The Colorado Judge has clarified her ruling against the NCAA, and its not quite what it seemed...

[Dawgzilla2]

NCAA sought clarification of the Court's injunction regarding the class of '22 athletes. The court clarified that the new rule cannot prevent them from playing, but says she did not rule on the effect of the House settlement, other eligibility rules, or the transfer rules.

This will make it very difficult for any players who left school to come back, particularly if they signed a contract with a professional league.

I thought the NCAA would allow these players coming back to get an exemption from the roster limits, but it doesn't have to.

Expect additional lawsuits...but I don't see how this gets resolved before football season.

 

[Perd Hapley]

It will definitely be resolved to the extent it needs to be prior to football season.

Any players that are mission critical at the big schools will get their injunction and play. Their actual eligibility doesn’t matter. NCAA can always try and punish after the fact, but nobody will care. Given the huge gray area around all of it, the NCAA will probably capitulate like they always do.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

It will definitely be resolved to the extent it needs to be prior to football season.

Any players that are mission critical at the big schools will get their injunction and play. Their actual eligibility doesn’t matter. NCAA can always try and punish after the fact, but nobody will care. Given the huge gray area around all of it, the NCAA will probably capitulate like they always do.

Maybe. NCAA seems ready to fight on this one, which is sort of strange since this is a one time thing. They dont need to set a precedent.

The problem is the players who will lose a roster spot if the fifth year players come back. Thats why I expected exemptions to be granted.

Seems like even the players who signed pro contracts would just argue to some judge that they would not have done that if the new rule were in place.

 

[Howiefeltersnstch]

I dont see what they can really do but give one year waivers to the 105 rule and allow those that want play to return to their teams. Not many other options

 

[Dawgzilla2]

I dont see what they can really do but give one year waivers to the 105 rule and allow those that want play to return to their teams. Not many other options

Its not just roster spots. The revenue sharing cap applies as well. If a school has already exhausted its cap for the 26-27 year, then these players can only get outside NIL money. Might not be that big of a deal, unless the college sports act gets passed and goes into effect immediately.

I think the whole point of saying the rule did not apply to players who had completed their 4 years of eligibility was to avoid this very problem

 

[Darryl Steight]

We should throw a hissy fit, bittch, moan, cry, appeal, pay local judges (aka go all olemiss on 'em) or whatever it takes to get Sneh eligible. This is our one chance left to add some quality depth on the OL this year.

 

[Irondawg]

I still don't get why they chose to try and force this in the first place knowing all the lawsuits. Just suck it up for one more year and have a clean slate moving into the '27-28 season

 

[patdog]

I still don't get why they chose to try and force this in the first place knowing all the lawsuits. Just suck it up for one more year and have a clean slate moving into the '27-28 season

Exactly. All of this was unnecessary and could have been easily avoided if the NCAA had just not gone out of its way to exclude the 2022 HS graduates. It's like they're addicted to losing court cases.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

I still don't get why they chose to try and force this in the first place knowing all the lawsuits. Just suck it up for one more year and have a clean slate moving into the '27-28 season

Then the class of '23 would be the ones suing. They have to draw the line somewhere, and someone is losing out on an extra year or a roster spot no matter what they do.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Exactly. All of this was unnecessary and could have been easily avoided if the NCAA had just not gone out of its way to exclude the 2022 HS graduates. It's like they're addicted to losing court cases.

If they restored the eligibility of Seniors who had not redshirted, then other players would lose a roster spot and they would be the ones suing.

 

[patdog]

Then the class of '23 would be the ones suing. They have to draw the line somewhere, and someone is losing out on an extra year or a roster spot no matter what they do.

How could class of '23 sue? They have their eligibility.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

How could class of '23 sue? They have their eligibility.

So you are saying the rule would go into effect next year, and include the class of 23? Thats the same as what we already have, and the class of '22 is suing.

There is no place to draw the line without excluding someone from an extra year, or costing someone else a roster spot. It makes more sense to exclude the ones who have exhausted their eligibility.

 

[patdog]

So you are saying the rule would go into effect next year, and include the class of 23? Thats the same as what we already have, and the class of '22 is suing.

There is no place to draw the line without excluding someone from an extra year, or costing someone else a roster spot. It makes more sense to exclude the ones who have exhausted their eligibility.

No. I'm saying what the judge is saying. If you're giving players 5 years after graduation, you can't arbitrarily exclude one class and say, oh this applies to everyone except you. But whether the NCAA was right or wrong in their rule, you had to know there was a judge somewhere who would overturn it. Just unnecessarily stupid for the NCAA to invite that lawsuit and take another black eye in the courts.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

No. I'm saying what the judge is saying. If you're giving players 5 years after graduation, you can't arbitrarily exclude one class and say, oh this applies to everyone except you. But whether the NCAA was right or wrong in their rule, you had to know there was a judge somewhere who would overturn it. Just unnecessarily stupid for the NCAA to invite that lawsuit and take another black eye in the courts.

So, they should have preferred to be sued by the athletes who lose their roster spot, their scholarship, and their NIL money to make room for class of '22 players that return? That would be smarter in your opinion? Or just let the schools be sued for breach of contract, or whatever?

 

[patdog]

So, they should have preferred to be sued by the athletes who lose their roster spot, their scholarship, and their NIL money to make room for class of '22 players that return? That would be smarter in your opinion? Or just let the schools be sued for breach of contract, or whatever?

If they'd been smart, they'd have passed the 5-year rule before the transfer portal and it would have taken care of itself.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Maybe. NCAA seems ready to fight on this one, which is sort of strange since this is a one time thing. They dont need to set a precedent.

Just like they were ready to fight about Chambliss.

It really doesn’t matter what they are ready to do.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

If they'd been smart, they'd have passed the 5-year rule before the transfer portal and it would have taken care of itself.

They would get sued by the class of '21 players that play Spring sports.

Any place you draw the line is arbitrary, and excludes someone.

 

[johnson86-1]

So, they should have preferred to be sued by the athletes who lose their roster spot, their scholarship, and their NIL money to make room for class of '22 players that return? That would be smarter in your opinion? Or just let the schools be sued for breach of contract, or whatever?

What would their lawsuit be based on? They are getting five years just like the ‘22 class. If they get cut or lose a scholarship, that is a contractual issue with their school. Not a lawsuit against the ncaa. At worst for the ncaa a local judge might have issued an injunction preventing them from enforcing roster caps this year. They could have that resolved before next year.

 

[patdog]

They would get sued by the class of '21 players that play Spring sports.

Don't be ridiculous. No they wouldn't.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Don't be ridiculous. No they wouldn't.

You dont think a basketball player who graduated in 2025 without redshirting would have tried to get an extra year in 2026? I mean, we had pro athletes trying to return to school in 2026.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

What would their lawsuit be based on? They are getting five years just like the ‘22 class. If they get cut or lose a scholarship, that is a contractual issue with their school. Not a lawsuit against the ncaa. At worst for the ncaa a local judge might have issued an injunction preventing them from enforcing roster caps this year. They could have that resolved before next year.

The school would be breaking the contract because the NCAA arbitrarily decided to let players who had exhausted their eligibility return to school. Breach of contract by the schools and the NCAA, with a touch of contractual interference. These other state court cases against the NCAA were breach of contract based on the athletes being third party beneficiaries of the agreements between the NCAA and the schools.

Im not a plaintiffs' attorney, but someone could probably work that into a federal class action suit

 

[patdog]

You dont think a basketball player who graduated in 2025 without redshirting would have tried to get an extra year in 2026? I mean, we had pro athletes trying to return to school in 2026.

In the middle of the season? You’re just getting more ridiculous with each post. But go ahead and stand on that hill that the NCAA handled this in the best & smartest way.

 

[johnson86-1]

The school would be breaking the contract because the NCAA arbitrarily decided to let players who had exhausted their eligibility return to school. Breach of contract by the schools and the NCAA, with a touch of contractual interference. These other state court cases against the NCAA were breach of contract based on the athletes being third party beneficiaries of the agreements between the NCAA and the schools.

Im not a plaintiffs' attorney, but someone could probably work that into a federal class action suit

Obviously a lot of judges don't feel particularly bound by the law when it comes to cases involving the NCAA, but at the end of the day the schools will either be choosing to break a contract or not to get a better player. I guess if maybe some schools want to add newly eligible '22 athletes without dropping any current athletes (which won't be limited to '23 athletes; I would assume if they are picking up an athlete for one year, it will often be an upperclassman role player that is getting the boot, not a player with five years of eligibility), maybe they'll put political pressure in support of a lawsuit. But prohibiting the NCAA from having roster limits because it means some players won't get spots really would be a step beyond what any court has done so far. And it's not dependent on the new rule. I guess anybody could sue and say that coordinating roster limits is a violatio of antitrust laws right now because somebody is not getting a roster spot because of the existing limitations.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

In the middle of the season? You’re just getting more ridiculous with each post. But go ahead and stand on that hill that the NCAA handled this in the best & smartest way.

Were you even paying attention this past season? Of COURSE they would sue mid season. Its been proven. Im not being ridiculous, you are being myopic

Im not saying the NCAA handled it the smartest way...im saying all of their choices were equally bad, and favoring current players over players who had exhausted their eligibility made more sense.

I think the best thing would have been to wait on the Protect College Sports Act to take care of it for them, but they couldn't count on that and the lawsuits were piling up.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Obviously a lot of judges don't feel particularly bound by the law when it comes to cases involving the NCAA, but at the end of the day the schools will either be choosing to break a contract or not to get a better player. I guess if maybe some schools want to add newly eligible '22 athletes without dropping any current athletes (which won't be limited to '23 athletes; I would assume if they are picking up an athlete for one year, it will often be an upperclassman role player that is getting the boot, not a player with five years of eligibility), maybe they'll put political pressure in support of a lawsuit. But prohibiting the NCAA from having roster limits because it means some players won't get spots really would be a step beyond what any court has done so far. And it's not dependent on the new rule. I guess anybody could sue and say that coordinating roster limits is a violatio of antitrust laws right now because somebody is not getting a roster spot because of the existing limitations.

I didnt suggest any of that. All I said was players who currently have a roster spot and got cut because of this new rule would undoubtedly sue their school and the NCAA for breach of contract. Recent activity makes that clear.