Game Changer: Ohio Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against The NCAA’s Arbitrary Exclusion Of College Athletes From Fifth-Season Eligibility

Since the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in NCAA v. Alston,¹ courts have grown increasingly willing to scrutinize the NCAA’s exercise of power over student-athletes. On July 9, 2026, a Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas issued one of the most significant post-Alston rulings to date, granting a preliminary injunction for twenty-four college basketball players denied a fifth season of eligibility.² In Borovicanin et al. v. NCAA, the court found the NCAA’s selective application of its own eligibility rules “arbitrary and capricious,” and concluded that the NCAA “more resembles a highly profitable professional sports league” than the voluntary academic association it claims to be. The ruling is a significant development for athletes and families who believe they have been unfairly denied eligibility under the NCAA’s evolving rules.

The Rule Change—and Who It Left Behind

For nearly fifty years, NCAA rules limited Division I athletes to four seasons of competition within a five-year eligibility window. On June 23, 2026, the NCAA overhauled this framework by implementing a continuous, five-year eligibility clock that automatically triggers either: (1) at full-time enrollment at a college or university; or (2) at the start of the academic year following an athlete's 19th birthday—effectively allowing up to five years of competition without traditional redshirting. However, under the transition guidelines for the 2026-27 academic year, the NCAA applies whichever model is “most beneficial to the student-athlete.”³

For many athletes who graduated high school in 2022 and have already played four consecutive seasons, the new rule does not grant an automatic fifth year of competition because their five-year eligibility clock expires at the end of the 2026-27 season, regardless of which model is used. This reality caught several athletes by surprise after they entered the NCAA’s Transfer Portal expecting the rule change to grant them an extra season, while the new framework simultaneously streamlined paths for some athletes with prior professional experience to utilize their own five-year windows.

Particular Concern Hockey Players

Although Borovicanin involves basketball athletes, the same continuous five-year eligibility clock has real consequences for other sports—particularly men’s ice hockey. Indeed, before the rule change’s adoption the rule’s “one-size-fits-all” approach drew fierce, unified opposition from the highest echelons of the hockey community. NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman publicly criticized the initial proposals, warning against uniform athletic mandates that unfairly disadvantage specialized sports like hockey.⁴ This resistance catalyzed a rare moment of complete alignment across the sport: the NHL, the NHL Players’ Association (NHLPA), USA Hockey, College Hockey Inc., and the Canadian Hockey League (CHL) collectively lobbied the NCAA to amend the rule's initial trigger mechanisms, arguing that standard collegiate timelines fundamentally clash with the sport’s deeply entrenched multi-year junior development pipeline.

Because hockey prospects routinely spend extra seasons in leagues like the USHL or BCHL to mature physically before college, staying in juniors past age nineteen now costs eligibility for every additional season played. And because the new framework eliminates traditional redshirt and medical hardship waivers, hockey players—like the Borovicanin plaintiffs—may face pressure to enroll before they are ready, with little recourse if injured or buried on a deep roster.

The Athletes’ Legal Theory

The Borovicanin athletes sued one day after the rule change was announced, seeking emergency relief. Their central claim was breach of contract: as intended third-party beneficiaries of the NCAA’s Bylaws and Division I Manual, they alleged the NCAA breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by violating its own commitment to fairness, refusing to exercise waiver discretion for the 2022 class while granting relief to former professional players, and applying its rules inconsistently.⁵

Why the Court Sided with the Athletes

To obtain a preliminary injunction under Ohio law, the athletes had to show a likelihood of success, irreparable harm, no unjustifiable harm to third parties, and that the public interest favored relief—all by clear and convincing evidence. The court found the athletes likely to succeed on their contract claim, holding the NCAA Manual and Bylaws are “clearly intended to benefit student-athletes.” It found the rule change arbitrary and capricious: pre-2022 graduates received COVID waivers for a fifth season without redshirting, post-2022 graduates get the fifth season automatically, and 2022 graduates who played professionally can play in 2026-27—but those who played minimal, uncompensated minutes cannot. The court also invoked Alston’s finding that the NCAA “accepts that its members collectively enjoy monopsony power in the market for student-athlete services” and that athletes “have nowhere else to sell their labor.”

The court also found the athletes would suffer irreparable harm—loss of a platform like March Madness, which drew 10.9 million average viewers in 2026 and offers a unique audition for professional leagues—and that no third parties would be unjustifiably harmed, since coaches confirmed open roster spots and the athletes sought only a chance to compete for them, not a guaranteed spot.

On public interest, the court was openly skeptical of the NCAA’s defense that it is merely a “voluntary membership organization” whose rules are beyond judicial review—rejecting that argument much as Alston did. The court was especially troubled by a letter the NCAA introduced at the hearing (Exhibit 7), which criticized athletes for “rushing to the courthouse,” warned coaches and athletics officials against supporting eligibility lawsuits, and threatened to “hold accountable” institutions that did not enforce NCAA rules. The court called these statements “thinly veiled threats,” citing Smith v. NCAA ^₆ for the view that the public interest favors fair competition and equitable treatment of college athletes—a sign that courts are increasingly unwilling to defer to the NCAA’s self-characterization as a benign, voluntary association.

What the Ruling Does (and Doesn’t Do)

The injunction applies only to the breach of contract claim (not the CSPA claim), and only to the named plaintiffs; it does not automatically extend to other similarly situated athletes. It enjoined the NCAA from enforcing Bylaw 12.6 and the Transfer Portal requirements against these plaintiffs, but it is a preliminary ruling on a limited record, not a final judgment; the NCAA called no witnesses, a $200,000 bond was required, and the case now proceeds to discovery ahead of an August 4, 2026 case management conference.

Key Takeaways for Athletes and Families

The Borovicanin decision offers several lessons for athletes and families who believe they have been unfairly denied eligibility:

1. Arbitrary or Inconsistent Rules Are Challengeable. Where the NCAA singles out a discrete class of athletes for exclusion while granting comparable benefits to others, affected athletes may have a viable claim.
2. Third-Party Beneficiary Theories Work. Athletes need not have a direct contract with the NCAA—the Bylaws and Manual create obligations enforceable through the NCAA’s agreements with member institutions.
3. The NCAA’s Defenses Are Losing Force. Courts are increasingly skeptical of the NCAA’s “voluntary association” defense post-Alston, and the NCAA’s efforts to discourage lawsuits (like the Exhibit 7 letter) may undermine its credibility rather than deter litigation.
4. Time Is of the Essence. Roster deadlines, Transfer Portal windows, and academic calendars do not wait – athletes and families should consult experienced counsel promptly.
5. Hockey Families May Face Similar Exposure. The same continuous eligibility clock and loss of redshirt and medical hardship protections fall particularly hard on men’s ice hockey, given its junior-to-college development pipeline—raising claims analogous to those recognized in

* * *

The law governing NCAA eligibility challenges is complex and rapidly evolving, and the viability of any claim depends on the specific facts involved. Athletes and families considering legal action should seek guidance from experienced sports counsel.

Footnotes

1. NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021).

2. Borovicanin et al. v. NCAA, Case No. A2603352 (Hamilton Cnty. Ct. Com. Pl., Ohio, July 9, 2026) (Wagner, J.).

3. https://www.ncaa.org/eligibility-center/division-i-age-based-eligibility-rules/

4. https://apnews.com/article/nhl-ncaa-eligibility-rules-183ab2ba43edbb3908280bca99dccdcb#

5. A separate claim under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act was not preliminarily enforced because it was insufficiently briefed.

6. Smith v. NCAA, Case No. 2026-CP-39-00073 (S.C. Ct. Com. Pl., 13th Cir., June 12, 2026).