AUSTIN, Texas -- The legal battle of Oklahoma State vs. Texas offensive coordinator Joe Wickline used to center around a compelling question: Is Wickline actually Texas' offensive playcaller?

Whether he ever did or didn't have those duties, he doesn't anymore. When Texas and No. 24 Oklahoma State meet Saturday in Austin, Wickline will be coaching his offensive linemen, not calling plays. And yet, this Big 12 rivalry could soon extend to an Oklahoma courtroom if this more-than-yearlong standoff between Wickline and his former employer continues.

Joe Wickline maintains that he called plays for Texas, though those responsibilities now lie with Jay Norvell. AP Photo/Michael Thomas

Texas coach Charlie Strong's decision on Sept. 8 to make first-year receivers coach Jay Norvell the new sole playcaller of the Longhorns' offense has paid off on the field -- Texas scored 42 and 44 points in its past two games -- but provided yet another strange twist in the off-field dispute.

The lawsuit remains an embarrassing quandary for Texas and for the Big 12, and neither party wants anything to do with it. Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby won't comment on the suit.

Former Texas athletics director Steve Patterson had zero interest in helping.

"It's between Joe and his former employer," Patterson said last October.

Though Texas is not legally obligated to, Patterson's successor, interim AD Mike Perrin, might finally be the one to solve this mess.

"I think that Mike will handle it the right way," Strong said Monday.

Oklahoma State's position is unchanged: the school alleges Wickline, its offensive line coach from 2005-13, did not serve as Texas' offensive coordinator and playcaller in 2014, no matter what his job title claimed.

Wickline's contract with Oklahoma State required that, if he were to take another job, he'd have to receive a promotion as an "offensive coordinator (with play-calling duties)" to waive his buyout. Oklahoma State AD Mike Holder believes Shawn Watson was Texas' true coordinator and playcaller.

Thus, OSU is seeking a buyout fee of more than $593,000 in damages as stipulated in his contract. But, with the suit and all the billable hours, this is not just a battle over $593,000. He'd also owe interest and attorney fees if a judge finds Wickline was indeed in breach of contract.

It's now up to Oklahoma Associate District Judge Stephen Kistler to either make a summary judgment or send the Big 12 intra-conference squabble to trial. He must weigh his interpretation of the undisputed facts of the case, and there's been plenty to dispute so far.

The roles of Wickline and Watson, Texas' associate head coach for offense and quarterbacks coach, were put under intense scrutiny during depositions made by Strong, Watson and Wickline in March.

Strong has had to tread lightly on this topic ever since March 18, 2014, when he first revealed his plan to have Watson and Wickline share play-calling duties with Watson having the "one final voice" of the duo.

One week later, Holder sent a two-page letter to Wickline accusing him of misleading OSU about his new job and demanding a payment of $593,478 to satisfy the liquidated damages provision of his contract.

"It has now come to my attention that you do not have 'play-calling duties,'" Holder wrote.

Oklahoma State filed suit against Wickline on Oct. 17, 2014, in Payne County District Court. Five months later, Strong spent three hours in an Austin law office giving a deposition regarding whose transcript reads more like an interrogation.

Over the course of that testimony, the Texas head coach's entire offensive blueprint -- the hiring, coaching, planning and play-calling -- was picked apart by OSU counsel in search of truths about who actually ran the Longhorns offense. By the end of the first hour, Strong was drained. He even forgot, for a moment, a crucial detail about starting quarterback Tyrone Swoopes.

"What's my man's first name?" Strong asked. "I -- done went blank on me."

It was just that kind of a morning. Strong couldn't recall his zip code, either. At least, months later, he could joke about the grueling process.

"I told Tyrone: at that point, I didn't even know my own address," Strong said.

Strong and his coaches, with their sworn statements, painted a picture of a convoluted offensive system in which Watson oversaw the passing game and Wickline coordinated the run game. But all three agree Wickline shared the play-calling responsibilities.

"I'm a decision-maker," Wickline testified. "I make calls. I call plays."

Oklahoma State counsel has tried to poke holes in that claim by, among other things, digging into Texas' process of delivering play calls during games.

Watson testified that he consulted with Wickline on the headset about play calls. When a play was picked, Watson -- who coaches from the booth -- communicated the call to staffer Justin Burke, who signaled the play to Texas' quarterback from the sideline. That was the procedure, Watson said, for every play of every game.

"It can only come out of one mouth," he said.

Strong couldn't determine a percentage of plays Watson and Wickline each called, and they offered differing accounts of how many plays they scripted together before each game. Still, the trio maintained throughout their combined seven hours of testimony that both Wickline and Watson ran the offense.

That is, apparently, not good enough for Holder.

"I wanted Joe Wickline to be the offensive coordinator in charge of calling the plays, the final decision-maker," Holder testified in February. "I believe that's Shawn Watson's role."

Oklahoma State athletics director Mike Holder are seeking damages from Wickline for $593,000. Mark D. Smith/USA TODAY Sports

In his April deposition, Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy testified he too believes Wickline made a lateral move. After hearing a description of Wickline's job duties at Texas, Gundy responded, "He did the same thing at Oklahoma State."

Texas maintained Watson and Wickline called plays together until the end of that arrangement. When Strong demoted them after a 38-3 loss to Notre Dame and made Norvell his playcaller earlier this month, he was asked how Watson was taking the news. His answer: "They're both upset."

In light of Texas' recent coaching shakeup, another round of depositions could be on the way. OSU attorney Sean Breen has requested new depositions from Strong, Wickline, Watson, Norvell, Patterson, associate AD Arthur Johnson and even Swoopes, the junior quarterback who started 12 games last season.

"The case is going to get resolved one way or another," Breen told the AP. "And perhaps the new fresh air at UT means it can get resolved in a business manner instead of in a courtroom."

Texas' new AD does have an opportunity to help get this solved. Perrin, who took over for the embattled Patterson last week, plans to study up on the case.

"All I really know about that at present is what I've read in the paper," Perrin said at his introductory press conference. "Both sides appear to be represented by very competent counsel. I'll have to know more about that and really can't speculate."

Why Texas has remained a bystander throughout the process is difficult to reconcile. Patterson told reporters he would not get involved because UT wasn't named a defendant in the suit and "wasn't a party to anything." Though he did pay Louisville more than $4.3 million for Strong's buyout, Patterson never wavered on the Wickline problem.

By keeping its distance, Texas, which brought in $161 million in revenue last year, has left an assistant making $535,000 a year on the hook for a more-than-$600,000 bill.

Wickline's attorney, Guy Clark, said he's not sure what the arrival of Perrin will mean, but he's not counting on Texas to step in and help negotiate a settlement.

"The University of Texas has no obligation to Wickline or to OSU with respect to the case," Clark said. "They have been very courteous to all the parties and very cooperative. They've been a class act to cooperate, but they have no legal obligations of any sort. So I doubt that changing the athletic director is going to change that."

Clark also refuted a Tulsa World report that Wickline has already turned down a $250,000 settlement offer -- a claim he said has "no basis in fact."

Wickline's latest attempt to end the dispute was also unsuccessful. Last Thursday, Judge Kistler ruled the liquidated damages clause in the OSU contract was legally enforceable and didn't violate public policy.

For now, the case is pending on summary judgments filed by both OSU and Wickline, asking the court to determine based on their interpretation of the undisputed facts of the case. If Kistler does not issue a judgment, the dispute will remain on track to go to trial, with a pre-trial conference tentatively set for Dec. 17.

That would set the stage for a March 8, 2016, trial. As Texas' spring practice should be getting started, 26 months after Wickline was hired at Texas and six months to the day after the duties for which he is being sued were taken away, the Big 12's courtroom drama will continue.