Ohio Appeals Court Sides With NCAA Against 24 Players Seeking a Fifth Year
By faNILy ·
The NCAA picked up a key courtroom win in the eligibility fight on Friday, Oct. 2. A three-judge panel on the Ohio First District Court of Appeals unanimously reversed a preliminary injunction that had let two dozen college basketball players suit up for a fifth season. Those players are no longer eligible.
The case, led by former Xavier player Filip Borovicanin, was the first major legal challenge to the NCAA's new age-based eligibility rules. It won't be the last word, though. A federal appeal involving thousands of athletes is set for oral arguments in mid-October, and at least one of the Ohio plaintiffs still has eligibility thanks to a separate case.
What the players wanted
Earlier this year the NCAA changed its eligibility model. Athletes now get five years to play five seasons, with the clock starting when they enroll in college or turn 19, whichever comes first. The old rule gave athletes five years to play four seasons, which left room for one redshirt year.
The catch: the new policy, effective Aug. 1, 2026, covers athletes with eligibility remaining who first enrolled full time before that date. The plaintiffs graduated high school in 2022 and had already used four seasons of college competition. They argued they should be grandfathered in for a fifth. In July, an Ohio trial court judge agreed for now and issued a preliminary injunction letting them join rosters. Every one of them is a men's or women's basketball player.
What the appeals court said
Judge Candace C. Crouse wrote the opinion, and she was direct about why the players lost. They signed up for one deal and got it.
"We understand the plaintiffs' frustration with their exclusion from the new eligibility model," Crouse 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."
The court found the players hadn't shown a substantial likelihood of winning their breach of contract claims, and that the NCAA properly enforced Bylaw 12.6, the rule governing competition limits. Crouse also noted the NCAA gets substantial deference in reading and applying its own rules, absent "mistake, fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness."
She pointed to the patchwork problem, too. Courts in different places reaching different answers about the same question, she wrote, "leads to inconsistent legal rulings," and it is "arguably preferable to have a voluntary association interpret and apply its own rules for the sake of uniform enforcement and predictability."
Who's still in limbo
Not everyone is off the court. One of the plaintiffs, a St. John's forward, filed his own lawsuit in New York state court and was granted a temporary restraining order the same Friday. Similar suits have popped up in several state courts with mixed results, while the NCAA argues its bylaw change only applies from this season forward.
The bigger case is federal. In July, a Colorado district judge granted a preliminary injunction in a class action that would give thousands of athletes from the same age group an extra year. In August, a 10th Circuit judge put that ruling on hold while the NCAA appeals. Oral arguments are scheduled for mid-October, so that's the next date to circle.
Where Congress fits in
Washington is in this fight as well. The Protect College Sports Act passed the Senate 77-22 the same week and now heads to the House. It would write the age-based eligibility rules into law, but it lets lawsuits filed before the bill passes keep going. So even if it becomes law, the cases already on file wouldn't simply vanish.
Why fans should care
Roster decisions now hinge on court calendars as much as depth charts. A ruling like this one tells programs which veterans they can count on, and which spots go to younger players. For now, the NCAA has the upper hand in Ohio. The 10th Circuit is where the next real answer comes from.