Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Five college football players from power-conference schools asked a federal judge on Monday for a preliminary injunction barring them from playing for a fifth year next season.
All five have competed in four seasons in four years without redshirting. They are linebacker Langston Patterson, kicker Nathaniel Wakos and tight end Lance Mason at Vanderbilt; long snapper Nick Levy at Wisconsin; and long snapper Kevin Gallick nebraska,
US District Judge William L. Campbell granted the injunction almost a year ago allowing Diego Pavia to play this season. Pavia finished as Heisman Trophy runner-up Vanderbilt To a 10-2 record.
Patterson testified that he asked about taking a redshirt season as a freshman and was told he was too valuable. The team captain, who completed his graduation three days earlier, said he knew during Vanderbilt’s fifth game of the season on September 27 that he would not be able to take a redshirt season.
The players are part of a lawsuit seeking class action status alleging NCAA Violates US antitrust laws with its redshirt rule for athletes during five seasons of eligibility. The lawsuit includes seven other named plaintiffs and potentially thousands of current and former NCAA football, baseball and tennis players.
Patterson, the lead plaintiff in that lawsuit, also testified that he was asked about the status of the lawsuit during an end-of-year meeting with Vanderbilt’s general manager and his position coach.
Without an injunction, Patterson said Vanderbilt would open the transfer portal on Jan. 2 to replace him with a linebacker with two years of experience at the same level. Southeastern Conference Program. Levi also testified to this wisconsin If no decision is reached before the portal opens then we will be on the lookout for help.
Another season gives these five players more practice and playing time while earning graduate degrees as well as the opportunity to attract the attention of more NFL scouts. Mason monitored the hearing from a distance.
The federal judge raised questions about the potential “ripple effect” if the injunction was approved. The NCAA has faced several lawsuits since the Pavia injunction over eligibility rules.
Attorney Ryan Downton told the judge that the injunction covers five specific players ahead of the upcoming transfer portal. Downton also said that courts never rule in a vacuum.
“The Pavia decision gave players something to point to, just like the Alston decision and the O’Bannon decision and the House agreement,” Downton said after the hearing. “What I said there is that the NCAA has been found to be a serial violator of antitrust law, and whether the court grants or denies a preliminary injunction will not change that.”
Attorney Taylor Askew, arguing for the NCAA, said the injunction request came from players who knew they were playing their final season and noted the lawsuit was filed in July before it was filed in September.
Askew also said that the Sherman Act only limits unfair restrictions on competition and said that the only thing that makes eligibility rules unfair is that it affects players.
“If you have eligibility rules, no one would be eligible,” Askew told the judge.
The commissioners of the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern Conference filed a declaration Saturday asking the judge to uphold the NCAA’s eligibility rules, which they said are based on the principle that athletics are an integral part of the educational experience in college.
According to the commissioners’ announcement, “These rule changes could impact that fundamental principle and deprive high school student-athletes of the opportunity to reap the benefits of athletic participation.”
,
AP Sports: https://apnews.com/sports