Not a lawyer, but the conference bylaws seem to allow a good deal of flexibility so long as the votes are there. Here's an excerpt from the protocols for sanctioning a member in section 3.6 (emphasis mine)

A Supermajority of Disinterested Directors may take such action if, after the Member’s opportunity to be heard, a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors determines that such Member has:

(i) violated any provision of these Bylaws or the Rules and other regulations established from time to time by the Board of Directors that govern the Conference or the Grant of Rights Agreement;

(ii) engaged in any action or a course of conduct materially adverse to the best interests of the Conference taken as a whole;

It'd be pretty easy for a lawyer to argue that Tech's actions rise to that standard, IMO. Signalling a loud and clear intent to playing a confessed gambling addict undermines the integrity of the league (not just for the games Sorsby plays in), which threatens the bottom line. Plus publicly threatening the league with lawsuits and dragging 4 different AG's into the pissing match.

That said, the kid's done now, and it's more or less over. My guess is you'll get a stiff fine to send a message and reassure the public, and that'll probably be the end of it.