Last week ended on one question: would a California judge do what Ohio, Tennessee, and Georgia judges already had, and grant the class of 2022 a fifth season they can actually use? That question is, unfortunately, still open. But three things happened since then that make this whole saga worth revisiting: 1) Gonzaga signed two new players off the back of state-level litigation in Ohio and Georgia. 2) a federal judge denied the NCAA’s attempt to slam the brakes on the whole thing. And 3) the appeals court above that judge set a clock that could finally decide everything before the season starts.
The Terms You NeedClass of 2022: players who played four straight years of D1 sports and finished their careers in spring 2026. This class of players was denied a fifth year of eligibility once the NCAA’s 5-in-5 policy was made official; a huge problem because all of that the classes before them got five years to play a result of a returned COVID season and all classes after them now get as a result of the 5-in-5 policy itself.
The Colorado injunction: a federal class action ruling filed in Colorado that grants every class of 2022 player in the country a fifth year of eligibility. It’s the broadest protection for these players but also the weakest one: it says nothing yet about whether that eligibility is actually usable and protected from retaliation by the NCAA if that eligibility is later overturned on appeal.
“Ghost transfer” protection: shorthand for the court ordered reopening of the transfer portal for the class of 2022 players. The portal closed in April, before any of this litigation existed, and as it stands now in Colorado, a player not already named as a plaintiff in a state-level case (so, all D1 class of 2022 athletes minus the 70+ who’d already secured eligibility and protection in state court) can only return to their previous school, not sign anywhere new, formally or otherwise.
The rule of restitution: an NCAA rule that gives the ghost transfer rules teeth. With this policy, the NCAA can force a school to retroactively vacate every win that a player appeared in, if that player received their competitive eligibility under legislation that is later overturned on appeal. Protection from this rule means a school can sign the player without that risk hanging over the season.
The state-level court rulings: separate wins in Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, and soon possibly California that go further than Colorado for the specific players named as plaintiffs therein, adding both ghost transfer protection and restitution protection on top of the fifth year of eligibility.
Two Groups of PlayersSplit the class of 2022 into two groups and the picture gets a little clearer.
The first group consists of players explicitly named as plaintiffs in the Ohio, Tennessee, or Georgia rulings, roughly 73 of them combined. These players have been granted the full package thanks to wins at the state level. They’ve been granted their fifth year of eligibility, ghost transfer protection, and restitution protection for whichever school signs them. The NCAA would have to fight each of those rulings separately in each state’s own courts, and there’s no time to do that before November.
State-level plaintiffs from the Ohio, Georgi, and Tennessee rulings are good to go play right now, play anywhere, and play without risk of retroactive consequences for their new school.
The second group consists of every other class of 2022 player hoping to play in 2026-27. Thanks to Colorado, all of them have their fifth year of eligibility, but they’ve not yet been granted access to the transfer portal and no restitution protection for whomever signs them has been guaranteed. So, unlike the state-level plaintiffs, they’ve got their eligibility, but it’s effectively useless.
For a player not already named as a plaintiff in Ohio, Georgia, or Tennessee, it comes down to two choices. 1) bet on the class action suit unfolding in Colorado, hoping the transfer portal access and missing protections show up before the season starts. Or 2) add their name to the list of plaintiffs in one of the state-level cases, three of which have already been won outright. For anyone trying to land on a roster before November, that’s barely a choice at all. It’s a high risk dice roll versus a near guaranteed positive outcome that comes with all the bells and whistles that make their eligibility a safe bet.
Unfortunately for the Zags—who have roster space available and need another guard— they’re chasing dudes waiting on a ruling in the California suit, which means that until that wraps up, they’re covered under Colorado’s fifth year of eligibility, but still waiting on the California ruling for the ghost transfer and restitution protections that would actually allow any school to sign them.
TimelineAugust 5-6: Gonzaga Signs Javon Bennett and Chauncey Wiggins – On Wednesday, August 5, Dayton point guard Javon Bennett committed to Gonzaga for his fifth year of eligibility. Because he was a plaintiff in the Ohio ruling, his eligibility comes with ghost transfer and restitution protection. The next night, Florida State forward Chauncey Wiggins committed too, his eligibility similarly protected as a result of the ruling in the Georgia case. Both were named plaintiffs in their respective state cases, which means both walked into Spokane with the full package already locked in: eligibility, ghost transfer protection, and rule of restitution protection, regardless of what happens in Colorado or the 10th Circuit stay fight.
August 10: Sweeney (Obviously) Denies the NCAA’s Stay – Back in Colorado, Judge Sweeney denies the NCAA’s emergency motion to pause her own injunction (obviously). The class of 2022’s fifth year of eligibility stands for the time being. Her ruling is blunt in a way federal opinions rarely are. The NCAA had argued the federal court had no business engaging in “judicial micromanagement” of its own eligibility rules. Hearing the NCAA complain about micromanagement is, on its face, hilarious in its own right, but Sweeney’s response is solid gold for the anti-NCAA contingent of fans. She indicates that the NCAA’s obligation to comply with antitrust law doesn’t go away because it finds compliance inconvenient. She writes that the NCAA is in a bind of its own making, and that the chaos it’s complaining about is a direct result of its own business decisions.
To extend the metaphor from last week’s piece: imagine the three-point line were moved back a foot during halftime of a playoff game, but only for players over seven feet tall. When those players point out the basic unfairness of this hastily made and stupid decision, the people who moved the line accuse those players of “throwing the whole game into chaos.” It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous.
August 10, Part 2 – In a footnote, though, Sweeney signals something potentially bigger is coming: a separate order addressing ghost transfer protection and restitution protection for every class of 2022 player seeking eligibility, not just the players named in state suits.
Predictably, the NCAA has already asked the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, one level above Sweeney, for the same stay she just denied. NCAA Chief Legal Officer Scott Bearby makes the organization’s position clear: the injunction should never have been granted, and the NCAA wants the 10th Circuit to reverse it permanently. A stay would pause the injunction and throw every program that’s already signed a “Colorado-only” player into chaos. No stay means the injunction holds through the rest of the appeal, which could take months, and class of 2022 players suit up this season while the legal fight continues in the background.
August 12: The California List Keeps Growing – Darren Heitner and James “Sweet James” Bergener—the same attorneys who won in Georgia, Ohio, and Tennessee—had previously filed the same motion in California, seeking ghost transfer and restitution protection in addition to eligibility for the players named in it. More than 45 players are on that injunction now and the list keeps growing, with additions as recent as August 12. Xaivian Lee, the former Princeton and Florida guard who a year ago was one of the most coveted point guards in the country, is among the recent names added to the list which already included guys like Jordan Pope (Texas) and Donovan Dent (UCLA).
What to Watch- the 10th Circuit’s ruling on the NCAA’s stay request, expected sometime after August 17, which decides whether the entire Colorado-only group retains their eligibility.
- Judge Sweeney’s forthcoming order on ghost transfer and restitution protection for that full Colorado class, which could close the gap for all of them at once regardless of what the 10th Circuit does.
- The California ruling itself. If it lands before Colorado gets resolved, the pool of eligible players opens up to include Dent, Lee, and the rest of the California list, which is growing by the day.
Sweeney’s order (days away). Fully briefed as of this week. She’s expected to extend ghost transfer and restitution protection to the whole Colorado class, meaning everyone seeking eligibility who’s not already been granted it in state-level court becomes fully signable, not just eligible.
California ruling (no date, but close). Ohio, Tennessee, and Georgia all took 2-3 weeks from filing to a win. California was filed in mid-July and still hasn’t ruled, likely because the plaintiff list keeps growing. Same attorneys, same argument, same result expected. Could land any time.
10th Circuit stay decision (weeks out). The NCAA’s appeal isn’t fully briefed until August 17, and appellate courts don’t move fast even on expedited schedules. If the 10th Circuit grants the stay, the Colorado injunction pauses. That doesn’t just strip eligibility from the Colorado-only group, it also strips whatever ghost transfer and restitution protection Sweeney had just granted them, since that protection is built on the same injunction. The only players untouched are the ones already locked in through a state case: Ohio, Tennessee, Georgia, and California if it’s ruled by then.
Bottom line: Sweeney almost certainly moves first, within days, and that lets Gonzaga sign its targets fast. But that protection is borrowed, not owned. It only survives as long as the Colorado injunction does. California doesn’t expire. Once it rules, it holds no matter what the 10th Circuit decides later. The 10th Circuit’s stay is the only thing that can undo the Sweeney path. It can’t touch California at all.
None of this had to be this complicated. A player’s protection right now depends on which courthouse their name landed in, not on anything about them as a student or an athlete. Two players in the same class of 2022, same circumstances, can end up on completely different eligibility and transfer footing depending on whether they threw their hat into the ring at the state-level or if they didn’t file anywhere at all. The NCAA drew a line that excluded one specific group of players, and everything since has been thousands of individual scrambles to find whatever legal door was still open before the season starts.
Is it a mess? Yes. Was it entirely preventable with, say, five minutes of foresight? Also yes. Is it obvious who’s responsible for turning “five minutes of foresight” into a summer-long legal bloodbath? Yes. Is the NCAA actually this stubborn, this stupid, or both? Apparently.
Leave a Comment