Career Highlights, Thank you Jesus and everyone who believed in me! youtu.be/8gWig-4g6CM?feature…

Here is the full decision in Tristan Smith v. NCAA, in case you want to read it: heitnerlegal.com/wp-content/… The Court merely cited Sorsby v. NCAA to identify the types of irreparable harm that exist when the NCAA renders an athlete ineligible. As the Court noted, I also represented Malik Benson. Had Benson not received an extra year to play at Oregon, may have not been selected by an NFL team. That's why it's irreparable harm; it cannot be remedied by monetary damages. State courts are not "allowing student-athletes to circumvent longstanding eligibility rules." They are holding the NCAA accountable to its own rules, which the NCAA has and continues to arbitrarily enforce. The solution is simple. Stop selectively enforcing rules. The NCAA gave JUCO players in Diego Pavia's graduating class an extra year of eligibility. It needs to do the same for all former JUCO players. Otherwise, it's an arbitrary exception for one class of athletes without any foundation whatsoever. The same issue will be litigated for players who just graduated and seek to benefit from the expected 5-in-5 rule. It's the exact problem the NCAA keeps confronting. Despite its massive legal war chest, it cannot figure out how to uniformly and equitably apply its rules. Fix your own problems and stop begging Congress to figure it out for you.

The Sorsby decision was never about only one student-athlete. We are already seeing downhill effects in other eligibility cases in which state courts are allowing student-athletes to circumvent longstanding eligibility rules, citing Sorsby outcome as part of the court’s precedent. Another example of why we need Congress to pass the Protect College Sports Act, authorizing the association to apply common sense eligibility rules consistently for all student-athletes and schools, regardless of the state or local court system.

The politics around this bill continue to increase. And there’s now a call for athletes to unilaterally lose more rights. The NCAA is now seeking to have the bill retroactively apply to pending eligibility cases where an injunction was already entered. Chambliss, Sorsby, etc.

Another injunction granted by a state court enjoining an NCAA eligibility decision. The NCAA refused to not court his JUCO seasons as seasons of DI competition. NCAA has a problem on its hands since it granted the Pavia waiver but now refuses to do so going forward.

A tweak to the NCAA’s age-based eligibility proposal

Bombed that one 💣 @CuseFootball | @Cuse | #Cuse

Respect and Love KB !

Appreciate it Condo MMC 😤 #BeatPA

I think we all anticipate litigation on this issue once voted on though, let’s be honest here, the NCAA’s delay in today’s vote is indeed with strategic purpose. I’ve heard from several college athletes whose eligibility expired in 2026 - they AND COACHES are inquiring about the legitimacy of the rule assuming it passes. Coaches have stressed to me that they think it’s fundamentally unfair that those college athletes - the 2026ers - and into those college athletes are negatively impacted by this anticipated vote while others have already benefited and future college athletes will also benefit from 5/5 eligibility.

Love how we always think about the 5th, 6th, and 7th year college athletes as victims, but we completely neglect the 17, 18, and 19 year olds who are losing their opportunities.

A vote is not expected during Friday’s DI Cabinet call regarding the NCAA’s proposed 5-year, age-based eligibility rule. Discussion on the topic is expected to continue with action now anticipated at their next meeting the week of June 22. Overwhelming support remains.

Notable update on the college athlete eligibility front from the latest @SportsLawPod, where plaintiff's counsel in the Patterson class action says he plans to pursue damages for past athletes who didn't get a 5th year of eligibility. The same lawyer who won Diego Pavia's extra season. Part of what the lawsuit seeks is a "5-in-5" eligibility model, instead of the current 4-seasons-in-5-years rules. So if the NCAA adopts that rule, as has been reported, then that part of the lawsuit goes away. But, another part of the lawsuit goes on for past athletes who didn't get that benefit. That's the antitrust claim alleging that the 4-seasons rule wrongly prevented athletes in the class from playing a 5th season and earning NIL money during it. Will the athletes win? It's very much up in the air, and these antitrust claims have split courts. The first part of the argument is whether antitrust law applies at all, and I've authored a recent law review article on this issue laid out in the the table of contents below. The short version: recent court decisions indicate that the law very likely does apply and the NCAA will have to defend the claim on the merits. But that doesn't mean the NCAA necessarily will lose. The parties will have to litigate important issues like the definition of the market, and whether the 4-seasons rule actually harms that market economically. It will take a lot of time and money.