2026 Off-Season Tracker

[Let'sGoZips94]

 

[LZIp]

How does anyone keep up with this crap

[zippy5]

Just now, LZIp said:

How does anyone keep up with this crap

Seriously. I have no idea what is even being litigated anymore to know which stay or injunction even means at this point 

[NWAkron]

38 minutes ago, LZIp said:

How does anyone keep up with this crap

the Wisne case is nationwide injuction for a certain class of athletes.  Because it is federal it takes precedent over the ohio judges' decisions.    however, the Wisne case is limited to a select class of athletes:

 

Who it covers: Division I athletes who began competing in 2022–23 and finished four seasons by 2025–26.

What it does: Prevents the NCAA from denying this specific group a fifth year of eligibility under new transition/age rules.

Key limitations: It does not override general transfer portal windows, age caps over 24, professional contract restrictions, or roster/revenue limits. 

 

Evan isn't transferring.  Amani and Tavari weren't in the portal (right?) so they may be out of luck.

 

[kreed5120]

All I know is the real winners with all this litigation is attorneys and their billable hours.

[Zips1991]

2 hours ago, NWAkron said:

the Wisne case is nationwide injuction for a certain class of athletes.  Because it is federal it takes precedent over the ohio judges' decisions.    however, the Wisne case is limited to a select class of athletes:

 

Who it covers: Division I athletes who began competing in 2022–23 and finished four seasons by 2025–26.

What it does: Prevents the NCAA from denying this specific group a fifth year of eligibility under new transition/age rules.

Key limitations: It does not override general transfer portal windows, age caps over 24, professional contract restrictions, or roster/revenue limits. 

 

Evan isn't transferring.  Amani and Tavari weren't in the portal (right?) so they may be out of luck.

 

 

 

But could Amani, in theory, return to Akron since he never entered the portal?

[zippy5]

35 minutes ago, Zips1991 said:

But could Amani, in theory, return to Akron since he never entered the portal?

I think the answer at the moment is no, because he signed a professional contract. But things change every day. Who knows

[kreed5120]

11 hours ago, zippy5 said:

I think the answer at the moment is no, because he signed a professional contract. But things change every day. Who knows

 

Louisville signed a G League player named London Johnson so I'm not going to pretend to know the rules these days. We're at our roster limit though so we can't sign anymore players anyways.

[Hilltopper]

13 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

All I know is the real winners with all this litigation is attorneys and their billable hours.

Hey, you know they all have big house payments! Lol

[kreed5120]

1 minute ago, Hilltopper said:

Hey, you know they all have big house payments! Lol

 

Maybe Akron can expand it's law school to add some specialities in NCAA and NIL litigation. It seems to be a growing segment /s

[zippy5]

1 hour ago, kreed5120 said:

 

Louisville signed a G League player named London Johnson so I'm not going to pretend to know the rules these days. We're at our roster limit though so we can't sign anymore players anyways.

Apparently he was a special case because he enrolled in a professional development program before ever going to college. This stuff is so dumb lol

[Let'sGoZips94]

22 minutes ago, zippy5 said:

Apparently he was a special case because he is going to Louisville (not a mid major). This stuff is so dumb lol

 

FIFY

[Let'sGoZips94]

 

 

[Let'sGoZips94]

Apparently a similar blanket ruling has occurred in NY. 

[Let'sGoZips94]

Will Wade is to morals as Kent is to literacy.

Edited Thursday at 01:16 PM by Let'sGoZips94

[NWAkron]

1 hour ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

Will Wade is to morals as Kent is to literacy.

These State court judges are the worst people to decide these issues.  They will always come down on the side of the local universities.

[LZIp]

This is all so stupid.

 

[Let'sGoZips94]

6 minutes ago, LZIp said:

This is all so stupid.

 

 

They can all go to Kent (Hell).

[NWAkron]

39 minutes ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

 

They can all go to Kent (Hell).

I likely side with the NCAA on this.  They have set down some very clear rules that everyone can follow.  Life isn't always fair.  These players complain that they didn't get the years that covid players did.  Well, there were many schools and players that lost quite a bit because of 2020.  

[Let'sGoZips94]

45 minutes ago, NWAkron said:

I likely side with the NCAA on this.  They have set down some very clear rules that everyone can follow.  Life isn't always fair.  These players complain that they didn't get the years that covid players did.  Well, there were many schools and players that lost quite a bit because of 2020.  

 

Siding with the NCAA will put you on the wrong side of history 9.9 times out of 10 - this is not one of the .1 times. They made their bed with the ridiculous COVID crap and continue to shift the goal posts to enrich themselves/power conference schools. They've created the Wild West we're experiencing. Who are they to not retroactively apply the 5-in-5 rule for one class (2021 got screwed, too), which would allow a whole class of athletes to earn another year of NIL/athletics experience? These smokey back room bastards will tilt the playing field however they need to for their pockets to be lined more, but will look you dead in the eyes and say they're for an equal playing field with a structured set of rules. I'm tired of their egotistical, self-enriching, arbitrary BS. Screw them. 

 

Edit: Here is the NCAA's press release on the age-based model from June 23, 2026. 

 

Student-athletes who used their final season of competition (under previous rules) during 2025-26.

- Which eligibility rules apply: No additional eligibility.

 

Current student-athletes with eligibility remaining (under previous rules) after the 2025-26 academic year.

- Which eligibility rules apply: Either the previous rules OR the new age-based model, whichever is most beneficial to the student-athlete.

 

Prospects who initially enroll full time at any college or university during 2026-27.

- Which eligibility rules apply: Either the previous rules OR the new age-based model, whichever is most beneficial to the student-athlete. 

 

Prospects who initially enroll full time at any college or university in fall 2027 or later.

- Which eligibility rules apply: The age-based model only.

 

 

Note that apparently the NCAA doesn't care what may benefit the student-athlete more for 2025-26. Screw the NCAA.

Edited 12 hours ago by Let'sGoZips94

[NWAkron]

42 minutes ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

 

Siding with the NCAA will put you on the wrong side of history 9.9 times out of 10 - this is not one of the .1 times. They made their bed with the ridiculous COVID crap and continue to shift the goal posts to enrich themselves/power conference schools. They've created the Wild West we're experiencing. Who are they to not retroactively apply the 5-in-5 rule for one class (2021 got screwed, too), which would allow a whole class of athletes to earn another year of NIL/athletics experience? These smokey back room bastards will tilt the playing field however they need to for their pockets to be lined more, but will look you dead in the eyes and say they're for an equal playing field with a structured set of rules. I'm tired of their egotistical, self-enriching, arbitrary BS. Screw them. 

 

Edit: Here is the NCAA's press release on the age-based model from June 23, 2026. 

 

Student-athletes who used their final season of competition (under previous rules) during 2025-26.

- Which eligibility rules apply: No additional eligibility.

 

Current student-athletes with eligibility remaining (under previous rules) after the 2025-26 academic year.

- Which eligibility rules apply: Either the previous rules OR the new age-based model, whichever is most beneficial to the student-athlete.

 

Prospects who initially enroll full time at any college or university during 2026-27.

- Which eligibility rules apply: Either the previous rules OR the new age-based model, whichever is most beneficial to the student-athlete. 

 

Prospects who initially enroll full time at any college or university in fall 2027 or later.

- Which eligibility rules apply: The age-based model only.

 

 

Note that apparently the NCAA doesn't care what may benefit the student-athlete more for 2025-26. Screw the NCAA.

using terms like "smokey backroom bastards" doesn't strengthen your argument.  A panel of federal circuit judges probably doesn't have the intelligence, impartiality, and legal acumen of those posting on a random D1 message board.

Edited 11 hours ago by NWAkron

[Let'sGoZips94]

10 minutes ago, NWAkron said:

using terms like "smokey backroom bastards" doesn't strengthen your argument.  

 

Neither does "pleading the fifth" a million times in front of Congress, despite a pardon, when asked about the situation that created this entire mess, but here we are. 

 

Spare me the moral high horse crap.

Edited 11 hours ago by Let'sGoZips94

[NWAkron]

7 minutes ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

 

Neither does "pleading the fifth" a million times in front of Congress, despite a pardon, when asked about the situation that created this entire mess, but here we are. 

 

Spare me the moral high horse crap.

who from the NCAA pleaded the fifth?  was there a hearing about this new proposed rule?

[Let'sGoZips94]

Whatever side is agreeing with Greg Sankey, automatically put me on the other team. There's a really good chance I'll be on the right side of history.

 

That loser attempting to hide behind the shield of "competitive & fundamental fairness" is objectively hilarious as he and his conference have - along with the Big Ten - pretty much single handily destroyed college athletics. 

[NWAkron]

18 minutes ago, Let'sGoZips94 said:

Whatever side is agreeing with Greg Sankey, automatically put me on the other team. There's a really good chance I'll be on the right side of history.

 

That loser attempting to hide behind the shield of "competitive & fundamental fairness" is objectively hilarious as he and his conference have - along with the Big Ten - pretty much single handily destroyed college athletics. 

I know one day when I think of the "wrong side of history" the Wisne decision will be right up there with Dred Scott, Koremastu, and Plessy v Ferguson.