The NCAA has passed many controversial rules in its long history but few have led to as much angst as the one approved over the summer giving athletes five years to play five seasons.
The change has resulted in confusion, lawsuits and the once unthinkable notion of players leaving college, signing with professional teams and then turning around to head back to college.
This week, it led to a very rare lawsuit filed by the NCAA against a state entity, in this case the Ohio governor. (The NCAA sued and won a case against Nevada's governor over due process in enforcement proceedings.)
A quick look at how we got here:
The rule passed in June allows athletes to play five seasons over the span of five years. The clock begins with their full-time enrollment or the academic year following their 19th birthday, whichever occurs first. It was a change from the longstanding tenet that gave athletes five years to complete four seasons of competition with their eligibility clock starting at the time of enrollment, regardless of age.
The move all but eliminated waivers or redshirt years for extended eligibility except for religious missions, maternity leave or active-duty military service. No longer will extensions be considered for athletes who are injured.
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 the Class of '22, many of whom saw their fourth and final year of eligibility end after the last school year, the NCAA opened itself to accusations of unfairness, yes, but also of denying those athletes the ability to earn NIL compensation or even revenue-sharing money from their schools as well as being deprived of an education.
In justifying the move, the NCAA explained more collective harm would be done to incoming high school athletes whose spots could be eliminated if the Class of ‘22 stayed on than to the Class of ’22 itself.
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. An appeals court temporarily halted that judge's order, though that was hardly the end of the confusion.
Earlier this week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed skeptical about the plaintiff's arguments but did not immediately rule.
Players across the country have filed dozens of 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 athletes over the past couple of years. Six weeks into the college football season, a Michigan judge this week cleared the way for two Wolverines players to suit up.
In some cases, a judge not only said the players could come back, but also ordered a brief reopening of the transfer portal, which gave the players a chance to shop around.
According to Boise State'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.
Court cases move slowly and it could be that 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 well into the season, basketball teams are practicing and preparing for the season that begins in earnest on Nov. 2.
Sign up for Top 25 poll alerts here. Visit the Top 25 here and see AP’s full college football coverage here.
FILE - This photo taken with a fisheye lens shows the NCAA logo displayed at mid-court in Philadelphia, March 21, 2013. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum, File)
LEXINGTON, S.C. (AP) — Alex Murdaugh’s defense can do their own tests of unknown DNA found under his wife’s fingernails after she and her son were shot to death in 2021, a judge said Friday, part of an increasingly bitter battle over what evidence can be used in his retrial next year on murder charges.
The DNA belonged to a male who was not a member of the Murdaugh family, and investigators haven't found a match. Although this piece of DNA evidence didn't feature prominently in the first trial in 2023, the defense wants to test it themselves at a private lab. The judge called Friday’s hearing after Murdaugh’s lawyers filed a flurry of motions saying prosecutors were dragging their feet sharing evidence.
Murdaugh, a once-rich and imposing heir to a Southern legal dynasty, is scheduled to face another jury in April over the killings of his wife, Maggie, and younger son, Paul, on their sprawling property in the rural Lowcountry region of South Carolina. While admitting he is a thief, insurance cheat, bad lawyer and longtime opioid addict, the 58-year-old Murdaugh has adamantly denied the killings.
The state Supreme Court overturned his convictions earlier this year, ruling that a court clerk influenced jurors during his trial. The case has captivated the true crime world with its mix of treachery, corruption, power and Southern accents.
Judge Debra McCaslin refused to let the defense test every casing and bullet found in shootings for the past five years in eight surrounding counties involving the same type of gun as one of the weapons used in the killings. The judge called it a fishing expedition.
“If there’s any casings that come through that’s going to match this crime, red flags are going up,” McCaslin said of testing the state has done on all the evidence. “Bells are going to ring and you’re going to know something is going on, and none of that has happened.”
The judge ended her hearing admonishing both sides to be professional and not turn the trial into a circus after a flurry of motions with barbed comments like “facts matter” and “glad to hear it.”
“Y’all need to stop this, OK?” McCaslin told the lawyers at Friday’s hearing. “I don’t want this tit for tat between y’all. Y’all are lawyers — you’re professionals. This is a court. This isn’t a sound bite.”
Murdaugh is currently serving a lengthy prison sentence after pleading guilty to stealing from clients. He wore a suit in court on Friday because the judge ruled that wearing his prison jumpsuit during pretrial hearings could influence future jurors into thinking he's guilty.
Prosecutors said he killed his wife and son because his law firm was close to discovering that he was stealing money, and Murdaugh thought the sympathy generated by the killings would buy him time to fix things.
The judge has moved the trial to another county, saying extensive publicity surrounding the case in Murdaugh’s home county could prevent a fair retrial.
Nothing was said Friday about the most intriguing dispute of all.
Defense lawyers want to know whether prosecutors have called a grand jury to investigate a police officer who was friends with Murdaugh. Defense attorneys said that prosecutors suggested the officer arrived at Murdaugh’s home before other law enforcement officers and could have helped him hide bloody clothes or weapons. Neither clothing nor the guns have been found.
Murdaugh’s lawyers said the evidence is critical because prosecutors argued during his first trial that he acted alone. Prosecutors said no one else was at the home between the killings and Murdaugh’s return from visiting his mother, when he called 911 to report the shootings.
The defense says another person’s involvement would cast doubt on testimony from witnesses who said at Murdaugh’s first murder trial that he acted alone. Murdaugh’s lawyers also demanded any evidence prosecutors have of possible accomplices or a grand jury investigation into them.
In response, prosecutors declined to say whether any evidence exists, citing legal restrictions on disclosing whether a grand jury is meeting. Because of that, the motion was not argued Friday.
FILE - Alex Murdaugh enters the courtroom for a hearing, Aug. 14, 2026, at the Marc H. Westbrook Judicial Center in Lexington, S.C. (Tracy Glantz/Pool Photo via AP, File)
