus attorneys’ fees.”
“The total exposure — for both the Big 12 and its members, joint and severally — will be substantially more than $200 million,” Paxton wrote.
If the Big 12 takes action against Texas Tech, Paxton suggested the league would face antitrust exposure, liability for breach of contract and tortious interference.
“Any sanction that results in the cancellation, forfeiture or alteration of Texas Tech’s as-scheduled games would constitute a breach of the Big 12’s contractual obligations to Texas Tech,” Paxton wrote. “Additionally, any action that disrupts or interferes with Texas Tech’s existing or potential contracts associated with its football team — including sponsorship arrangements, ticket-sale commitments, alumni contributions, and other commercial arrangements — would give rise to claims for tortious inference with existing or prospective contractual arrangements.”
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 bylaw allows 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 also 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 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,” Paxton wrote. “However, should the Big 12 seek to sanction Texas Tech for acting consistent with the Order, Texas Tech will pursue all legal avenues to protect its interests and those of Texas Tech’s student-athletes.”
