​CINCINNATI (AP) — An Ohio judge has granted a preliminary injunction for 24 current and former college basketball players, both men and women, who are suing the NCAA over eligibility rules they say unfairly bar them from continuing to compete. Judge Christopher Wagner ruled Thursday that the NCAA’s eligibility standards have been applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner, paving the way for the plaintiffs to pursue their claims.
In his decision, Wagner indicated that the athletes in the lawsuit should have an opportunity to enter the transfer portal. He scheduled a conference for Aug. 4 to prepare for a potential trial. The attorney representing the plaintiffs, Ryan Downton, has been involved in similar lawsuits on behalf of nearly 30 men’s and women’s basketball players who contend the NCAA’s new age-based model diminishes their chances to continue playing.
The Cincinnati case emerged shortly after the NCAA Division I Cabinet approved a sweeping overhaul of eligibility rules last month. In a filing, the NCAA argued that once a player completed their fourth season of competition during the 2025-26 academic year, there would be little reason to continue their collegiate career at the same level, suggesting it was time to make room for younger athletes.
Downtown, representing the plaintiffs, has asserted that each player was harmed every time they faced a fifth- or sixth-year opponent without having been afforded a comparable opportunity to extended eligibility themselves. He argued that the new framework allows five seasons of competition across a five-year span, beginning with full-time enrollment or the academic year after a player’s 19th birthday, whichever comes first.
Under the revised policy, waivers or redshirt years for extended eligibility will be nearly nonexistent, except in cases involving religious missions, pregnancy, or active-duty military service. The changes also state that extensions will not be available for athletes who suffer injuries. Those whose eligibility expired by spring 2026 under the prior model—four years of competition over five years—will not be granted a fifth season under the new rules, which take effect this fall.
The Division I Cabinet acknowledged in a statement posted on X (formerly Twitter) that it is aware of legal challenges to the decision and asserted that it does not intend to alter course. The NCAA has argued that the reforms are aimed at better aligning eligibility with the realities of modern college athletics, though the lawsuits claim the changes disproportionately impact athletes who began their college careers in 2022 and did not redshirt, potentially depriving them of a final season.
Downton has pursued similar litigation against the NCAA on behalf of other high-level players, contending that the new age-based eligibility structure undermines fair opportunities for athletes who were on track to compete for a fifth season. The ongoing legal actions will continue to scrutinize whether the NCAA’s reforms are applied consistently and whether they run afoul of antitrust or contract principles governing collegiate athletics.
As this case proceeds, the landscape of college basketball eligibility remains in flux, with players watching closely to see how the judiciary will shape the intersection of amateur status, institutional policy, and athletes’ rights to extend their collegiate careers. The ruling in Cincinnati marks a notable instance of the courts weighing in on the NCAA’s evolving framework for fifth-year eligibility and the broader implications for student-athletes navigating the transfer portal and roster opportunities.