Ohio judge grants preliminary injunction for men’s, women’s hoops players suing NCAA for eligibility
An Ohio judge has granted a preliminary injunction for 24 men’s and women’s college basketball players suing the NCAA to be eligible, claiming the new age-based model unfairly shuts them out of further competition
CINCINNATI (AP) — An Ohio judge has granted a preliminary injunction for 24 men’s and women’s college basketball players suing the NCAA for eligibility, claiming the new age-based model unfairly shuts them out of further competition.
Judge Christopher Wagner said Thursday the NCAA eligibility rules have been applied to 2022 high school graduates in an arbitrary and capricious manner, adding the plaintiffs would suffer “irreparable injury” without an injunction.
“We hope the NCAA reconsiders its position and allows all other similarly situated athletes from the high school class of 2022 to compete for remaining roster spots in all sports,” attorney Ryan Downton said.
Wagner's ruling allows the athletes in the lawsuit an opportunity to enter the transfer portal. He scheduled a conference for Aug. 4 to prepare for a trial.
“While we will seek to overturn this ruling, it is now apparent that Congress must act swiftly to restore stability, uniformity, and fair competition in college athletics,” the NCAA said in a statement.
The Protect College Sports Act has moved forward with Senate committee approval in June. However, the Big Ten and Southeastern conferences oppose the bill designed to stabilize college sports and are seeking revisions.
Downton has filed similar lawsuits against the NCAA on behalf of nearly 30 men's and women's basketball players.
The lawsuit in Cincinnati was filed shortly after the NCAA Division I Cabinet approved a monumental change in eligibility rules last month.
“When each plaintiff completed their fourth season of competition during the 2025-26 academic year, they had every reason to know it was the end of the line and time to make way for the next generation of college athletes,” the NCAA wrote in a filing.
The plaintiffs are seeking to be eligible to play a fifth year during the upcoming season, representing athletes who graduated from high school in 2022 and began their college sports careers that autumn and never redshirted.
“Each plaintiff was harmed each time he or she competed in a basketball game against a fifth or sixth-year player without being offered the same opportunity to compete in a fifth season themselves,” Downtown wrote in a filing.
Recommended for you
The NCAA now allows 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 move will all but eliminate waivers or redshirt years for extended eligibility except for religious missions, pregnancy or active-duty military service. Extensions will no longer be considered for athletes who are injured.
Athletes whose eligibility expired by spring 2026 under the traditional model — four years of competition over five years — will not be allowed a fifth year of competition under the new rules that go into effect this fall.
The Division I Cabinet has said in a statement posted on X that it was aware of legal action challenging its decision and that “we do not intend to change course.”
Three basketball players, including Xavier forward Filip Borovicanin of Serbia, and three coaches, including Xavier coach Richard Pitino, along with an agent testified at a hearing in Cincinnati earlier this month, while the NCAA did not call any witnesses.
Wagner appeared to be critical of the NCAA in his written ruling, saying the governing body resembles “a highly profitable professional sports league," more than its argument of being a voluntary association.
“The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury if the preliminary injunction is not granted,” Wagner said.
The NCAA said the decision was wrong.
“We will immediately seek all avenues for reversal, including a stay of the court’s order pending appeal,” the NCAA said. “The court disregarded over a century of precedent and substituted its own judgment, on a limited factual record, for the collective expertise of the nation’s leading higher education institutions.”
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.