State Courts Become New Battleground in NCAA's Fifth-Year Eligibility Fight

Should players be allowed to use state court orders to keep playing while the NCAA's federal eligibility appeal is still pending? A federal appeals court ruling last month has pushed the fight over an extra year of NCAA eligibility out of federal court and into a patchwork of state courtrooms. On August 21, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a Colorado judge's injunction that had let athletes from the high school class of 2022, including Arizona running back Ismail Mahdi and Indiana defensive linemen Stephen Daley and Kellan Wyatt, play a fifth season under the NCAA's new five for five eligibility model. That stay made those players ineligible again just over a week before kickoff.

Rather than wait on the federal appeal, Mahdi and Arizona linebacker Max Harris took their case to Pima County Superior Court in Arizona. On September 9, a state judge granted them a temporary restraining order, letting both suit up once they each posted a $1,000 bond, clearing them to play against No. 15 BYU after sitting out Arizona's season opener. A hearing where the NCAA can argue against extending that order is set for September 21.

The NCAA's chief legal officer told member schools they won't face punishment for playing class of 2022 athletes who competed under the original injunction before the stay, but maintains those players are ineligible now that the stay is in effect. Similar state court filings are surfacing elsewhere as players look for a faster path back onto the field than the federal appellate process offers.

What supporters say:

• Players and their attorneys argue they earned their roster spot under a federal injunction that was valid law at the time, and state courts are the only venue fast enough to get them back on the field before the season is lost for good.

• Backers note the NCAA's own five for five rule already extends eligibility for everyone else, and excluding the 2022 class from that same benefit strikes many as an arbitrary cutoff.

What critics say:

• The NCAA argues that letting one state court after another grant relief creates chaos, since rosters and scholarship limits were built around who was eligible under the current rule.

• Critics warn a state by state patchwork means a player's eligibility could hinge on which courthouse he files in rather than a uniform national standard, undermining competitive balance.

• Schools that didn't roster their own class of 2022 alumni say they're now competing against teams fielding players a federal appeals court has already ruled ineligible.

What's your take?

Should players be allowed to use state court orders to keep playing while the NCAA's federal eligibility appeal is still pending? Yes No Other

#NCAA #CollegeFootball #NCAAEligibility #FiveForFive #CollegeSports

Now let's hear from you.

• You get one Take and 3 ratings so use them well.

• Strong arguments beat loud ones. See Moving The Needle (How to)

• Don't forget to rate your own Take.

• Please don't feed the trolls.

About Square One