Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia denied a request from a D-1 baseball player for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the NCAA related to his eligibility, as well as a preliminary injunction for the same. Dylan Goldstein, an outfielder for his school’s baseball team, sought immediate reinstatement for the 2024-2025 academic year after exhausting his eligibility under current NCAA Bylaws.
Known as the “Five-Year Rule,” NCAA Bylaws prohibit student-athletes from competing in any one sport for more than four seasons in five calendar years. The clock for eligibility typically begins in the student-athlete’s first full-time semester (or quarter) at a collegiate institution, including junior college (JUCO).
JUCO athletes who transfer to a four-year institution have historically received up to three years of eligibility. However, after a December 2024 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granting a TRO to Diego Pavia — a quarterback at a D-1 school who played two years at the JUCO level before playing at the FBS level for three seasons — the NCAA granted a temporary waiver to all former JUCO athletes whose eligibility would have expired in the 2024-2025 academic year, allowing them to play in the 2025-2026 academic year. Details concerning the Pavia matter were discussed on a recent podcast hosted by Troutman Pepper Locke, which can be found at https://www.troutman.com/insights/nil-news-end-of-year-roundup.html.
Similar to Pavia, Goldstein played at the JUCO level and then transferred to a D-1 school where he played during the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 academic years. Goldstein then transferred to another D-1 school and played during the 2023-2024 academic year, which under the Five-Year Rule, would represent Goldstein’s final year of eligibility. Because the temporary waiver issued by the NCAA in response to the Pavia case only applies to student-athletes whose eligibility ran out during the 2024-2025 academic year, that waiver did not apply to Goldstein to allow him to continue playing, because his eligibility actually expired one season prior, during the 2023-2024 academic year.
Regarding the TRO, Goldstein argued that his situation should be treated identically to that of Pavia, and that he, like Pavia, should be granted the waiver to play an additional season. However, the court rejected Goldstein’s arguments, finding, among other reasons, that Goldstein failed to show irreparable harm if the TRO was not granted. A pivotal distinction the court found was the fact that the D-1 2025 baseball season had already begun (and Goldstein had already missed five games), whereas, in Pavia’s case, the football season had not yet started and the school would have been forced to find a replacement quarterback.
Regarding the preliminary injunction, Goldstein argued that the Five-Year Rule and the NCAA’s temporary waiver are arbitrary and anti-competitive in nature, violating antitrust laws. The court also rejected Goldstein’s arguments here, holding that the Sherman Act does not apply to the Five-Year Rule, and thus, Goldstein does not have a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of an anti-trust claim. By holding that the Sherman Act does not apply, the court seemingly ignores its sister court’s holding only a few months earlier in Pavia, which found that the Sherman Act likely does apply.
However, Goldstein has challenged the court’s holding due to potential conflicts, seeking to have the judge vacate his order and recuse himself. Goldstein has argued that Judge Tilman E. Self III, has held himself out on social media as a “NCAA Football Official,” which he did not disclose to the parties prior to hearing the case. Judge Self III has set a hearing date for March 11, to consider Goldstein’s recusal and vacate request.
Although the NCAA may have temporarily staved off an injunction in this case, it is yet to be determined whether Goldstein will get another opportunity to have his argument heard. Regardless, the discrete waivers and the inconsistent application of the NCAA Bylaws will undoubtedly lead to further litigation from other student-athletes seeking eligibility extensions.
