My understanding is that these rulings only apply to players that entered college in 2022. The new 5 in 5 rule excludes these players, and the judges seem to be saying that this exclusion is unfair. Also, although Robbie played in the NBA summer league, he never signed an NBA contract. I’m not sure if that will make a difference in these cases, but I think it should.

Aidan Shaw’s first year playing was in 2022, but I’m not sure if he red shirted in 2021, or if that would even matter.

Last edited by DC Native (Yesterday 8:19 am)

Gwmayhem - isn't that literally how our legal system works now? Forum shopping. What do you think every plaintiff tries to do where possible. For example, the Democrats want their case heard by a Democratic appointed judge or a district that has mostly liberal judges. The Republicans want their case heard by a Republican appointed judge or in  conservative area that has mostly conservative judges. The outcome is often determined more by the judge's biases than the actual law. That's the way it goes now unfortunately.

Last edited by GWRising (Yesterday 12:40 pm)

Gwmayhem wrote:

There may be some truth to this Rising, but this isn't quite apples to apples.  This is the exact same predicament that impacts all 2022 players who wish to play this year.  There's nothing about this that suggests that some players should be allowed to play while others shouldn't.  I don't think this is a political situation where D's are ruling differently than R's.  Maybe I'm being naive about that.

Update: Today in the Wisne case, the District Court order granting preliminary injunction was reversed and the injunction granting class-wide eligibility is now vacated pursuant to the order issued by the Tenth Circuit.  In English, the NCAA wins and Aidan's side loses it's goal of the plaintiffs gaining an extra year of eligibility.  Really unfortunate outcome for Aidan and GW.

 I agree that the different rulings here are a travesty but this is exactly what happens in other contexts. For example, different Federal Court of Appeals may resolve  the same constitutional issue differently so the Supreme Court is asked to rule for uniformity across the country. Here unless this issue somehow gets to the Supreme Court (and that will take months or years making it largely moot for 2022s), there will not be uniformity unfortunately.

Last edited by GWRising (Yesterday 1:48 pm)

I have more of an issue with the ruling overriding the 15-man roster limit. Sets a bad precedent even if the intention is that this is a one-off case for the 2022 class. Maybe Schertz should have left a spot open in case Avila had a chance of being eligible. It's not like he was going to play all 15 guys anyways.

Other coaches pursuing 5 in 5 guys did not go against roster limits, at least to my knowledge. There's a reason why coaches generally leave a spot open given the craziness of the current era - and that was even before rosters went to 15.

Also, the judge is a SLU alum. Certainly no conflict of interest at play here!