Filip Borovicanin, MJ Collins file lawsuit against NCAA on age-based eligibility model
Xavier's Filip Borovicanin and Cincinnati's MJ Collins are among 15 athletes who are suing the NCAA to play the 2026-27 season.
And here come the lawsuits regarding eligibility...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
So are these guys not eligible anyway? Is the deal that they just thought they were done, so they aren't on a team anymore?
What is their argument?? College is for college students. It’s not F-ing pro ball (yes, they get paid). There has to be some judge with the balls to say that your individual freedoms have fit the rules of your environment.
What am I leaving out here ? The players are united and making $$$, the conferences are united and making $$$, the networks are making $$$ and ALL are prospering except the dumbass (supposedly mostly educated) boosters seeing who can outdo each other by throwing their money around and not getting them 1 penny return on investment .
Those who graduated high school in 2022 are excluded from the new rule and still only receive 4 years of eligibility. These athletes used their 4 years and never took a redshirt year. They are arguing they should automatically get a 5th year under the new rule. Since they are currently not on a team, they could rejoin their team if a spot is available or go into the portal.
Normally, I don’t side with the idea of suing for another year. These guys have a point though. Why are they excluded? They played plenty of 5th and 6th year seniors over their careers when you consider the free Covid year.
Yup. And those dumbasses are willingly choosing to do it.
When you mess up is when you have nimrods like us who have to shame and beg. If we're having to do that, we're in a bad place already. John Cohen said this in early 2022 and people just didn't want to hear it.
That said, you still have to do your fundraising, or even the rich folks won't participate. So I'm not saying to not do that. But this whole, sign the middle class up for $100 a month, haha, yeah OKAY. If I hit the lotto I might fund a couple players. Until then, hey, how about we hit up Charles Cross, Jeffrey Simmons and Chris Jones.
And I'm also not saying give up on football. We have rev share, allegedly coming from TV money. Good base, and beyond that, hey that's why I advocate for a strategic plan to use the money we do have wisely.
There are two classes that did not get 5 years. The 2025 and 2026 college graduates. Those graduating college in 21, 22, 23 and 24 got the Covid 5th year.
What they don't understand is that I can easily live without college sports.
I'm getting more and not disgusted with the whole thing.
Yep. They are all making money, more than they've ever made. Yet still, they've got their hand out for the fans to fund it.
Yep 17em and the school they eventually end up at
If a true miracle happened (it ain't) and donors said in one voice "no more"........what would happen ?
We're seeing the beginning of that with $36 for a parking pass and 4 tickets. And the latest is the email that went out today for Touchdown Club seats on sale now on an individual game basis
There are millions of dolllars of life changing money at stake. College sports is absolutely without a doubt, “pro ball.” And there is no argument that can be made to the contrary.
Well, if you believe that typing is the same as writing, yes you did. You obviously do believe that!
So it was the right thread? Got it!Well, if you believe that typing is the same as writing, yes you did. You obviously do believe that!
Students who completed their 4 years of eligibility in 2026 are not included in the new rule.
I dont blame these guys for trying to be included, but the NCAA has to draw the line somewhere. I think they can reasonably argue they changed the rule in between academic years, and it doesnt apply retroactively.
I also think some judge may very well grant an injunction.
Unless the Protect College Sports Act passes, I expect we will see a class action suit challenging the 5 year rule on anti trust grounds, too.
Did boosters pay players under the table? Yes.
Is that why players decided they deserved a “piece of the pie”? No.
They decided they wanted a piece of the pie when the NCAA did stupid shlt like make money off of video games with obvious likenesses. The Obannon thing is really what started it all. That was salt in the wound.
But boosters were the first to throw the money around. And they are the ones still doing it.
Can someone explain to me why courts get to determine who is eligible to play in a college league and not the league itself? I understood the judicial system getting involved with NIL due to 'commerce laws' but I can't for the life of me understand why they are the sole arbiter of who is eligible and who isn't? Makes zero sense to me and undermines all eligibility rules of the NCAA. Trinidad Chambliss should absolutely not be able to play this year along Sorsby and others. I mean in any suit the court will ALWAYS find in favor of the athlete no matter the issue or what the evidence shows. That's been consistent. I just don't understand their jurisdiction in the matter.
I’m guessing it has something to do with discrimination based on age but I have no idea.
Essentially two theories, although im sure there are others, but the courts are generally relying on fairness and reasonableness.
Not saying I agree with the decisions, but here's how the courts asserted authority:
Diego Pavia successfully argued the NCAA was violating anti trust laws by counting his JUCO years against his NCAA eligibility. The NCAA does not count other types of post High School competition against NCAA eligibility (foreign leagues, finishing school types of leagues, etc.), but discriminated against JUCO players limiting their development and earning potential.
Chambliss, Bediako, and Sorsby did not directly ochallenge the NCAA's eligibility rules, but instead argued the league was not applying its own exceptions or disciplinary rules consistently and fairly. They claimed that was a breach of the contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing.
None of these players has actually won their underlying case yet (maybe Pavia has, Im not sure) but instead were granted preliminary injunctions to avoid the irreparable harm from being denied a year of participation....apparently without consideration of the irreparable harm to the other players in the league who have to play against - or sit the bench behind - a player who was ruled ineligible. (That ladt bit is my editorial).
I dont think the players who are suing to be included in the new 5 for 5 rule are suffering irreparable harm. They clearly are not good enough to play professionally, or else they would already be doing that. They are missing out on a bonus year of play, but that is not "irreperable"; you can put a price on it.
Last edited:
missing out on a 5th year to train, mature, play, and another chance to be drafted is irreperable
If they are that level of player, I might agree. I dont know anything about the players in the lawsuit. Not even their names. Perhaps some of yhem just need a touch more seasoning to pursue a professional opportunity.
Just seems like most of them would have already moved on in their athletic careers, and at this point they would have to find a team with an open roster spot, anyway.