Ohio Court Reverses Grandfathering of Athletes Into NCAA Eligibility

Two dozen college athletes who sought an extra year of eligibility in response to the NCAA’s new age-based criteria are no longer eligible after an Ohio appeals court reversed a preliminary injunction allowing them to play on Friday.

A three-judge panel on the Ohio First District Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the plaintiffs, who graduated high school in 2022 and completed four years of college sports, could not be grandfathered into the NCAA’s “age-based” eligibility structure and play for a fifth year.

“We understand the plaintiffs’ frustration with their exclusion from the new eligibility model,” Judge Candace C. Crouse wrote in her opinion. “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.”

In July, an Ohio trial court judge issued a preliminary injunction temporarily allowing the athletes, all of them men’s or women’s basketball players, to join a college roster. 

It was the first major legal challenge to the NCAA’s new eligibility guidelines, which give athletes five years to compete in five seasons of college athletics starting when they enroll in college or on their 19th birthday, whichever comes first. Previously, athletes had five years to play in four seasons, allowing for one redshirt year. 

The preliminary injunction only applied to the plaintiffs, but opened the door to further litigation over the eligibility status of 2022 high school graduates. 

“It is certainly in the public’s interest not to have piecemeal litigation in multiple courts across the country concerning whether certain players are eligible to participate in a fifth year of athletic competition,” Judge Crouse wrote. “This leads to inconsistent legal rulings. It is arguably preferable to have a voluntary association interpret and apply its own rules for the sake of uniform enforcement and predictability.”

At least one of the plaintiffs, however, still has eligibility due to separate litigation. St. John’s forward Keyshawn Hal has filed his own separate state lawsuit in New York, and was granted a temporary restraining order on Friday.

Similar litigation has also popped up in several state courts across the country, with mixed results. The NCAA has fought to deny eligibility to the relevant athletes, arguing the change in its bylaws only applies from this season forward.

Additionally, one parallel case worked its way up the federal court system. In July, a Colorado district judge granted a preliminary injunction in a class action lawsuit giving thousands of athletes across the country in the same age cohort as the Ohio plaintiffs an extra year of eligibility. But in August, a 10th federal circuit judge issued a temporary stay on the ruling pending the NCAA’s appeal. Oral arguments to consider overturning the ruling will take place in mid-October.

Judge Crouse noted in the ruling that the NCAA is accorded substantial deference when interpreting and applying its own rules, in the absence of “mistake, fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness.”

The Protect College Sports Act—which passed 77-22 in the Senate on Monday and will now head to the House—codifies the age-based eligibility rules, but allows litigation filed before the bill is passed to continue.

Representatives for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.