I posted this in another thread, but I find this TT/Sorsby component of the injunction to be the biggest change even moreso than allowing Sorsby to play.  Not because Sorsby playing isn’t a major problem but because the injunction simultaneously rules the NCAA cannot apply the Restitution Rule to retroactively vacate or punish TTU if down the road Sorsby is eventually ruled ineligible by the NCAA.  This doesn’t seem to be discussed in any meaningful manner in any media outlet.

This means the NCAA’s biggest weapon in fighting player ineligibility is at risk moving forward and essentially opens the door for others to knowingly or unknowingly play ineligible players with zero risk or punishment.

I suspect this piece along with the general injunction allowing Sorsby to play is why teams are talking boycotts.  It’s more than just Sorsby and strays into the last area the NCAA has left - governing, enforcing, and punishing for using ineligible players.

From the ruling;

“its Bylaw 12.9.4.2 (Rule of Restitution) against Applicant, Texas Tech, any affiliate of Texas Tech, any university that competes against Texas Tech during the 2026 college football season, or any affiliate of any such university for complying with, and relying on this Order.”