What’s going on in the Big 12 and beyond? I expand and explain every Sunday in Postscripts at Heartland College Sports, your home for independent Big 12 coverage.
The NCAA Loses in the Most Predictable Way
While everyone was slapping each other on the back for saving the Protect College Sports Act from oblivion, a federal judge in Colorado made the NCAA’s life a whole lot worse — and in the most predictable way possible.
Judge Charlotte Sweeney of the U.S. District Court of Colorado granted a class-wide preliminary injunction that required the NCAA to declare eligible all high school class of 2022 athletes who exhausted four seasons of eligibility this spring.
In other words, for those who played for four years and didn’t use their redshirt, the injunction allows them — for now — to play in 2026-27. This is exactly what the NCAA didn’t want, and they intend to fight it. But they could have avoided the whole thing by being logical about its new age-based eligibility rule.
I know — logic and the NCAA go together like oil and water.
The NCAA’s age-based eligibility rule, the so-called “five-for-five” rule, is a good rule. It eliminates the redshirts except in rare cases and gives student-athletes a five-year runway to complete. It’s much cleaner than the previous rules and should eliminate many of the extraneous waivers that have dogged the NCAA for years.
The entity must implement the rule, though. It faced a choice this spring, knowing its own track record. The student-athletes who played four years without a redshirt, the Class of 2022, would have had a case to make that the new rule would harm them.
As I wrote in this space at the time, the NCAA could have — and should have — offered those student-athletes a one-year waiver to play one more year, if they wanted to. Everyone could have figured out the scholarship and revenue-share logistics. It would have eliminated 90% of the lawsuits they’re facing now and allowed them to phase in the rule and save millions in legal fees.
The NCAA did not do that. They learned nothing from the RaeQuan Battle case. So here we are.
The case isn’t over, of course. The NCAA will appeal, and it will go back to court again. It’s not settled. It will get dragged out. But maybe that was the point?
When it comes to football, most of the Class of 2022 that ran out of eligibility have moved on. Teams have allocated all their scholarships. There are a few players exploring options that may not exist. Student-athletes in winter and spring sports may have a better shot at landing a spot. But it will be tough if schools must work within the current limits.
Are we conspiracy-minded enough to believe that the NCAA likely knew this would happen and decided to rope-a-dope the whole class? The NCAA can’t do anything without getting sued. Maybe they’re OK with getting sued, spending millions in legal fees and taking the PR hit all in the name of making it impossible for these student-athletes to come back regardless of the outcome? If so, then it’s a level of duplicity that should give every student-athlete pause.
Charlie Baker Reaction
That’s probably too much of an intuitive leap. But then I read this quote by Charlie Baker, who runs the NCAA. And it made me think twice.
Baker was trying to get the PCSA passed — or at least get it through the Senate. Through the NCAA PR account on X (formerly Twitter), he shared this statement. It was also in response to the ruling in Colorado.
“Without targeted intervention from Congress, college sports cannot set nationwide rules everyone can play by, and without Congress, failed professionals will continue to use college sports as a fallback option — robbing the next class of young athletes of college scholarships. It is long past time leaders across college sports call for the immediate passage of the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act — a bill supported by student-athlete leaders, Democrats, Republicans and NCAA schools from all three divisions. Today’s rulings and the chaos they bring to college sports are exactly why it’s time to pass this bill.”
Baker used the word “failed professionals.” I think we can agree that professional athletes shouldn’t be playing college sports. That’s what the new age-based rule is designed to help prevent. But most of the student-athletes involved in these suits are not failed professionals. With two words, Baker insulted them in a way that no age-based rule could. He lumped them in with the Charles Bediakos of the world. He minimized their contributions to their colleges, careers, and degrees.
What’s the ad campaign? Something like, “Most of our student-athletes go pro in something other than sports?” But, no, now they’re “failed professionals.”
Baker and the NCAA’s trust in Congress is a mistake. It’s a body that gets little done, and if that bill passes the Senate, the House is likely to shred it. The NCAA’s unwillingness to govern itself is the root of this. The failure goes back years, beyond Baker’s takeover. But by putting all his eggs in one regulatory basket, he’ll end up another leadership failure.
The student-athletes aren’t going to take it. Stanford is unionizing. So is Oregon State. By ignoring direct dealings with student-athletes, the NCAA is doing more long-term damage than any revenue-sharing ever could. Once they finally win, the NCAA will be nothing more than an empty office in Indianapolis. And it will be Baker’s fault for trusting others to do what he could have done himself.
The NCAA continues to do the most predictably dumb things. But Baker’s comment this week took things to an insulting level that will only stoke student-athletes — and those who represent them — with more fuel to upend the system.
And no legislation will protect the NCAA from that.
