Linky
Federal Judge in West Virginia grants a preliminary injunction allowing 4 WV players to play this year, saying their JUCO years should not count against NCAA eligibility.
This tracks with the Pavia decision, but in scanning the opinion, this judge seems to question the entire academic reasoning behind the NCAA eligibility rules. The opinion openly demands Supreme Court guidance.
For people wondering what I'm talking about, the NCAA has been successful arguing that its "5 years to play 4" eligibilty model preserves the relationship between sports and academics, and should be free from anti-trust scrutiny. Multiple judges have now ruled that participation in non-NCAA sports, like JUCO, should not count against that eligibility.
This latest opinion really questions the whole eligibility model in the post NIL world, but that wasnt really the issue before the court.
Federal Judge in West Virginia grants a preliminary injunction allowing 4 WV players to play this year, saying their JUCO years should not count against NCAA eligibility.
This tracks with the Pavia decision, but in scanning the opinion, this judge seems to question the entire academic reasoning behind the NCAA eligibility rules. The opinion openly demands Supreme Court guidance.
For people wondering what I'm talking about, the NCAA has been successful arguing that its "5 years to play 4" eligibilty model preserves the relationship between sports and academics, and should be free from anti-trust scrutiny. Multiple judges have now ruled that participation in non-NCAA sports, like JUCO, should not count against that eligibility.
This latest opinion really questions the whole eligibility model in the post NIL world, but that wasnt really the issue before the court.