NCAA states want to stretch TRO so that transfers can play right away.
A coalition of bipartisan state-based organizations and the NCAA filed a joint move on Friday to extend the temporary restraining order regarding the NCAA’s transfer policy.
This came after two days of uncertainty about who could transfer and whether they were eligible.
The motion would change the temporary order of protection to a preliminary injunction.
This would let the student athletes play right away without worrying that the rule could be thrown out at the meeting on December 27.
There was worry from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost that college sports might be caught up in this case.
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said, “Today’s joint motion shows our shared commitment to making sure that sports seasons run smoothly throughout the legal proceedings.”
The NCAA said in a statement released Friday that, “given the unprecedented decision from the court system earlier this week, the NCAA has reached a compromise with the States to convert the temporary order of protection into a preliminary injunction through the end of the 2023–24 NCAA championship season.”
It was also said by the NCAA that the plan “is the best outcome over multiple-time transfer student-athletes who want to compete immediately.”
This move makes things clear for student athletes and member schools for the rest of the school year.
Any multiple-time transfer athlete who competes this season will have to follow the same rules for eligibility and use for a season of competition as all other athletes.
Friday’s move came one day after the NCAA said that student athletes who play in games during the 14-week temporary restraining order could lose a season of eligibility.
U.S. District Judge Preston Bailey in West Virginia granted a temporary restraining order against the NCAA on Wednesday. This means that two-time transfers can start playing right away.
The NCAA lets undergraduates move once without missing a year of school, but if they want to play right away after a second transfer, they need a waiver. The NCAA has given waivers to some players in certain situations.
West Virginia as well as six other states sued the NCAA, saying that the way it handled waivers broke federal trade law.
There were a lot of players who didn’t play on Wednesday night. Jalen Cook from LSU, Makhel Mitchell from Little Rock, and others sat out.
The NCAA said in a statement after Bailey’s order, “As a result of today’s decision impacting Division I student-athletes, the Association is not going to enforce the year in residency requirement on multi-time transfers and will begin notifying member schools.”
As a safety measure, the athletic department has kept most of the men’s basketball players who had their waivers refused or were waiting for decisions from being let in.
But on Thursday and Friday, several schools said that their players, who weren’t allowed to play before, would dress and be ready for the weekend’s games.
The coalition’s case was built around the fact that RaeQuan Battle, Noah Farrakhan, and Joe Bamisile, all from VCU, were denied waivers.
The move said that the court should change the restraining order into a preliminary injunction that will stay in place until the case is decided after the parties have talked about it.
The motion said, “The NCAA shall take no action to retaliate” against any participating runner or their school whereas the preliminary injunction is in force. This is because the athlete relied on the terms of the injunction.
In a statement, NCAA spokeswoman Saquandra Heath said that because of the joint motion, the organization “will not enforce the year within residency requirement on multiple-time transfers as well as will begin notifying member schools.”
Heath stated that the proposal “is the best outcome over multiple-time transfer student-athletes who want to compete right away.”
This move makes things clear for student athletes and member schools for the rest of the school year.
Any multiple-time transfer athlete who competes this season will have to follow the same rules for eligibility and use of a season of play as all other athletes.
The motion asks that the meeting on the restraining order, which was supposed to happen on December 27, be canceled.
It also suggests that the case be set for trial no earlier compared to the last day of winter and spring sports competition.