How legal challenges by college basketball players could lead to 11th hour transfer portal chaos

The battle between the NCAA and college basketball players seeking a fifth season of eligibility for the 2026-27 season is heating up into a high-stakes legal showdown that could alter the roster outlook for teams across the sport.

At issue is whether players who used their fourth season of eligibility during the 2025-26 campaign should be included under the NCAA’s new five-year eligibility model that officially takes effect on Aug. 1. 

A July 9 injunction granted by a state court judge in Ohio has already opened the door for 15 men’s college basketball players to get back on the court for a fifth season in 2026-27. Their argument is simple: if all players henceforth will be able to play five seasons, they believe the same logic should apply to them. Among those involved in the Ohio case are Xavier forward Filip Borovicanin, who started 32 games and averaged 10.8 points per game for the Musketeers this past season.

Cincinnati’s first team under new coach Jerrod Calhoun will also benefit immensely if the Ohio injunction stands. MJ Collins, who was Calhoun’s leading scorer at Utah State last season, is part of the Ohio case and is now on track to play for the Bearcats in 2026-27 because of the injunction.

However, the NCAA and its top conferences remain opposed to extended eligibility for players who were seniors this past season, arguing that those players exhausted their eligibility under the NCAA rules that were in place during their final season of play. They have doubled down on their position in the wake of the Ohio injunction and similar forthcoming lawsuits at the state and federal levels.

“Engaging in such retroactive applicability would have detrimental consequences for member institutions in our conferences, for student-athletes, and for college sports in general,” reads a joint statement from the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC. “Allowing these student-athletes to stay and compete for an additional fifth year that their schools’ athletic departments did not previously plan for would create significant roster instability. These student-athletes would potentially take roster spots from individuals to whom the spots were previously promised. In particular, there would be detrimental consequences for incoming student-athletes.”

Here is what you need to know about where things stand.

How will this impact college basketball?

If the NCAA and the power conferences are unsuccessful in stemming the early momentum of the legal challenge, college basketball could be flooded with a late wave of free agents. Though the portal is closed, that likely won’t be enough to stop players who may gain an additional season of eligibility through a court ruling from transferring. 

The judge in the state-level case in Ohio, Christopher Wagner, opened the door for impacted players to enter the portal. For programs still seeking to round out their rosters, this could be an 11th hour gold rush on the eve of the fall semester.

Gonzaga just lost its projected starting point guard Mario Saint-Supery, who signed a lucrative international contract. Programs like LSU and St. John’s are also navigating eligibility concerns with a handful of players that could leave them needing to make late additions.

While many of the top fourth-year players from this past season have already taken critical steps toward playing in the NBA as draft picks or undrafted free agents, others have not.

Hitting the courts

Potential players involved in litigation seeking eligibility to play in 2026-27. The number involved only figures to increase if more legal traction is found. Schools listed denote where the player was in 2025-26 and not necessarily where they might play in 2026-27 if eligible.

More state cases coming

The Ohio case is where the players have found an early foothold. But it was just the start. Prominent college sports attorney Darren Heitner and fellow lawyer Ryan Downton are bringing a series of cases at the state level featuring plaintiffs lobbying for an additional season of eligibility. Notably, suits filed in Georgia and Tennessee last week – in the same vein as the Ohio lawsuit also led by Heitner and Downton – seek injunctions that would allow potential impact players another year to compete.

More big names are coming to the pool of suing players in the days ahead as Heitner and Downton prepare to file eligibility lawsuits in states like California and North Carolina. Former New Mexico and UCLA point guard Donovan Dent is expected to be among those involved after he played his fourth season in 2025-26.

“These athletes played 4 seasons against 5th/6th-year competitors enabled by COVID waivers and medicals,” Heitner posted to his X account Sunday. “Now the NCAA’s new 5-for-5 model excludes them while granting the benefit to others. The inequity is glaring.”

A federal case is looming

The series of state cases represents a piecemeal approach with rulings that apply specifically to those involved. But a federal class action lawsuit filed in a Colorado U.S. District court that will be overseen by Judge Charlotte Sweeney could have an impact on the overall picture, depending on how heavy-handed Sweeney is and how quickly she acts.

It’s a legal case led by national law firm Cuneo Gilbert Flannery & LaDuca that involves Minnesota leading scorer Cade Tyson and Northern Colorado star Brock Wisne, who averaged 16.9 points per game last season.

Wisne et al v. National Collegiate Athletic Association follows the playbook of the state lawsuits alleging that the NCAA’s new rules “unlawfully strip” players who used their fourth season of eligibility in 2026 of “earning potential, educational advancement, and athletic career opportunities.”

“These athletes aren’t asking for special treatment,” said Rob Shelquist, a partner at Cuneo Gilbert Flannery & LaDuca. “They’re asking to not be singled out and excluded from the NCAA’s eligibility framework.”

The suit seeks “declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and class-wide remedies.”

Since any judicial directive in the Wisne vs. NCAA case will be coming from a federal judge, it’s possible there would be a ripple effect trickling down to the state cases that are adjudicating the same issues. However, if the federal judge’s early actions are merely “temporary” or “preliminary,” they won’t necessarily establish immediate national precedents. 

The legal system does not move quickly, and the players involved don’t need to worry about how the cases conclude 1-2 years down the line. They just need temporary relief in order to get eligible for one more season. In Ohio, they’ve already scored that victory.

Another case to watch is Patterson vs. NCAA, which is a federal lawsuit in Tennessee headlined by former Vanderbilt linebacker Langston Patterson. It addresses similar issues to those at stake in the recent series of basketball-centric cases.

NCAA, conferences fighting five-year rule 

The NCAA’s new age-based eligibility model itself is not the primary issue. Rather, it’s what the plaintiffs in these cases view as its exclusionary nature toward them. However, the NCAA and its top conferences are not backing down in their assertion that players who were seniors in 2026 are not covered by the new eligibility model.

In the wake of the Ohio court’s ruling for an injunction, the NCAA released a statement condemning the decision as “wrong” and insisting that it will “immediately seek all avenues for reversal, including a stay of the court’s order pending appeal.”

“The effect of this ruling will be to take away valuable participation opportunities from student-athletes who are eligible to compete, in favor of those who have already received exactly the number of seasons of competition they expected,” the NCAA statement said.

The NCAA is also using this battle as a cry for help to Congress. As the fate of the potentially seismic Protect College Sports Act hangs in the balance in Washington D.C., protracted legal battles only serve to further the NCAA’s position that federal legislation is needed to bring stability to the collegiate sports landscape.

“While we will seek to overturn this ruling, it is now apparent that Congress must act swiftly to restore stability, uniformity, and fair competition in college athletics,” the NCAA said in a statement after the Ohio judge granted the injunction in that case.