Fans Are Still Watching College Football Like It’s 2015. The NCAA Knows Better.

By Todd Horne | Vice President & Executive Editor, Tiger Rag

If you still think the NCAA can simply write a rule and end the current upheaval in college sports, you’re viewing a 2026 business through a 2015 lens.

Sunday provided another illustration. In the 21st minute of LSU’s soccer match against Arizona, defenders Jazmin Ferguson and Jocelyn Ollivierre stepped onto the field. Both had been added to the roster that morning under the protection of a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the Louisiana eligibility litigation — a TRO that now covers not only the NCAA but the Southeastern Conference and Commissioner Greg Sankey as well.

According to Matt Moscona’s Sunday report on Locked On LSU, after East Baton Rouge Parish District Judge William Jorden amended the TRO on Friday, LSU leadership reached out directly to the SEC. They asked whether the conference would honor the order if LSU fielded these athletes, or if the SEC would impose the new penalties it had just adopted. Conference counsel responded in about half an hour: the SEC would comply. That response only became public on Saturday, when attorney Darren Heitner and Yahoo Sports’ Ross Dellenger reported that Sankey and the SEC would obey applicable court orders. By Sunday, LSU had acted on that assurance.

Many have described Sankey’s response as a retreat. It was not. A court issued an order naming the SEC; LSU confirmed the conference’s intent to comply; the SEC agreed; and LSU used the rostered athletes. That is litigation in action, not capitulation — and LSU is only one part of the broader dispute.

On Friday, the NCAA informed its members that nearly 60 lawsuits challenging Division I eligibility rules now involve 322 former student-athletes. Twenty-four of those suits were filed in just one week. Of the 322 plaintiffs, 184 currently have some form of active judicial relief; 138 do not. Men’s basketball players account for 96 of the beneficiaries, football players for 45.

The NCAA memo highlights two lead cases: in Louisiana, Pyburn v. NCAA, 32 plaintiffs await a Sept. 3 hearing; in Texas, Hudson v. NCAA, 41 plaintiffs await a Sept. 11 hearing. It also notes an increasing trend of naming conferences, schools and administrators as co-defendants.

That is the larger story: these lawsuits are targeting every source of authority in college sports.

This Is Not Just an LSU Problem

LSU draws so much attention because of Lane Kiffin’s profile, prominent football players, the Baton Rouge venue and an upcoming game versus Clemson. But LSU didn’t create the fundamental eligibility dispute. The scale of litigation — nearly 60 lawsuits, 322 plaintiffs, 24 new filings in a single week — cannot be chalked up to Lane Kiffin or LSU wanting extra defenders. This isn’t a roster tactic; it’s proof that the governing system can no longer produce stable eligibility rules that survive legal scrutiny.

LSU is far from alone, even within the SEC. Moscona noted that Kentucky, Texas, Arkansas and South Carolina each face players who have gained or sought eligibility through court orders. Texas has an offensive lineman at issue; Arkansas pursued a former Liberty player; Kentucky has its own case; South Carolina is part of the broader landscape.

The question for Sankey is no longer just how to stop Lane Kiffin — it’s how to enforce one conference eligibility rule when member schools face different court orders in different jurisdictions. That is vastly more complicated, and it’s why framing Saturday’s events as “Kiffin beating Sankey” misses what has truly changed in college sports.

The Old Hierarchy No Longer Exists

For decades, the chain of command was simple: the NCAA wrote national eligibility rules; conferences added their own; schools agreed to follow both; athletes competed. Lawsuits existed, but fans rarely questioned the NCAA’s authority.

That clarity has evaporated. Today:

An athlete can challenge an NCAA rule in court.
A conference rule can draw a lawsuit against the conference.
A state legislature can pass a law affecting in-state universities.
A state court can restrain enforcement of an NCAA rule.
A federal court can review antitrust challenges.
An appellate court can stay another court’s order.
Congress can preempt state laws or grant antitrust exemptions.

Meanwhile, athletic departments must recruit, enroll, build rosters, allocate revenue and schedule games — all while the ladder of authorities shifts beneath them.

This is governance in 2026: no single rulebook, only multiple, colliding sources of authority.

Follow the Calendar

Much of the outrage around former NFL players returning to college rests on misunderstanding timing. Dae’Quan Wright and Zxavian Harris did not finish the 2025 season expecting another NCAA year — they had exhausted eligibility under the rules then in effect. Only later did the NCAA shift to an age-based eligibility model.

By that point, these players had entered the NFL process: training, drafting, contracts, camps. Some even appeared on NFL rosters. Litigation then opened the door to courts reconsidering the earlier eligibility cutoff.

Of course they signed NFL contracts; according to the existing NCAA rules, their college careers had ended. Only afterward did the governing body change the rules, and only afterward did courts begin to reopen their eligibility.

If Wright or Harris had known in December that another season might exist, they could have chosen between college and the NFL. Instead, one door closed, they passed through the NFL door, and months later the landscape shifted while courts reopened the first door.

That is not primarily a “player problem.” It is a governance system blinded by its calendar.

The SEC Is Trying to Solve a Real Problem

The SEC’s policy concern — that college sports should not become a revolving door for players who finish eligibility, train in the NFL, fail to stick and then return — is reasonable. Time spent in an NFL system can improve a player’s skills, altering competitive balance and roster opportunities. Every roster spot occupied by an older returning former professional is one that cannot be occupied by another college athlete.

Still, college football already includes sixth-, seventh- and even eighth-year players, thanks to COVID relief, medical redshirts, junior-college transfers and other waivers. While those longer-tenure players stayed within the NCAA system, former pros crossed a firmer professional boundary. The SEC is entitled to draw that line. But it also asks everyone to accept that the surrounding eligibility structure — already riddled with exceptions — remains simple enough to hold one absolute boundary: professional experience.

A crucial distinction exists between sixth- and seventh-year players who never left the NCAA system and the Class of 2022 athletes now suing. The extended-eligibility waivers were available prospectively within the system. The former professionals were told their eligibility was finished, made irreversible career decisions on that basis, and only afterward watched the system change.

Thus, the SEC established a rule: no conference participation by athletes who crossed defined professional thresholds — signing a pro contract, appearing on a pro roster or failing to withdraw properly from pro drafts. The enforcement package was severe: a head coach suspension for half a season, fines up to 50 percent of a sport’s annual operating budget, loss of conference voting privileges and additional enforcement authority for Sankey.

These penalties targeted schools, not athletes directly, aiming to deter institutions from using court-protected players.

Then the plaintiffs followed the enforcement chain into court. The SEC and Sankey became defendants. Judge Jorden amended the Louisiana TRO — and that moment sparked claims that Sankey “backed down.” He did not abandon policy; he complied with a court order while continuing to challenge it.

He Didn’t Back Down

The SEC still has its rule. It hasn’t conceded that the policy is invalid, nor that affected athletes automatically have another season. It agreed to comply with existing court orders while fighting them through the courts. Those actions are worlds apart.

On Sunday evening, the SEC removed any remaining ambiguity about its position. In its first public comment since the Louisiana order was expanded to include the conference and Sankey, the SEC emphasized that the current order is a temporary restraining order rather than a final decision on the merits. The conference said it and Sankey are prepared to contest the plaintiffs’ allegations at Thursday morning’s hearing and defend the SEC’s rights as a voluntary association acting on behalf of its member institutions.

Until then, the SEC said it will continue complying with Judge Jorden’s order. After Thursday’s hearing, the conference will review the court’s decision and determine what legal steps come next.

That is not a retreat. It is precisely how a defendant preserves both obligations at once: obey the order that exists today and contest the legal basis for extending it tomorrow.

Attorney Tom Mars argues that athletes attempting to enforce third-party beneficiary rights under SEC agreements face an uphill battle: SEC contracts among member schools do not clearly create enforceable rights for individual athletes. Mars’s analogy is that it would be as if he tried to claim benefits from Kiffin’s $91 million LSU employment contract.

Even if that contract argument succeeds, it doesn’t make the SEC’s authority absolute; private contract rights remain subject to law and judicial review. Thursday therefore is not the day Sankey decides whether to “back down.” It is the day the SEC begins making its substantive case for why temporary relief should not become something more durable.

Ohio Already Supplied a Preview

Consider Patrick McQuaide’s case at Villanova. He won judicial relief against NCAA eligibility restrictions, but then the Patriot League barred him from conference games — threatening forfeitures if Villanova used him. McQuaide added the Patriot League as a defendant; an Ohio judge issued a preliminary injunction on his behalf; and Villanova played McQuaide hours later.

Different athlete, different rule, different conference, different state — but the sequence is the same: an athlete challenges a rule, wins relief, adds an enforcing conference to the lawsuit, wins relief against that conference, then plays.

Sunday Made the Theory Real at LSU

On Sunday, Ferguson and Ollivierre demonstrated the SEC version. A judge’s order existed, the SEC said it would comply, LSU rostered the players, and they entered the match. The conference withheld its sanctions.

That doesn’t resolve the litigation; it simply shows who held controlling authority that afternoon: the court.

What Sunday Means for LSU Football

Several football players stand on similar footing. Junior Tuihalamaka is enrolled, practicing and could play against Clemson if Judge Jorden grants preliminary relief Thursday.

Dae’Quan Wright, Zxavian Harris and Blake Cotton have not yet enrolled; LSU’s academic calendar — admission, credit transfers, enrollment — must align with the court schedule before football participation matters. Even with timely enrollment and judicial relief, acclimatization rules make playing Clemson unlikely; a more realistic debut would be the following week against Louisiana Tech.

Pyburn Shows How Far This Has Gone

Tiger Rag reported Sunday that former LSU edge rusher Jack Pyburn, who tallied four sacks in three preseason games for Tampa Bay, was waived at the end of August. Pyburn is a plaintiff in the Louisiana lawsuit.

If he clears waivers, a return to LSU becomes a real possibility. Moscona reported that his understanding is Pyburn would be unlikely to accept a practice-squad opportunity if a return to LSU becomes legally available. LSU also would have obvious interest in bringing back a player of Pyburn’s caliber at a position of need.

But legal coverage, enrollment, transfer credits and safety protocols still have to align. Yet here we are: a player finishes his college career, signs an NFL contract, records preseason sacks in another state, gets waived and could return to college before LSU’s first game.

Absurd? Yes — but nobody at LSU, nor Kiffin, nor Pyburn created this. They’re all operating within a governance system shaped by NCAA rules, conference edicts and court orders.

Thursday Does Not Necessarily End It

Suppose Judge Jorden grants a preliminary injunction on Thursday. It would preserve eligibility for covered athletes while this litigation drags on — possibly for much of the season. But it would not end the conflict.

The NCAA and SEC can appeal and request stays. The Colorado litigation showed how quickly an appellate stay can strip away practical eligibility, reversing a lower-court victory in an instant.

Moscona also noted that the SEC could, in theory, sue member institutions using court-protected athletes — a course not yet decided but legally possible. With multiple schools facing different orders in different jurisdictions, such intra-conference litigation could become extraordinarily messy.

Far from restoring uniform governance, it would underscore how badly uniform governance has already fractured.

The NCAA Knows Exactly What Its Problem Is

The NCAA’s own memo should dispel any notion that this is a local roster dispute. Nearly 60 lawsuits, 322 plaintiffs, 24 new cases in one week, 184 with active relief, 138 without.

Competitive uniformity is collapsing: two athletes with nearly identical histories may have different eligibility solely because they sued in different states, obtained different relief, faced different stays or encountered separate conference restrictions.

This is not one national system; it is eligibility by jurisdiction — and college sports cannot remain that way.

Congress Is Already Part of This

The NCAA and major conferences have repeatedly appealed to Congress for national legal uniformity. Only federal legislation can preempt conflicting state rules in a way an NCAA manual cannot. Only Congress can grant antitrust protection beyond what a private association can self-authorize.

A truly national enterprise needs consistency — but wanting Congress’s shield also means Congress will demand a role in revenue sharing, name-image-likeness rules, media rights, athlete protections, transfer regulations and eligibility standards.

That tradeoff reveals how profoundly the power structure has shifted: the NCAA once assumed national rules became reality by member consent; today it asks Congress to reinforce its authority.

Nobody Has Won This Yet

That brings us back to Sunday. LSU used two soccer players under court protection — a significant moment, but far from the end. The SEC still has its rule. The NCAA still defends its eligibility model. Thirty-two plaintiffs press on in Louisiana, 41 in Texas, and nearly 60 lawsuits involve 322 athletes nationwide.

There is no single, uncontested national answer. Answers are coming plaintiff by plaintiff, judge by judge, court by court. LSU, Texas, Ohio, Kentucky, Arkansas, South Carolina and other laboratories each navigate different judicial orders.

Greg Sankey did not back down, and Lane Kiffin did not beat the SEC. They are participants in a governing system that no longer has one uncontested source of authority.

The SEC’s own Sunday evening statement makes its position unmistakable: comply with the order now, contest it Thursday, then determine what comes next. That is not surrender. It is the next stage of the fight.

That is the part many fans and even some people covering the sport are still trying to process. For years, the final question in an eligibility dispute was simple: What does the NCAA rulebook say?

That question is no longer enough.

Now you have to ask what the rule says, when it was written, which court has examined it, whether another court has stayed the ruling, what the conference can enforce and whether Congress eventually supersedes the entire arrangement.

Fans may still be watching college football like it’s 2015. The NCAA’s own memo — nearly 60 lawsuits, 322 plaintiffs and counting — says the NCAA no longer has that luxury.