NCAA president Charlie Baker said a Texas judge’s injunction allowing Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby to stay eligible for the 2026 season has triggered “downhill effects,” pointing to a separate South Carolina ruling involving Clemson receiver Tristan S
When Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby walked into his next eligibility fight. the first big test landed in a Texas courtroom. On Monday. June 8. a Texas judge granted Sorsby a temporary injunction. keeping him eligible for the 2026 college football season—an outcome that sent shockwaves through the college sports world.
Those reactions didn’t stay in the background for long. On Saturday. June 13. NCAA president Charlie Baker posted on social media that there have been “downhill effects” from Judge Ken Curry’s decision. Baker attached a screenshot from a South Carolina court ruling tied to Clemson wide receiver Tristan Smith. drawing a straight line between two separate eligibility battles in different states.
In the excerpt Baker shared, the district court decision in Sorsby’s case was cited. The court said that if Sorsby had not been eligible to compete for Texas Tech this season. he could have suffered “irreparable harm. ” including missing out on the “benefits from the coaching staff. trainers and being a member of a Division I college; and being able to make an informed decision as to whether to enter the 2026 NFL Supplemental Draft.”.
Baker’s post also took aim at what he sees as a broader mismatch in how eligibility rules play out across jurisdictions. He wrote that the Sorsby ruling “was never about only one student-athlete.” He then argued. in his words. for Congress to pass the Protect College Sports Act—so the NCAA can apply common sense eligibility rules consistently for all student-athletes and schools. “regardless of the state or local court system.”.
Smith’s case adds urgency to Baker’s concerns. Smith sued the NCAA on Jan. 21 after the governing body denied his waiver request last November. Smith. who spent two seasons at Hutchinson (Kansas) Community College in 2022 and 2023. said the NCAA “selectively granted eligibility waivers to other similarly situated athletes.”.
The timing matters in the legal details. The NCAA issued a blanket eligibility waiver for the 2025-26 academic year for athletes who started their careers at the junior-college level and whose careers would have otherwise ended. But that blanket waiver did not apply to the 2026-27 academic year.
Under South Carolina law. the standard for a temporary restraining order and injunction is structured around immediate and irreparable harm absent relief. whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. and whether no adequate remedy at law exists. In Baker’s screenshot, the court’s decision in Smith’s case also mirrored the logic used in Sorsby’s.
Judge Jessica Ann Salvini wrote in granting Smith’s injunction request that situations like Smith’s should be decided on a “case-by-case basis.” She added that, “Under these specific facts and circumstances, granting a temporary restraining order and injunction ensures a just result.”
Still, Baker’s warning about “downhill effects” runs into a key limitation—at least on paper. Legal analyst Michael McCann said Curry’s decision was a non-final order and has no precedent outside of Lubbock County. Texas. That means the ruling may influence behavior and expectations, but it may not automatically bind other courts.
The sequence of these cases leaves a clear picture of what’s at stake for athletes caught between NCAA rules and state court timelines: eligibility decisions can turn on how quickly courts find “irreparable harm. ” and on how judges weigh the fairness of delaying or denying participation. At the same time. those same decisions can be narrowed by the legal fact that temporary orders do not necessarily set broad. binding precedent.
For now, Sorsby’s injunction stands as an immediate victory tied to the 2026 college football season. For the NCAA. Baker’s social media post signals frustration that the litigation landscape is fragmenting—one court at a time—while Congress remains the outside pathway he’s asking for to restore consistency.
Brendan Sorsby NCAA Charlie Baker Ken Curry Texas Tech Tristan Smith Clemson injunction eligibility Protect College Sports Act Lubbock County Michael McCann Jessica Ann Salvini