Previewing a mammoth week: Texas Tech vs. Big 12, CFP expansion meeting and Senate bill markup

Smack in the middle of a roiling month for college football comes a week unlike any the sport has experienced — a week jammed with three tectonic events that will shape the future for all 138 teams and, perhaps, the entirety of collegiate athletics.

“June is usually dull,” a longtime industry observer said. “This month is incredibly consequential.”

Each event is tied to a complex issue. Two have existed for years; one is a recent development. All three require context.

Let’s examine them (in chronological order) so fans can process the news that emerges.

Monday: Big 12 vs. Texas Tech

Background: Quarterback Brendan Sorsby was banned by the NCAA for the 2026 season after it was determined that he had a gambling addiction and made thousands of bets during his tenures with Indiana and Cincinnati. His transgressions included dozens of wagers on the Hoosiers during his redshirt season (2022).

Sorsby took the NCAA to court and, on June 8, received a temporary injunction from a Lubbock County judge allowing him to play starting Week 3.

Texas Tech has supported Sorsby’s attempt to return to competition and enraged schools across the Big 12 and major college football.

State of play: Commissioner Brett Yormark, conference executives and 15 university presidents on Monday will consider potential sanctions against the Red Raiders if they allow Sorsby to take the field after betting on his own team — the one unbreakable rule in every sport at every level on every continent. (The temporary injunction prevents the NCAA from enforcing its ban, but the Red Raiders are not obligated to play him.)

Big 12 bylaws grant wide authority to the university presidents to sanction conference members. However, Texas Tech has vowed to take legal action if sanctions are imposed, as has the Texas Attorney General’s office.

In short, the situation is a CAT-5 nightmare for the Big 12.

Potential impact: The Sorsby case is significant within the Big 12 — he was the No. 1 quarterback in the transfer portal — but monumental for the sport as a potential Pandora’s Box: Players betting on their own team, or on themselves, because they don’t fear the repercussions.

If the integrity of the competition vanishes, fans won’t know if what they are watching is real. (Did the quarterback throw that interception on purpose?)

At that point, the wall between college football and pro wrestling would disappear.

To be clear: We are many steps from that endgame — the Lubbock district court ruling won’t establish legal precedent nationally. But if Sorsby takes the field, the abyss would become visible on the horizon.

Wednesday: College Football Playoff expansion

Background: The CFP expanded from four teams to 12 just two seasons ago, but the sport’s powerbrokers already are eyeing another change.

The SEC and Big Ten alone possess the authority to make any changes based on an agreement in the spring of 2024; they are merely required to consult with the other eight FBS conferences and Notre Dame.

The SEC prefers a 16-team field; the Big Ten favors 24 — yes, a doubling of the current size.

Everyone supports the Big Ten’s plan except for the SEC.

State of play: The CFP management committee (i.e., conference commissioners) will meet Wednesday in Denver to discuss expansion and is expected to receive a critical update from the playoff’s media rights consultants on the potential value of a 24-team field.

Why does the money matter? Well, the money always matters in college sports.

But in this case, there’s a specific question to answer: Will the added broadcast inventory (12 games) that comes with a 24-team event generate enough cash from the TV networks to offset what conferences would lose by eliminating their championship games?

(Those games would become wholly irrelevant with an engorged playoff field.)

We don’t expect a final decision this week, but the report from the consultants likely will frame the eventual outcome.

Potential impact: The change from four teams to 12 didn’t undercut the sport: The playoff field remained small enough for every game to matter from September through November. But expanding to 24 would fundamentally change what many consider the best regular season in American sports.

Supporters of 24 believe it would make more late-season games relevant and embolden teams to create tougher non-conference matchups (because they wouldn’t fear an additional loss).

Opponents of 24 worry the massive playoff field would undermine the regular season and have zero impact on non-conference schedules.

One issue that isn’t mentioned often enough: If they expand to 24, there’s no going back.

They can’t afford to get it wrong.

Thursday: Protect College Sports Act markup

Background: College sports executives spent years lobbying Congress for legislation that would solve the well-documented issues facing the industry and offer limited antitrust protection (to prevent the endless stream of lawsuits against the NCAA).

The Protect College Sports Act, sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), is the best chance for relief, by far, and it addresses several major issues, including transfers.

But the bill includes two provisions that the SEC and Big Ten staunchly oppose.

State of play: The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a markup of the bill on Thursday and, in theory, consider changes proposed by the SEC and Big Ten.

The most influential conferences in college sports oppose provisions that 1) prevent them from expanding and 2) open a pathway for all FBS conferences to pool their media rights and sell game inventory together (like the NFL).

Effectively, Cruz and Cantwell are attempting to give the ACC, Big 12, Pac-12 and other leagues a government-assisted boost.

If no changes are included in the markup process, expect the SEC and Big Ten to double down on their opposition and create a more difficult road for the PCSA in both the Senate and House.

Potential impact: We cannot overstate the significance of the PCSA.

If the bill becomes law, the NCAA would have the shield it needs to set rules for the transfer portal and the NIL economy. Olympic sports would have protections, too.

Additionally, the SEC and Big Ten would lose much of their dominion over the sport, with the pooling of media rights as the primary vehicle for balancing the playing field.

But there are next-level implications, as well. If Congress rams through legislation opposed by the industry’s most powerful conferences, it could become a wedge issue and prompt the top football schools in the Big Ten and SEC to leave the others behind and form a super league.

In other words, the PCSA could backfire.

*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716

*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline