During one of the most chaotic periods college athletics has seen when it comes to athlete eligibility, the NCAA made one thing clear Tuesday night: It has no plans to stop fighting the wave of lawsuits coming its way.
Right now, in courtrooms across the country, athletes who were part of the 2022 class are suing the NCAA over what they feel is a misguided and illegal decision that is preventing them from participating this academic year.
When the NCAA adopted its new age-based eligibility model, giving athletes five years to play five seasons, it made one critical decision that is currently being argued on a daily basis: it excluded the 2022 recruiting class from the new rule.
Athletes who believe they are being denied an extra season of competition began filing civil lawsuits in courtrooms from Colorado to South Carolina, arguing they should receive the same benefits as those covered under the new eligibility structure.
Now, the NCAA might simply be too deep into this fight to let go of the rope.
Or, perhaps more importantly, the organization understands what could happen if it grants a blanket waiver to every member of the 2022 class who would otherwise have another season of eligibility remaining under the new guidelines if grandfathered in.
Outside courtrooms, some athletic administrators have hinted to Fox News Digital-OutKick that the NCAA’s thinking on not granting a blanket waiver or including the 2022 class could center around the fact that there are too many players and not enough roster spots across the country for this to work.
Right now, thanks to an injunction granted by U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney of Colorado, athletes from the class of 2022 were granted the ability to join rosters, provided there was a spot available.
That ruling has already led numerous football and basketball programs to add players who had another year of eligibility under Sweeney’s order.
But the NCAA quickly responded, filing an emergency motion for a stay with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which it mentioned in their hard stance on Tuesday night.
“The Tenth Circuit has ordered an expedited briefing on our request for a stay pending appeal,” the NCAA noted about the appeal. The deadline for the class members to file a response to the emergency motion is Friday, August 14. The NCAA’s reply brief must be filed no later than Monday, August 17. In the meantime, the Wisne injunction remains in effect.”
That still left one major question hanging over college athletics: Would the NCAA eventually give in to the pressure and grant a blanket waiver rather than continue fighting lawsuits that have already been filed — and the additional ones still to come?
On Tuesday night, the NCAA delivered its answer.
It’s not tapping out.
“The Division I Cabinet, including its student-athlete members, carefully considered whether to make the age-based eligibility rule apply retroactively, and decided that doing so would not be in the best interest of all current and future college athletes,” the NCAA announced. “We stand behind and will continue to fully defend the membership’s decision. The injunction should never have been granted, and we have asked the Tenth Circuit to permanently reverse it.”
And beyond the potentially massive ramifications of the Tenth Circuit’s eventual decision, confusion remains over another important issue: Which athletes are allowed to enter the transfer portal?
On Tuesday night, attorney Ryan Downton noted to Fox News Digital-OutKick that a vast number of coaches he has spoken with during this process are siding with the athletes.
“The NCAA keeps calling it “the Membership’s decision” to exclude the Class of 2022,” Downton noted. “But neither the NCAA schools nor the coaches got to vote on this proposal. The overwhelming majority of coaches I talk with want these kids to have a chance to play.”
In states such as Tennessee and Ohio, injunctions granted in separate cases allow players who are plaintiffs in those lawsuits to use the transfer portal.
But in the Colorado case that athletic departments across the country are closely watching, the plaintiffs have not been granted an additional portal window.
The opinion of some is that the organization knew that implementing its new eligibility rule in June — rather than before the last portal window for each sport — could trigger a wave of lawsuits from athletes who suddenly found themselves on the wrong side of the new guidelines.
The roots of the current fight can be traced back to the Diego Pavia case and, maybe more importantly in the future, former Vanderbilt linebacker Langston Patterson’s lawsuit against the NCAA in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
Patterson is currently challenging the NCAA over the number of years athletes are allowed to participate in college athletics.
And the concept behind the NCAA’s new “age-based eligibility” rule had already been presented in court.
Attorney Ryan Downton, who represents Patterson and athletes in more recent lawsuits filed after the NCAA implemented its new eligibility rule, previously argued for what became known as the “five-for-five” model.
“We asked the NCAA to give everyone five years last year when we filed the Patterson lawsuit. They said no,” Downton told Fox News Digital-OutKick last week.
“Now they’ve done it, but excluded the athletes asking for the change. It feels like the NCAA is saying, ‘you had a good idea, but we can’t let you enjoy the benefits of it.’ Just like they changed the name. We called it ‘five-for-five.’ They call it ‘age-based eligibility.’ It’s the same thing, but the NCAA tries to pretend it isn’t.”
That’s the part of this fight that will continue to fuel frustration among members of the 2022 class.
They wanted five years to play five seasons. The NCAA ultimately adopted a system that does essentially that. But the athletes who were already pushing for the change were left out.
Now, the NCAA has drawn a line in the sand and appears prepared to defend its stance across multiple states, with its most recent loss coming on Tuesday in a Texas courtroom.
SIGN UP TO GET THE LATEST SPORTS NEWS
Maybe the organization believes that refusing to make the rule retroactive is genuinely the right thing to do.
STAY “FEARLESS” ON THE GO! TAKE TOMI LAHREN WITH YOU. DOWNLOAD THE TLIF PODCAST NOW!
Or maybe NCAA officials understand they have little choice, given the potential fallout that could come with granting a blanket waiver and opening thousands of additional roster spots that don’t actually exist.
Either way, the NCAA isn’t waving the white flag.
And now, we wait on an appeals court in Colorado to deliver what will ultimately be a monumental decision.
