- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 1,246,303
- Reaction score
- 59
Former Dayton Flyers guard Javon Bennett and former Belmont High School center Shawn Phillips Jr. could receive a fifth year of eligibility after a ruling on Thursday, July 9, by a judge in Hamilton County.
Bennett and Phillips were two of 15 college basketball players — all of whom started their careers in 2022 and played four seasons — who filed a lawsuit in June seeking an injunction against the NCAA's age-based eligibility model. The new rule allows athletes to play up to five seasons in five years but excludes athletes who exhausted their eligibility under the old rules in 2026.
Hamilton County Judge Christopher Wagner granted a preliminary injunction Thursday, siding with the players. The next step in the case will be a case management conference on Aug. 4.
“Sport is the most important of the least important things,” Wagner wrote in his ruling. “With that in mind, the Court begins with two observations. First, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, despite its arguments that it is a voluntary association, more resembles a highly profitable professional sports league. Second, the Court possesses no illusions that the parties' interests relate at all to academics. Except for one player, no attorney, coach, player, or even the Defendant seriously mentioned academic interests in college. The Plaintiffs herein seek equitable relief.”
One of the players involved in the lawsuit, MJ Collins, committed to Cincinnati after news of the injunction broke. Collins played for Jerrod Calhoun last season at Utah State, and Calhoun is now the coach at Cincinnati.
Bennett played last the last three seasons at Dayton after playing one season at Merrimack. Phillips, a Dayton native who spent two years at Belmont, played at LSU and Arizona State before finishing his career at Missouri.
Wagner made his decision after testimony from three college basketball coaches on July 1: Cincinnati’s Jerrod Calhoun; Xavier’s Richard Pitino and Akron’s Dustin Ford.
“The NCAA's arguments regarding harm to third parties revolve around the potential harm to already-eligible players,” Wagner wrote. “It is important to note that these Plaintiffs are not guaranteed a spot on any particular roster if they are granted eligibility. The three coaches who testified at the July 1, 2026 hearing stated that they currently have roster spots) open, and that the coaches would consider certain Plaintiffs for those spots. Plaintiffs are not asking to take a player's roster spot or to add an additional roster spot: Plaintiffs want the opportunity to compete for a currently available spot on the roster. By the Defendant's own statements prior to releasing this new rule, many of the witnesses were led to believe that these Plaintiffs would have another year of eligibility.”
The NCAA “will immediately seek all avenues for reversal, including a stay of the court's order pending appeal,” it announced in a statement.
“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,” the statement read. “The court also based its decision on assertions by plaintiffs’ counsel about the NCAA and its Bylaws that bear no resemblance to reality. 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.
“As disappointing as the ruling itself is the decision by some member schools to support a lawsuit designed to circumvent the rules by which those same schools agreed to be bound. It is fundamentally unfair to the many programs and student-athletes who follow the rules to compete against those who do not. Integrity in college sports relies on all members abiding by the same standards. 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.”
Continue reading...
Bennett and Phillips were two of 15 college basketball players — all of whom started their careers in 2022 and played four seasons — who filed a lawsuit in June seeking an injunction against the NCAA's age-based eligibility model. The new rule allows athletes to play up to five seasons in five years but excludes athletes who exhausted their eligibility under the old rules in 2026.
Hamilton County Judge Christopher Wagner granted a preliminary injunction Thursday, siding with the players. The next step in the case will be a case management conference on Aug. 4.
“Sport is the most important of the least important things,” Wagner wrote in his ruling. “With that in mind, the Court begins with two observations. First, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, despite its arguments that it is a voluntary association, more resembles a highly profitable professional sports league. Second, the Court possesses no illusions that the parties' interests relate at all to academics. Except for one player, no attorney, coach, player, or even the Defendant seriously mentioned academic interests in college. The Plaintiffs herein seek equitable relief.”
One of the players involved in the lawsuit, MJ Collins, committed to Cincinnati after news of the injunction broke. Collins played for Jerrod Calhoun last season at Utah State, and Calhoun is now the coach at Cincinnati.
Bennett played last the last three seasons at Dayton after playing one season at Merrimack. Phillips, a Dayton native who spent two years at Belmont, played at LSU and Arizona State before finishing his career at Missouri.
Wagner made his decision after testimony from three college basketball coaches on July 1: Cincinnati’s Jerrod Calhoun; Xavier’s Richard Pitino and Akron’s Dustin Ford.
“The NCAA's arguments regarding harm to third parties revolve around the potential harm to already-eligible players,” Wagner wrote. “It is important to note that these Plaintiffs are not guaranteed a spot on any particular roster if they are granted eligibility. The three coaches who testified at the July 1, 2026 hearing stated that they currently have roster spots) open, and that the coaches would consider certain Plaintiffs for those spots. Plaintiffs are not asking to take a player's roster spot or to add an additional roster spot: Plaintiffs want the opportunity to compete for a currently available spot on the roster. By the Defendant's own statements prior to releasing this new rule, many of the witnesses were led to believe that these Plaintiffs would have another year of eligibility.”
The NCAA “will immediately seek all avenues for reversal, including a stay of the court's order pending appeal,” it announced in a statement.
“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,” the statement read. “The court also based its decision on assertions by plaintiffs’ counsel about the NCAA and its Bylaws that bear no resemblance to reality. 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.
“As disappointing as the ruling itself is the decision by some member schools to support a lawsuit designed to circumvent the rules by which those same schools agreed to be bound. It is fundamentally unfair to the many programs and student-athletes who follow the rules to compete against those who do not. Integrity in college sports relies on all members abiding by the same standards. 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.”
Continue reading...
