An NFL player coming back to college? Yes, it could happen. Here's why

Sport

An NFL player coming back to college? Yes, it could happen. Here's why

2026-08-25 05:08 Last Updated At：05:10

These used to be among the fundamental facts about going to college in America: College lasts four years. And though that timeline had been flexible when it comes to sports, there was never much debate over the notion that once a player moved on to the pros their days as a college athlete were over.

A recent rule passed by the NCAA has resulted in confusion, lawsuits and the once-unthinkable notion of players leaving college, signing with professional teams and now leaving those teams to head back to college.

Among this week's headline grabbers are Dae’Quan Wright, an undrafted tight end out of Ole Miss who had tryouts with the Eagles and Browns over the summer, but now has a deal in place to play this season at Ole Miss' rival in the Southeastern Conference, No. 11 LSU.

Wright is among a number of college athletes who have sued for the right to return to college to play as the start of both the college football and NFL seasons approach. A quick look at how we got here:

This part happened in June, and by the NCAA's plodding standards, it happened quite fast.

The rule now allows athletes to play five seasons over the span of five years. Most college athletes now see the “clock” start on their eligibility either when they enroll full-time in college or at the start of the regular school year immediately following their 19th birthday, whichever comes first.

The rule itself isn't all that outlandish. A lot of players were taking redshirt years (and getting extensions due to the pandemic) to prolong their eligibility to five, six, seven years and more, so putting some guardrails around it made some sense.

But the NCAA's decision to start applying this new rule to athletes who graduated high school in 2023 is what caused the chaos. By not including those from the Class of '22, many of whom saw their fourth and final year of eligibility end after last school year, they opened themselves up to trouble.

The members of the Class of ‘22 are arguing they’re being deprived of education and potential NIL financial benefits by being excluded from the rule.

Meanwhile, college athletes are suddenly looking at unexpected competition for roster spots and playing time coming from a class of players they thought would be gone this season. And teams, most of which have locked in their football rosters, are seeing a potential influx of talent they didn't expect.

A basketball player named Brock Wisne filed a federal class-action lawsuit, saying the NCAA violated antitrust law by excluding that Class of 2022 from the new rule. A judge in Denver ruled in favor of Wisne, opening the door for everyone in the class to come back to college, but only to their former college. The judge left NCAA transfer portal rules in tact, meaning the players couldn't come back, enter the (currently closed) portal and find a new school.

An appeals court last Friday temporarily halted that judge's order, though that was hardly the end of the confusion.

Despite the federal court ruling, players across the country have filed lawsuits in state courts and many judges granted orders allowing them to come back to school. This “find a local judge” approach has generally been successful for the athlete over the past couple of years.

In some cases — incluidng the case involving Wright in Louisiana — a judge not only said the players could come back, but also ordered a week-long reopening of the transfer portal, which gave the players a chance to shop around. Side note about Wright's potential move from Ole Miss to LSU: The SEC forbids moves within the conference such as that one, unless they come when the transfer portal is open, which in football is January. There is no clarity on how the ruling impacts the SEC rule.

Sam Ehrlich, a former lawyer who follows college sports litigation at Boise State, said the state lawsuits were filed “just in case” the federal order got overturned. It did, and that federal case had no bearing on the various state lawsuits.

According to Ehrlich's College Sports Litigation Tracker, at least 26 eligibility cases have been filed in state and county courts across the U.S. In at least 10 of those, judges have granted a restraining order or injunction favoring the players. In only one — involving basketball player Filip Borovicanin — has an appeals court overturned the initial decision, leading to a favorable outcome for the NCAA.

Court cases move slowly, and in the Wisne case, odds are nothing will be final until long after football (and maybe basketball and baseball) season is over and there's no relief left to give to the impacted players.

While football teams are madly scrambling, trying to make sense of it all, basketball teams are also feeling some pressure. Teams are allowed to start practice on Sept. 25. A notable instance of where confusion might set in is Gonzaga, which recruited two players from that Class of '22 who (presumably) had their eligibility restored.

One, however, is Javon Bennett, who was part of the Borovicanin lawsuit that an Ohio court overturned. The other is Chauncey Wiggins, who comes from Florida State and was part of a case in Georgia, where the ruling favorable to the players remains in force.

Supreme Court clears the way for Trump mail voting order in advance of midterms

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump to move ahead with his executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much his administration can implement before the fast-approaching midterm elections.

The decision appears to leave room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump's order. The U.S. Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes with some states beginning to send mail ballots to voters in just a few weeks.

The Supreme Court's three liberal-leaning justices dissented from the unsigned order.

Mail balloting has long been a favorite target for Trump, who has claimed that it breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and his own use of the voting method.

The case could be one of multiple voting-related challenges before the justices. The Justice Department had filed an emergency appeal asking the high court to allow work on implementing the changes before the midterms.

Trump's executive order, signed in March, calls on his administration to create lists of eligible voters and orders the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists.

Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia sued to block the order. They argued that the Constitution gives states and Congress the power to run elections, and Trump’s changes could lead to chaos and partisan abuse.

“The consequences of allowing such transformative changes to take effect so close to this fall’s elections would be extreme,” attorneys for the states wrote. Dozens of state and local election officials weighed in, asking the justices to leave the order frozen while election preparations are already underway.

A judge in Massachusetts blocked the plan for the midterm elections in those states. An appeals court upheld her decision. She later granted a second order blocking it nationwide.

The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court on procedural grounds in late July, arguing that the states sued too soon. They also pointed to another ruling out of Washington, where a judge allowed Trump’s order to proceed. An appeals court backed that decision, while still leaving room for future court action if the changes are implemented.

Federal attorneys argued that the Massachusetts order “blocks the government’s ability to finalize and implement the President’s proposed policies to promote election integrity for the upcoming federal elections in November.”

A dozen Republican-leaning states supported the federal government in their own appeal before the high court, saying states would have input on the final voter lists.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled against Trump-backed arguments on mail-in ballots, finding in June that states can count ballots that arrive after Election Day. That case was decided after full briefing and arguments, rather than on the court’s emergency docket.

Trump has blamed mail voting — without credible evidence — for his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. He has promoted the proposed changes in his executive order as safeguards to keep non-U.S. citizens from voting.

He’s also repeatedly pressed for the passage of the legislation that requires proof of citizenship to vote. Noncitizen voting has been shown to be rare, and is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.

Using mail ballots has become increasingly popular with voters of both parties, with about 30% of all ballots cast that way during the 2024 presidential election, according to federal data. The process also is secure. A 2025 Brookings Institution study found only about four cases of fraud out of every 10 million mail ballots cast.