how would there even be a case to take this to federal court?
I hope he gets approved, he's our last hope, but the rule is you can only play in 4 games. the rule doesn't say if you play in 5 games and it's a really cool story we'll still give you an extra year of eligibility
Caution-- long post ahead. The fed judge who issued the injunction on the one time transfer rule pretty much explained it, and the rationale would apply to the 5 yr rule too. Judge said the one time transfer rule was an unreasonable restraint on trade and an anti trust violation. The funniest part of the injunction is the judge didn't just grant it, he also added his two cents and told the ncaa to go f#ck itself, saying anyone who challenges the ncaa one time transfer rule in court will likely win.
IMO the same reasoning would apply to the five year eligibility rule if challenged. It's safe to say that in general, the longer a college player plays, the higher his NIL value tends to go. In other words, a fifth year WR tends to have higher NIL value than a first year WR. So for a college player, it's generally in his financial interest to extend his college career as long as possible.
The problem with the five year rule is that it is largely out of the players control. In other words, he may want to redshirt his first season and learn the offense so that he has four productive years in college, and can maximize his NIL value in his final year of eligibility. Let's say a forward thinking player knows this and tries to plan for that from the beginning of his college career. What happens if the coach screws him over?
Take Jacurri Brown as an example. He requested a red shirt to preserve his eligibility in order to have a chance at winning the starting job in 2025. He knew he needed to stay in college as long as possible to learn the QB well enough to have a shot at eventually getting the starting job. But let's say Cristobal was a vindicate prick and he didn't like that Brown requested a RS in 2023, so he sends him out to kneel the ball at the end of the game five times. Brown obviously can't refuse to take the field, and the HC burned his redshirt even though Brown specifically said he wanted to preserve his eligibility. The coach may have ruined his earning potential (NIL changed everything, this is basically a job now).
The 5 yr rule is also arbitrary and not tied to anything special, so the ncaa can't claim five years is their bright line for determining amateur v professional status. That's how you end up with senior citizens like Cam Mccormick still being eligible after seven or eight years.
You could have a player that took one snap in five blowout games in four seasons, and those 20 snaps would mean he's used up all his eligibility, while another player could be a starter and play four full games in one season and then every game in 3 seasons, and he's still eligible to play a fifth year.
The ncaa can try to argue that it takes all that into account, which is why it offers an appeal process, and it considers the individual circumstances of each player. I think a federal court would laugh at that defense and say there is too much money on the line for players to be held hostage by the ncaa, sometimes for months, while it secretly deliberates whether it will grant an extra year of eligibility. Take a player like Taulia, he doesn't have a NFL future but a college team might be willing to give him 2 million for a year of football... and 2 snaps could be the difference between being a multimillionaire or being a manager at Best Buy (I guess technically he could do both if really wanted to get employee discounts for his Roomba collection).
Eventually a player will challenge the 5 year rule in fed court (not Taulia - the ncaa knows his family has the resources to hire top lawyers so it will grant his waiver). The court will issue an injunction like it did in the one year transfer case, and the ncaa will scramble to come up with different eligibility rule, possibly based on total snaps or number of snaps in a season so that it can claim it has taken the mystery out of its decision making. Having it based on the number of plays in total rather than dependent on year might be less controversial, but either way Taulia is likely playing college ball in 2024.
and we know the rest.
.