Associate Professor, @BoiseStateCOBE. Ex-lawyer who now writes about college sports law, and finds it neat. I track litigation involving college sports.
Finally ready to announce my winter break project that some of you already know about: I've created a website to keep track of all of the court cases shaping college sports.
Introducing the College Sports Litigation Tracker.
There's some irony in the fact the NCAA has been crying out for consistent, nationwide standards, and now they're celebrating that a nationwide injunction got stayed and replaced with what'll be dozens of different more individual injunctions in a bunch of different states.
More chaos to an already broken system.
Extreme hardship on athletes, not all of whom are NFL players who left training camp to get an extra year of eligibility or transfers.
Many want the same thing as other qualifying 5 in 5 athletes: an extra year at their same school.
Sad.
We think about these cases as being targeted towards "Will they or won't they be eligible to play"... but it's also important to remember that many of these cases are seeking damages as well. A lot of damages.
Full statement to @FOS from Wisne plaintiff attorney Rob Shelquist, who noted not all three of the judges in the Tenth Circuit agreed with the decision to stay the injunction pending appeal:
This. Think about these injunctions as layers of protection. Losing the class action Wisne (Colorado) layer does not remove the state court layers that other athletes have received.
Athletes under injunctions by Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, etc. state courts are still eligible.
Important clarification: Today’s Tenth Circuit order only stays Judge Sweeney’s federal injunction in Wisne. It does not affect separate state-court injunctions, which remain in force unless they are stayed or overturned by the relevant court.