Central Plains FFA Chapter

08/21 14:46 CDT NCAA gets win in court on 5-year eligibility rule, but this is hardly the end of the lawsuits NCAA gets win in court on 5-year eligibility rule, but this is hardly the end of the lawsuits By EDDIE PELLS AP National Writer DENVER (AP) --- The NCAA notched an important win in federal court Friday over its much-disputed five-year eligibility rule, though it fell short of shutting down the last-minute shuffling threatening to upend college sports rosters with football season fast approaching. A 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals halted, for now, a judge's order that would have granted thousands of athletes an extra season of eligibility. But it did nothing to resolve dozens of other lawsuits and court orders piling up across the country that allow players in the same situation to join teams for the upcoming season. Virtually all these lawsuits involve players who graduated from high school in 2022, whose college eligibility ended last season and who were not included in the NCAA's controversial new rule --- less than two months old --- that grants most Division I athletes five years of eligibility over five years but doesn't take effect until next season. "There's a reason we saw so many state-court lawsuits filed" after the now-paused federal court ruling that came down July 31, said Sam Ehrlich, a former lawyer who now works at Boise State and operates the College Sports Litigation Tracker. "It was a ?just in case.' They did it just in case what we just saw happen actually happened." Among the many athletes watching this unfold and wondering where it winds up are defensive linemen Kellan Wyatt and Stephan Daley, both members of the national championship team at Indiana last season who decided to return after the lower-court decision. So are former Ole Miss starters Dae'Quan Wright, Zxavian Harris and Wydett Williams, who won a ruling from a Louisiana state court giving them another season of eligibility even though they had signed with NFL teams this summer. While some players hope to land back at their schools, whatever the impact on the rosters, how that works isn't at all clear in many cases. The judge in the case involving the Ole Miss players, for example, gave them a week to enter the transfer portal, which for football players is only open in January. In appealing the state court cases, the NCAA is expected to invoke parts of Friday's ruling, which agreed with NCAA arguments that it was likely to win the case when it's heard in full --- probably several months from now --- and that the NCAA would suffer more harm than the players if the court didn't pause the order. The NCAA can also take heart in an Ohio appeals court that paused a similar injunction involving Xavier basketball Filip Borovicanin and others. But other than those two cases, Ehrlich said, judges across the country "are unanimous that the NCAA is in the wrong" on the five-year eligibility issue when it comes to the Class of 2022. Plaintiffs' attorney Rob Shelquist issued a statement calling the appeals court ruling procedural and "not a decision on the merits of the athletes' antitrust claims." "We are exploring every available option given the split in the panel's ruling and remain committed to fighting for these college athletes whose opportunities and eligibility have been unfairly restricted," he said. The NCAA's chief legal officer, Scott Bearby, sent a memo to schools telling them they would not be subject to NCAA punishment for allowing any player to compete between the time the July 31 ruling came down and Friday. But he reiterated that those players are no longer eligible. Bearby also acknowledged that the NCAA would continue to defend lawsuits around the country --- a signal that the NCAA knows Friday's ruling offers no guarantees of an end to the roster chaos. "If anything, I do wonder if there's a part of the NCAA that's, like, ?Maybe we'd have been better off not getting the stay because, boy, there's going to be a lot of lawsuits filed over the next couple of weeks,'" Ehrlich said. Courts that go beyond filing emergency injunctions and take up the cases in their entirety will have to decide who suffers more harm: Is it players who can't play a fifth year and could lose educational and NIL opportunities? Or incoming freshmen who signed with the idea that they wouldn't be competing against a class of fifth-year seniors? When the NCAA decided to have the rule kick in next year, it also grappled with that calculation, knowing it couldn't be perfectly fair. "Fairness is in the eye of the beholder," the NCAA argued in its legal brief in the appeals case. "Countless student-athletes already on campuses, and schools who built their rosters in reliance on the rules the NCAA's membership wrote and agreed to follow, do not believe it is fair for thousands of formerly ineligible athletes to return to competition at the start of the 2026--27 season." ___ Sign up for Top 25 poll alerts here. Visit the Top 25 here and see AP's full college football coverage here.