11/06/2026 04:05:00
Printable Page
11/06 16:04 CST Federal appeals court hands NCAA a victory in struggle for
five-year eligibility rule
Federal appeals court hands NCAA a victory in struggle for five-year
eligibility rule
By EDDIE PELLS
AP National Writer
DENVER (AP) --- Federal appeals court judges handed the NCAA a significant
victory in its struggle to implement a new five-year eligibility ruling Friday,
though the win does nothing to tamp down dozens of similar lawsuits playing out
in state courts across the country.
Ruling in the case Wisne vs. NCAA, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver
reversed a lower-court decision that had granted players across the country who
graduated high school in 2022 a fifth year of eligibility.
The lower-court ruling in July went against the NCAA's new rule that granted
five years of eligibility, but only starting with athletes from the next year's
class. It essentially made all those Class of '22 players eligible, leading to
nationwide chaos, with teams looking to sign players who had been relegated to
the sideline.
But in August, when this same appeals court first put the ruling on hold, many
of those players still found their way onto rosters thanks to favorable rulings
in state courts.
The decision Friday doesn't resolve some 200 state cases that involve as many
as 850 athletes. The NCAA applauded it nonetheless, with chief legal officer
Scott Bearby calling it "consistent with the approach taken by every federal
court of appeals" in cases like these.
"The decision also acknowledges the NCAA's concern that retroactively changing
eligibility rules can destabilize rosters and disrupt the settled expectations
of student-athletes regarding roster spots and playing time," Bearby wrote in a
memo to NCAA members.
Much of that damage has already been done, as football's regular season heads
into its final month with some players --- for instance, Texas Tech quarterback
Thomas Castellanos --- toggling on and off rosters depending on the latest
court ruling. Basketball season started this week under similar uncertainty.
The decision hinged over what judges said was the plaintiffs' inability to
define the market for players --- a key point in determining how those players
are being harmed by being declared ineligible.
In the decision penned by Judge Carolyn McHugh, the three-judge panel knocked
down the plaintiff argument that all Division I players, regardless of sport,
formed a single market.
"Obviously, a football player looking for a Division I roster spot would not
view the 101 schools without a football program as reasonably good
substitutes," McHugh wrote.
___
Sign up for Top 25 poll alerts here, visit the Top 25 here and see AP's full
college football coverage here
|
