Jett Elad

[RU#1fan]

Just read on Sportico that the NCAA is trying to overturn a lower Court’s decision allowing S Jett Elad to play this season.
Total BS…. The NCAA has no jurisdiction over Junior College athletics and this should have no bearing on eligibility. There are numerous other similar cases going on as well. They have lost all control and are grasping at anything. They suck. We need Jett on D ..after losing Mo to Miami this would really be a kick in the gut to our Defense in 2025.

 

[RU Jeep]

Hilarious that with all of the other eligibility issues that have been approved , that this is the one the NCAA fights.

 

[LotusAggressor_rivals]

Just read on Sportico that the NCAA is trying to overturn a lower Court’s decision allowing S Jett Elad to play this season.
Total BS…. The NCAA has no jurisdiction over Junior College athletics and this should have no bearing on eligibility. There are numerous other similar cases going on as well. They have lost all control and are grasping at anything. They suck. We need Jett on D ..after losing Mo to Miami this would really be a kick in the gut to our Defense in 2025.

Of course. The last fart of a dying mule.

 

[Knight Shift]

The argument was featured in a brief filed by the NCAA last Friday. The brief disputed testimony by Rutgers head football coach Greg Schiano, whose remarks about Elad’s NIL opportunities and potential NFL career were dismissed as reliant on “self-interested, non-expert [and] subjective beliefs.”

“Even Coach Schiano’s testimony,” the NCAA asserts, “concedes that Elad would be taking away a roster spot from another player, who will not make the Rutgers roster, and playing time from another player who would otherwise get snaps that Elad plays.”


The NCAA also insists there are important justifications for the five-year rule, including that it is designed for college athletes in a period that “roughly corresponds to the time required to complete most college studies.” Elad’s “framework” for college sports, the NCAA charges, would permit athletes to train at JUCO, D-II and D-III “indefinitely before transferring to Division I with four full seasons remaining.” This approach would allegedly “fundamentally alter the structure of college sports” and constitute a “complete redefinition” akin to a minor league. Along those lines, the NCAA invites the Third Circuit to think about the ramifications of permitting athletes “to participate in college sports well past the time necessary for them to complete a college degree.”

NCAA Trying to Block 24-Year-Old Rutgers Transfer From Playing

Jett Elad has already played four seasons of college football in five years, making him ineligible under the NCAA's five-year eligibility rule.

www.sportico.com

 

[RU#1fan]

If this involved Michigan or Ohio State the NCAA would be cowering like a church mouse.

 

[LotusAggressor_rivals]

Hilarious that with all of the other eligibility issues that have been approved , that this is the one the NCAA fights.

That's the way the NCAA works.

 

[WillieTheSilent]

4 playing years in 5 years? wasn't 2020 a Covid year? Isn't that a free pass for an extra year?

Now I am reading that it didn't "guarantee a 5th year of eligibility for everyone". WTH does that mean? That they CAN choose to give some chosen people a 5th playing year but others not? What kind of crazy rule is that? IS there some kind of bribery toll bridge to getting that 5th playing year? Someone should threaten a class action. The NCAA does take in billions. Time to put that under threat.

 

[RU#1fan]

That's the way the NCAA works.

Unless you are Michigan, Ohio State, Penn St., etc.

 

[Knight Shift]

Solid legal analysis here, and comparing to others such as Diego Pavia--Elad had good lawyers that presented convincing evidence:

Elad aligns with Pavia and Fourqurean in favoring athletes but stands out for its comprehensive market analysis and rejection of outdated precedent, differing sharply from Goldstein and Osuna’s conservative stances.

Jett Elad v. NCAA: A Game-Changing Ruling for College Athlete Eligibility

The recent ruling in Jett Elad v. NCAA, decided on April 25, 2025, by U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi in the District of New Jersey, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battles over NCAA eligibility rules. This case, centered on the NCAA’s “Five-Year Rule” and its application to...

heitnerlegal.com

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Does he have to sit out until a ruling is made by the appeals court now? If that’s the case, you know the ruling will come at least halfway through the season.

 

[RobertG]

If I read the ruling correctly it's essentially states that any rule that limits an athlete ability to make money cannot be enforced. The player who is good enough to start but not make the NFL can play for years at college in to the future making $100000 in NIL.

I understand why the NCAA is fighting it.

 

[LotusAggressor_rivals]

4 playing years in 5 years? wasn't 2020 a Covid year? Isn't that a free pass for an extra year?

Now I am reading that it didn't "guarantee a 5th year of eligibility for everyone". WTH does that mean? That they CAN choose to give some chosen people a 5th playing year but others not? What kind of crazy rule is that? IS there some kind of bribery toll bridge to getting that 5th playing year? Someone should threaten a class action. The NCAA does take in billions. Time to put that under threat.

Page one of the NCAA's selective enforcement playbook.

 

[LotusAggressor_rivals]

Does he have to sit out until a ruling is made by the appeals court now? If that’s the case, you know the ruling will come at least halfway through the season.

Or at the end.

 

[Knight Shift]

Does he have to sit out until a ruling is made by the appeals court now? If that’s the case, you know the ruling will come at least halfway through the season.

No, they would need an injunction for that, or a petition for emergency relief at the Circuit Court level, if that is even available.

Looking at this objectively, and putting the Rutgers-bias aside, the NCAA has raised some fair points on the issues around JUCO time.

 

[RU#1fan]

No, they would need an injunction for that, or a petition for emergency relief at the Circuit Court level, if that is even available.

Looking at this objectively, and putting the Rutgers-bias aside, the NCAA has raised some fair points on the issues around JUCO time.

This.
The lower Court has approved his playing this year. They would need a very swift injunction to stop this. The NIL has changed everything and it is commercial in nature no matter how hard the NCAA fights this. They have lost their power and continue to be a non factor.

 

[Knight Shift]

This.
The lower Court has approved his playing this year. They would need a very swift injunction to stop this. The NIL has changed everything and it is commercial in nature no matter how hard the NCAA fights this. They have lost their power and continue to be a non factor.

But there are larger issues beyond Jett Elad that need to be sorted out around JUCO time.
Without emergency relief or an injunction, Elad will play. Whether the court will entertain the case if they do not get to it until after the season is over remains to be seen.
And whether the NCAA is the enforcing agency or the conferences themselves, the issues may need to be sorted out.

 

[WillieTheSilent]

But there are larger issues beyond Jett Elad that need to be sorted out around JUCO time.
Without emergency relief or an injunction, Elad will play. Whether the court will entertain the case if they do not get to it until after the season is over remains to be seen.
And whether the NCAA is the enforcing agency or the conferences themselves, the issues may need to be sorted out.

But the thing is, what is the precedent? How many players have they granted this extra year to? It is many, right? Probably too many to count.. how can they go against their own precident.. the NCAA I mean. This is crazy.. someone should make them pay for this nonsense. Heck, Elad should sue for emotional distress even if he is allowed to play.

 

[RU#1fan]

But the thing is, what is the precedent? How many players have they granted this extra year to? It is many, right? Probably too many to count.. how can they go against their own precident.. the NCAA I mean. This is crazy.. someone should make them pay for this nonsense. Heck, Elad should sue for emotional distress even if he is allowed to play.

This
NCAA has become a paper tiger.
Pull this BS with the College Blue-bloods and they would be toast.

 

[Knight Shift]

But the thing is, what is the precedent? How many players have they granted this extra year to? It is many, right? Probably too many to count.. how can they go against their own precident.. the NCAA I mean. This is crazy.. someone should make them pay for this nonsense. Heck, Elad should sue for emotional distress even if he is allowed to play.

I think these are fair points to address in an post-NIL world. Maybe redefining college football at the D1 level as a minor league is where it will go. The "indefinitely" language is silly, but the point is how many years is too long in the JUCO ranks?

Even Coach Schiano’s testimony,” the NCAA asserts, “concedes that Elad would be taking away a roster spot from another player, who will not make the Rutgers roster, and playing time from another player who would otherwise get snaps that Elad plays.”


The NCAA also insists there are important justifications for the five-year rule, including that it is designed for college athletes in a period that “roughly corresponds to the time required to complete most college studies.” Elad’s “framework” for college sports, the NCAA charges, would permit athletes to train at JUCO, D-II and D-III “indefinitely before transferring to Division I with four full seasons remaining.” This approach would allegedly “fundamentally alter the structure of college sports” and constitute a “complete redefinition” akin to a minor league. Along those lines, the NCAA invites the Third Circuit to think about the ramifications of permitting athletes “to participate in college sports well past the time necessary for them to complete a college degree.”

 

[RU#1fan]

"permit athletes to train at JUCO, D-II and D-III “indefinitely before transferring to Division I with four full seasons remaining.”

Train or play at the JUCO, D-II and D-III levels ? Train only is a joke.

 

[Knight Shift]

Speaking of Diego Pavia:

 

[Knight Shift]

"permit athletes to train at JUCO, D-II and D-III “indefinitely before transferring to Division I with four full seasons remaining.”

Train or play at the JUCO, D-II and D-III levels ? Train only is a joke.

Train is a pretty solid band. This is a great tune:

 

[RU0917]

Even Coach Schiano’s testimony,” the NCAA asserts, “concedes that Elad would be taking away a roster spot from another player, who will not make the Rutgers roster, and playing time from another player who would otherwise get snaps that Elad plays.”

Re: the taking a roster spot point - if that's an issue, wouldn't it only be one specifically because of NCAA-mandated roster limits? Trying to punish someone else because of a problem they specifically created is pretty shameless even for them.

 

[RUGuitarMan1]

Train is a pretty solid band. This is a great tune:

I agree. The singer Pat Monahan has an excellent voice.

 

[Knight Shift]

Re: the taking a roster spot point - if that's an issue, wouldn't it only be one specifically because of NCAA-mandated roster limits? Trying to punish someone else because of a problem they specifically created is pretty shameless even for them.

I could be wrong, but aren't roster limits logical and there to prevent the blue bloods from glomming up all the best talent? Not a great counter argument-kind of like "You made me do it."

 

[RUGuitarMan1]

I anticipate that GS has a plan B in case this experiment goes sideways before the end of the season. The safety play last season wasn’t the best.

 

[Knight Shift]

I agree. The singer Pat Monahan has an excellent voice.

After Superstorm Sandy, Sea Bright tried to get some of the local famous musicians to do a benefit. Bon Jovi purchased an ambulance for the fire department. Bruce was MIA and never responded. Train (from San Francisco) did a wonderful benefit concert in the fire station parking lot. Good guys, and yes, Pat Monahan is a great singer- very distinctive.

 

[RU#1fan]

I could be wrong, but aren't roster limits logical and there to prevent the blue bloods from glomming up all the best talent? Not a great counter argument-kind of like "You made me do it."

This,
Bear Bryant at Alabama purposely put 130 players on his roster fully knowing the majority would not play. Kept the other football programs From getting good players.

 

[RU0917]

I anticipate that GS has a plan B in case this experiment goes sideways before the end of the season. The safety play last season wasn’t the best.

That might explain adding Chris Joines, the S from Mercer, after Elad. At first I was confused a bit by that one since LB seemed to be a way more pressing need, but it's true, we had to be ready for the Elad situation to get weird.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

I could be wrong, but aren't roster limits logical and there to prevent the blue bloods from glomming up all the best talent? Not a great counter argument-kind of like "You made me do it."

Yes. But at the time when Elad, and others like him, made a decision to play Juco, the NIL rules were different and pay to D1 athletes is being retroactively compensated to make players whole. Isn’t part of the argument that Elad and any other D1 level players would’ve made different decisions if money was involved? It’s not exactly the same thing but the basis is sort of similar to the string of lawsuits that followed the adoption of FMLA. Different circumstance (maternity / Title 9), but in general when rules that significantly impact financial decisions impacting a person’s livelihood change, history does suggest that a basis can be argued for redo of sorts.

 

[yesrutgers01]

Yes. But at the time when Elad, and others like him, made a decision to play Juco, the NIL rules were different and pay to D1 athletes is being retroactively compensated to make players whole. Isn’t part of the argument that Elad and any other D1 level players would’ve made different decisions if money was involved? It’s not exactly the same thing but the basis is sort of similar to the string of lawsuits that followed the adoption of FMLA. Different circumstance (maternity / Title 9), but in general when rules that significantly impact financial decisions impacting a person’s livelihood change, history does suggest that a basis can be argued for redo of sorts.

While I understand this, then it should apply across the board. I believe other players in the "exact" same situation, have been granted the extra year. Unless I am wrong, Elad is not the one trying to set precedent but others already have.
Maybe I am wrong but if they give it to one, then they give it to all, or take it away from all.

 

[Knight Shift]

While I understand this, then it should apply across the board. I believe other players in the "exact" same situation, have been granted the extra year. Unless I am wrong, Elad is not the one trying to set precedent but others already have.
Maybe I am wrong but if they give it to one, then they give it to all, or take it away from all.

His situation is different

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

His situation is different

There aren’t many kids who navigate through the JUCO ranks up to the most competitive level in football. More common in basketball. Regardless, the situation is unique for right now only and the argument (whether successful or not) doesn’t, as some have suggested, set a precedent for future kids to ride the JUCO ranks to indefinitely preserve their NIL eligibility through age 30. The point being emphasized is that retroactive rule change had a material financial impact opportunity cost wise on any kid who chose the JUCO development route.

From a big picture futuristic standpoint, if the eligibility rules stand as is, those HS / middle school reclassification schools are going to become hot tickets while player development at the JUCO level will die out. Practically speaking - a kid can preserve their NIL earning potential while developing by delaying their entrance into college while JUCO sucks out a year of earning. Kids know this now. Elad didn’t have this information and the argument is that kids with matriculation still in progress should get the extra year of earning because there’s no way they would’ve chosen this path knowing what they know now. It may or may not succeed but that’s likely the basis.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

While I understand this, then it should apply across the board. I believe other players in the "exact" same situation, have been granted the extra year. Unless I am wrong, Elad is not the one trying to set precedent but others already have.
Maybe I am wrong but if they give it to one, then they give it to all, or take it away from all.

Not exactly the same but at the moment, Elad has been granted the extra year. And this is, in simplest form, the underlying reason why. It seems the appeals court might challenge it on the basis Greg can’t know what Elad has been deprived of before the season plays out.

 

[yesrutgers01]

There aren’t many kids who navigate through the JUCO ranks up to the most competitive level in football. More common in basketball. Regardless, the situation is unique for right now only and the argument (whether successful or not) doesn’t, as some have suggested, set a precedent for future kids to ride the JUCO ranks to indefinitely preserve their NIL eligibility through age 30. The point being emphasized is that retroactive rule change had a material financial impact opportunity cost wise on any kid who chose the JUCO development route.

From a big picture futuristic standpoint, if the eligibility rules stand as is, those HS / middle school reclassification schools are going to become hot tickets while player development at the JUCO level will die out. Practically speaking - a kid can preserve their NIL earning potential while developing by delaying their entrance into college while JUCO sucks out a year of earning. Kids know this now. Elad didn’t have this information and the argument is that kids with matriculation still in progress should get the extra year of earning because there’s no way they would’ve chosen this path knowing what they know now. It may or may not succeed but that’s likely the basis.

Not exactly the same but at the moment, Elad has been granted the extra year. And this is, in simplest form, the underlying reason why. It seems the appeals court might challenge it on the basis Greg can’t know what Elad has been deprived of before the season plays out.

Thanks for the clarification- so, bottomline- it really comes down to what PSAL just said. It is more about the fact that he was approved and then denied after the fact and after any other option was gone as well.

 

[Knight Shift]

Thanks for the clarification- so, bottomline- it really comes down to what PSAL just said. It is more about the fact that he was approved and then denied after the fact and after any other option was gone as well.

I don't think so. It is more about economic opportunity in the NIL era.

I ran this through Grok and this is a pretty good summary:

Summary of Key Differences:

Redshirt Impact: Elad’s redshirt year in 2019 extended his five-year eligibility clock, complicating his case and excluding him from the NCAA’s JUCO Waiver, while Pavia had no redshirt year, making his eligibility timeline simpler.
Eligibility Rule Challenged: Elad’s case primarily targeted the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule and JUCO Rule, while Pavia’s focused on the JUCO Rule (Bylaw 12.02.6) and did not involve the Five-Year Rule to the same extent.

JUCO Waiver Applicability:

Pavia qualified for the NCAA’s JUCO Waiver after his injunction, while Elad did not due to his redshirt year pushing his eligibility beyond the waiver’s criteria.

Legal Scope:

Elad’s ruling provided a broader market analysis and challenged the Five-Year Rule, potentially setting a wider precedent, while Pavia’s focused on JUCO seasons and directly prompted the NCAA’s waiver policy.

Court and Timeline:

Elad’s case was decided in New Jersey in April 2025, building on Pavia’s December 2024 ruling in Tennessee, with Elad’s case addressing additional complexities due to his academic and athletic history.

Both players successfully obtained preliminary injunctions to play in the 2025-26 season, but Elad’s case involved navigating the additional hurdle of a redshirt year and the Five-Year Rule, making it distinct from Pavia’s more straightforward challenge to the JUCO Rule. The NCAA is appealing both rulings, indicating ongoing legal battles over eligibility rules in the NIL era.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

I don't think so. It is more about economic opportunity in the NIL era.

I ran this through Grok and this is a pretty good summary:

Summary of Key Differences:

Redshirt Impact: Elad’s redshirt year in 2019 extended his five-year eligibility clock, complicating his case and excluding him from the NCAA’s JUCO Waiver, while Pavia had no redshirt year, making his eligibility timeline simpler.
Eligibility Rule Challenged: Elad’s case primarily targeted the NCAA’s Five-Year Rule and JUCO Rule, while Pavia’s focused on the JUCO Rule (Bylaw 12.02.6) and did not involve the Five-Year Rule to the same extent.

JUCO Waiver Applicability:

Pavia qualified for the NCAA’s JUCO Waiver after his injunction, while Elad did not due to his redshirt year pushing his eligibility beyond the waiver’s criteria.

Legal Scope:

Elad’s ruling provided a broader market analysis and challenged the Five-Year Rule, potentially setting a wider precedent, while Pavia’s focused on JUCO seasons and directly prompted the NCAA’s waiver policy.

Court and Timeline:

Elad’s case was decided in New Jersey in April 2025, building on Pavia’s December 2024 ruling in Tennessee, with Elad’s case addressing additional complexities due to his academic and athletic history.

Both players successfully obtained preliminary injunctions to play in the 2025-26 season, but Elad’s case involved navigating the additional hurdle of a redshirt year and the Five-Year Rule, making it distinct from Pavia’s more straightforward challenge to the JUCO Rule. The NCAA is appealing both rulings, indicating ongoing legal battles over eligibility rules in the NIL era.

Yeah - Elad is in a slightly weaker position because of the redshirt year but at the end of the day, the most likely outcome is probably upholding both rulings with a broad overarching interpretation that basically covers any athlete who played JUCO during that limited 2ish year window and then worked their way to D1. As said previously, the pool of athletes this situation applies to is very small. It would not open the door to future JUCO players since it’s clearly about loss of potential income and going forward students would knowingly be giving up eligibility in choosing the JUcO path.

 

[beaced1925]

Of course. The last fart of a dying mule.

POETRY AT ITS BEST

 

[beaced1925]

If this involved Michigan or Ohio State the NCAA would be cowering like a church moose.

I THOUGHT THAT I ONCE SAW A MOOSE COWERING IN A PLACE OF WORSHIP, BUT IT WAS JUST A FAT LADY BOWING HER HEAD.

 

[beaced1925]

No, they would need an injunction for that, or a petition for emergency relief at the Circuit Court level, if that is even available.

Looking at this objectively, and putting the Rutgers-bias aside, the NCAA has raised some fair points on the issues around JUCO time.

we NEVER put RU bias aside. WE ARE RU