Ohio judge Christopher Wagner granted a temporary injunction on Thursday to 15 Division I college basketball players whose eligibility ran out after this past season, allowing them an opportunity to return for another season after they argued the NCAA unfairly excluded them from its new age-based eligibility rule.
The lawsuit was filed less than 24 hours after the NCAA announced it was changing its eligibility rules to allow athletes five seasons of competition over a five-year period that begins with their full-time enrollment or the academic year following their 19th birthday, whichever occurs first.
“The NCAA is a ‘voluntary membership organization’ that controls, markets, and sells a product: student-athletes,” Wagner said in a court document reviewed by The Athletic. “Despite arbitrarily excluding a class of athletes from taking part in a fifth season of intercollegiate competition, the NCAA seeks to evade judicial review and possibly punish member institutions for their participation in the legal process.”
The injunction grants players represented in this case the chance to enter the transfer portal, despite the specified portal window closing in mid-April.
Following the court’s ruling, the NCAA released a statement saying the decision is “wrong” and that the NCAA will seek a reversal. Additionally, it will seek an appeal of the ruling, but must rely on Congress.
“The effect of this ruling will be to take away valuable participation opportunities from student-athletes who are eligible to compete, in favor of those who have already received exactly the number of seasons of competition they expected,” the NCAA said in a statement.
Athletes previously had five years in college to complete four full seasons of competition. The new rule eliminates redshirt years and almost all waivers that would be used to grant athletes extra seasons for extenuating circumstances such as injuries.
The move is intended to limit the increasing number of athletes who participate in college sports beyond five years and into their mid-20s by using waivers to gain additional seasons.
With hundreds of thousands of dollars available to college athletes through name, image and likeness deals and revenue-sharing payments from schools, playing major college basketball can be more lucrative than turning pro for many players.
Athletes whose fourth season of eligibility was completed by spring 2026 could not take advantage of the new rule, according to recommendations made by the cabinet in previous discussions of the rule.
That prompted lawsuits from athletes who didn’t make the cut and were deprived of the ability to cash in. The first of those suits was filed in Southern Ohio.
Among the plaintiffs were Filip Borovicanin, who averaged 10 points per game for Xavier last season, and MJ Collins, a guard who averaged 17 points per game at Utah State last season and transferred to Cincinnati as his eligibility for 2026-27 was uncertain.
It remains unclear whether any of these players have roster spots waiting for them at the Division I level, with most schools having assembled their teams and set their budgets for 2026-27.
Two similar lawsuits have been filed in Tennessee and Georgia, and attorneys for the plaintiffs say two more will be filed in North Carolina and California.
“We have more interest than we can handle at the moment and plan to include athletes beyond basketball in the near future,” said attorney Darren Heitner.
The NCAA has been fighting dozens of legal challenges to its eligibility rules over the last 18 months, following a similar pattern. Athletes request an injunction, which allows them to play while cases slowly wind their way through court. While the NCAA has won more than it has lost in these eligibility cases over the past year and a half, plaintiffs have found more success in state courts.
