Following judge's ruling, NCAA makes concession on year in residency requirement

On the heels of a U.S. District Court judge in West Virginia granting a 14-day temporary restraining order Wednesday in the lawsuit regarding the NCAA’s transfer waiver policy, the association said it will begin notifying member schools that it will not enforce the year in residency requirement for multi-time transfers.

The NCAA’s statement, released to On3 and other outlets, pertaining to its policy change at least for the next two weeks marks a striking and notable concession just a few hours after the ruling by Judge John P. Bailey in the consequential Ohio v. NCAA lawsuit.

Bailey said the temporary restraining order (TRO) is in effect for 14 days – which means the NCAA can’t enforce its transfer waiver rules during that time – until a hearing on the preliminary injunction takes place Dec. 27.

The significant ruling grants West Virginia men’s basketball player RaeQuan Battle, a two-time transfer whose eligibility was denied, the ability to play immediately. Bailey’s written ruling states that the 14-day TRO prevents the NCAA from enforcing its two-time transfer eligibility rule, which without a waiver requires a transfer to sit out a year, until the Dec. 27 hearing. 

In addition, the ruling also prevents the NCAA from enforcing the Rule of Restitution against athletes and their respective institutions. In other words, the NCAA is prohibited from subsequently penalizing a school or athlete for playing an otherwise ineligible athlete during the 14-day TRO window.

Attorneys general from seven states last week sued the NCAA in district court in the Northern District of West Virginia, seeking the TRO regarding the NCAA’s transfer waiver policy. The plaintiffs sought an injunction to enjoin the NCAA’s transfer eligibility rules, which require second-time transfers to receive a waiver from the NCAA to play immediately.

“We are asking you to put these college athletes on the field and on the court,” the plaintiffs’ legal counsel told Bailey at the hearing’s start. 

The federal lawsuit alleges that the NCAA’s second-time transfer rule violates antitrust law. The NCAA’s rule “unjustifiably restrains the ability of these college athletes to engage in the market for their labor as NCAA Division I college athletes,” the complaint states. 

Per NCAA rules, the NCAA permits underclassmen to transfer one time without having to sit out a year. If an underclassman wishes to transfer a second time, they usually need the NCAA to grant a waiver for the athlete to compete immediately. Absent an approved waiver, the athlete has to sit out a year. 

Schools could ‘propose changes’ to transfer policy

Initial arguments by the plaintiffs focused on what they feel is inconsistent application of the waiver policy and the fact that sitting out a year does not afford the athlete more time to focus on educational purposes, as some have asserted. In addition, the NCAA policy, lawyers asserted, does not address the fact that new coaches at times create “roster instability” by running off players and at least pushing them to transfer. 

The NCAA’s counsel contended that the association merely enforces the rules that membership schools themselves – including the ones whose athletes are associated with the lawsuit – approve. 

When On3 recently asked NCAA President Charlie Baker specifically about his concerns related to the transfer portal, Baker struck a similar chord.

“NCAA members adopted rules that permit student-athletes to transfer once as undergrads and be immediately eligible to compete at their new schools without any restrictions,” Baker told On3. “The current rules on subsequent transfers were also approved by membership. Member schools may not like the outcome of a single case – and I get that – but they should propose policy changes if they think the system doesn’t work, as opposed to waging a legal or PR fight. I am open to discussing any new policies that support student-athletes competing and getting a world-class education.”

When the lawsuit was filed, NCAA spokesperson Saquandra Heath released a statement to The Associated Press that read: “The NCAA is disappointed in the decision by seven state attorneys general to bring legal action – with the tacit support of a small number of schools – the result of which could potentially mean team rosters changing monthly or weekly. The NCAA believes that if a member school objects to a rule or policy, that member should propose alternative rules that apply to everyone, not turn to lawsuits to bypass the system they designed.”

Schools hesitant to pursue second-time transfers

One prominent witness Wednesday was Battle, who grew up on the Tulalip Indian Reservation in Washington. Battle initially played at Washington before transferring first to Montana State and again to West Virginia. He cited mental health issues – saying he lost family members and/or friends to COVID-19 – and a coaching change as reasons for the transfers.

The NCAA has denied Battle’s waiver request to play immediately in Morgantown without sitting out a year. During his testimony Wednesday, Battle painted a picture of how his inability to compete in games has hurt both his current NIL earnings as well as his future earning potential because he cannot currently impress scouts in games in hopes of playing professional basketball.   

Battle is expected to be eligible to play now, at least for the next two weeks until the Dec. 27 hearing.

Another witness, quarterback Maddox Kopp, transferred from Houston to Colorado. But when Deion Sanders was hired at Colorado, Kopp explained, he and his teammates were told that they should transfer in a now infamous team meeting with players.

Many schools, Kopp said, shied away from rolling the dice on giving a scholarship to a two-time transfer whose ability to play in games required a successful NCAA waiver. Kopp ultimately landed at Miami (Ohio), but his waiver was denied.

He is now eligible to play in the Cure Bowl against Appalachian State on Saturday because two semesters have passed since his transfer.

How RaeQuan Battle got to this point

The initial saga began when Battle’s initial waiver request was denied this spring after the former Montana State star decided he wanted to take his talents to West Virginia. 

The NCAA denied Battle’s initial waiver request, and then denied West Virginia’s appeal on his behalf last month after the NCAA announced more stern guidelines for transfers. The aforementioned guidelines included, “proof that a transfer would enhance a player’s mental health if it had been ‘impaired’ at a previous school,” ESPN’s Myron Medcalf reported.

According to the report, Battle told the NCAA the transfer to West Virginia would be beneficial to his mental health, the byproduct of a traumatic stretch in recent years. “Battle, one of the few Indigenous Division I basketball players, has also accused the NCAA of ignoring Native American communities,” Medcalf wrote.

Amid all the drama, Battle filed a federal lawsuit against the NCAA last week, where he asked a judge to issue a temporary restraining order in his effort to gain immediate eligibility to play. Per ESPN, his lawyers have accused the NCAA of weaponizing waiver requests with inconsistent evaluations.

“For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff asks this Court to judge, hold, and declare that he has an economic right to market and license his name, image and likeness,” stated the complaint filed on Battle’s behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia by attorney Rocky Gianola. “For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff asks this Court to judge, hold, and declare that he has a right to attend West Virginia University. 

“For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff asks this Court to judge, hold, and declare that he has a right to play on the varsity basketball team at West Virginia University. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff asks this Court to judge, hold, and declare that he has a right to be treated fairly by the NCAA.”