What’s going on in the Big 12 and beyond? I expand and explain every Sunday in Postscripts at Heartland College Sports, your home for independent Big 12 coverage.
The Eligibility Wickets Are Getting Sticky
For the past few months most of the discourse around player eligibility, temporary injunctions, and the Class of 2022 has been around the “what if.”
“What if” this happens or “What if” that happens. Well, the theoretical is starting to become the actual, and shockingly, the NCAA might be winning just a little bit.
Let’s head to Boulder, where Texas Tech beats Colorado, 29-7 on Saturday. The Red Raiders did so without Thomas Castellanos, the backup quarterback who just became eligible on an injunction a few weeks ago and has played in specific packages of plays.
The reason? The injunction he received in a Kentucky court that allowed him to play a fifth year as part of the Class of 2022 was dissolved, per Yahoo!Sports. The case he is tied is still pending and will be heard on Oct. 9. But the injunction that allowed him to play is null.
Let’s go to Tucson as the same thing happened there. Per Justin Spears of the Arizona Daily Star, the Wildcats were without running back Ismail Mahdi and linebacker Max Harris for Saturday’s game. Their case, heard by a Pima County court judge — the same judge who granted them a temporary restraining order — was reversed as their request for a permanent court order was denied.
Let’s go to Ohio, where the Cincinnati men’s basketball team learned that MJ Collins — who was practicing with the team on a temporary injunction — can no longer do so, based on a ruling in the Ohio Court of Appeals.
So, the NCAA is … winning? Maybe. I thought the Ohio ruling was an excellent example of what’s happening here.
Judge Candace Clouse wrote in her ruling per USA Today that the trial court that granted the injunction “…abused its discretion in granting the injunction.” So, in plain terms?
How This Ruling Helps NCAA
Many of the preliminary injunctions granted to the so-called 5-for-5 players were based on a couple of factors. First, those judges found there was a likelihood those cases would succeed on their merits. Clouse is ruling the opposite in this case.
Second, many of them were “ex parte cases,” meaning that only one side was arguing. In many cases, these injunctions were based on the plaintiffs’ arguments, and the NCAA didn’t get a chance to respond.
This week’s rulings mean the NCAA is catching up. If Clouse’s view of the case is any indication, that may not be good news for Castellanos, Mahdi, Harris, Collins, and other athletes playing on an injunction.
In fact, Clouse’s ruling made the very point the NCAA has been trying to make, something that must have made them positively giddy in Indianapolis. She wrote that the lower courts denied the NCAA the right to enforce its bylaws. That included Bylaw 12.6, the bylaw on the books when those student-athletes started, which allowed five years to play four years of college athletics.
The paragraph below, written by Clouse, is the one that every NCAA lawyer is going to be armed with for the next few months in every case it argues:
“We understand the plaintiffs’ frustration with their exclusion from the new eligibility model,” Clouse wrote. “But we are also mindful that at the time the plaintiffs began their collegiate athletic careers, they understood that they were entitled to four years of athletic eligibility within a five-year period. And that is what they received.”
If the idea is that the NCAA breached a contract with these Class of 2022 athletes who played four years, that paragraph cuts through the argument like a Ginsu knife. If that was the contract, and that’s what the athlete got, then … what now?
What’s Next for NCAA, Class of 2022?
Well, first, this isn’t the end of the road. Far from it. As I’ve written here many times, the legal process isn’t done. As Clouse noted, another hearing is coming. Her ruling only dissolved the injunction for student-athletes who are playing or practicing under it. Until the case is finally heard and finally ruled upon, there’s still a chance they can play. It’s also one case. Others are playing out across the country, using different logic for their suits.
But judges love two things: precedent and leaning on one another’s rulings. Clouse just gave her colleagues a crutch to lean on if they not in love with granting or extending an injunction they didn’t agree with but didn’t have a good reason why. Now they do.
The NCAA just got a ruling that plainly states their argument in a way that even non-lawyers can understand. As I wrote earlier, every attorney that argues a case for them from here on out will be armed with that language. They will take it to every courtroom, every hearing and every press conference. It’s not a silver bullet per se. But it’s the best language they’ve gotten from a judge so far.
For the Big 12 athletes that are playing or practicing on injunctions, it’s time to keep your head on a swivel. Many athletes are still playing on these injunctions, including Oklahoma State defensive tackle Iman Oates, who got his injunction this summer in a Payne County, Okla., court. That’s the county seat for Stillwater. That might be the litmus test. If he’s unable to keep his injunction in an Oklahoma-friendly court, that doesn’t bode well for the group.
Iowa State guard Tamin Lipsey just got his injunction and is back with the Cyclones for a fifth year. How long will the Cyclones get to keep him? New Oklahoma State Cowgirls guard Callin Hake used a California ruling to come back for another year and transfer from Nebraska. Will head coach Jacie Hoyt have her for the whole season?
The student-athletes seeking injunctions were wise to keep pursuing them in state and county courts after a judge dissolved the nationwide injunction in the Wisne case in Colorado. But the ruling in Ohio earlier this week felt like a turning point in all of this. Temporary injunctions are only supposed to last a short time. At some point the case must be adjudicated and ruled upon. Did Crouse tip the scales toward the NCAA?
Only time will tell. But for the first time in a while, I’m less hopeful for the Class of 2022.
