NCAA Trying to Block 24-Year-Old Rutgers Transfer From Playing

The NCAA contends the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit should avoid becoming “the first appellate court in the nation to invalidate sensible limits on how long student-athletes can play college sports” and thus should reverse a trial court’s preliminary injunction allowing 24-year-old Rutgers transfer Jett Elad to play for the Scarlet Knights this fall.

The argument was featured in a brief filed by the NCAA last Friday. The brief disputed testimony by Rutgers head football coach Greg Schiano, whose remarks about Elad’s NIL opportunities and potential NFL career were dismissed as reliant on “self-interested, non-expert [and] subjective beliefs.”

In April, U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi blocked the NCAA from disqualifying the 24-year-old Canadian safety from playing this fall. As Sportico detailed, Rutgers is Elad’s fourth college as he previously attended Ohio University, Garden City Community College (JUCO) and UNLV. Elad has already played four seasons (2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024) in five years (2019, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024). He is thus ineligible under the NCAA’s five-year eligibility rule, which limits athletes to four seasons of intercollegiate competition—including JUCO competition—in any one sport within a five-year window. 

If deemed eligible, Elad figures to play a prominent role for the Scarlet Knights’ defense. He’s (clearly) a seasoned player at the collegiate level. Elad is an accomplished player, too, having been a finalist for the 2024 Jon Cornish Trophy, which recognizes the top Canadian in NCAA football, and was honorable mention for the All-Mountain West Team. 

In his order, Quraishi wrote critically about the five-year rule. He described it as unreasonably restraining the labor market for college football players who can sign lucrative NIL deals, nowadays receive a revenue share via the House settlement and, as the judge noted, “transition into the NFL.”

Quraishi indicated Schiano’s testimony on behalf of Elad was especially persuasive. As a former NFL coach and experienced power conference coach, Schiano’s opinion that Elad is an “NFL-caliber safety” who would benefit greatly by having the chance to showcase his talents at the NFL combine was viewed as an authoritative and reliable statement about Elad’s future.

Although Elad could have declared for the 2025 NFL Draft, Schiano explained that Elad was “under the impression that he was going to be able to play another season of college football.” Elad relied, mistakenly, on the NCAA issuing a JUCO waiver policy in the wake of Vanderbilt quarterback and former JUCO transfer Diego Pavia receiving a court ruling last December to play another season this fall.

The gist of Quraishi’s injunction for Elad was that college football, at least at a power conference school, shares some features of a professional football experience and the players, while still full-time students, ought to be viewed as selling services to teams. 

In a brief authored by Kenneth L. Racowski and other attorneys from Holland & Knight, the NCAA contends Quraishi fumbled key aspects of the case. 

One alleged defect is Quraishi placing importance in Schiano’s “subjective belief that playing for Rutgers will lead to Elad being drafted by an NFL team.” The NCAA argues this testimony was “inherently speculative,” since it frames “whether scouts see him in another college season” as a determinative factor without empirical support. The NCAA adds that Schiano’s acknowledgment that an injury “would prevent Elad from being drafted” only serves to confirm “that Elad’s NFL prospects depend on numerous factors that are out of Coach Schiano’s hands.”

Another alleged weakness in the injunction is how Elad relies on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. Alston (2021). The NCAA stresses that Alston “had nothing to do with eligibility rules” and didn’t “call into question every rule that might impact commercial opportunities” for college athletes. Alston was about NCAA rules restricting education-related benefits for student athletes—not whether college athletes can sign NIL deals or eligibility rules. 

The NCAA also argues that Elad’s exclusion from playing college football doesn’t show the rule causes economic harm from a market standpoint. The rule doesn’t “reduce the number of roster spots” but instead “defines and limits” which athletes can “compete for opportunities and for how long.” The rule reflects the “zero-sum game” of team rosters, since Elad’s inclusion would mean another player isn’t on the Scarlet Knights’ roster and thus wouldn’t be able to sign NIL deals as a Rutgers player.

“Even Coach Schiano’s testimony,” the NCAA asserts, “concedes that Elad would be taking away a roster spot from another player, who will not make the Rutgers roster, and playing time from another player who would otherwise get snaps that Elad plays.”  

The NCAA also insists there are important justifications for the five-year rule, including that it is designed for college athletes in a period that “roughly corresponds to the time required to complete most college studies.” Elad’s “framework” for college sports, the NCAA charges, would permit athletes to train at JUCO, D-II and D-III “indefinitely before transferring to Division I with four full seasons remaining.” This approach would allegedly “fundamentally alter the structure of college sports” and constitute a “complete redefinition” akin to a minor league. Along those lines, the NCAA invites the Third Circuit to think about the ramifications of permitting athletes “to participate in college sports well past the time necessary for them to complete a college degree.”

Elad’s case is one of many taking place in courtrooms featuring seasoned college athletes who want to keep playing after exhausting their NCAA eligibility. As the NCAA notes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently sided with the NCAA in a case brought by Wisconsin cornerback Nyzier Fourqurean to play a fifth season of college football in five years. The possibility of the Third Circuit or another federal circuit siding with an athlete invites a potential “circuit split,” meaning federal courts of appeals holding conflicting views about the same legal question, with the Seventh Circuit. Circuit splits provide a compelling reason for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, since otherwise the rights and obligations of Americans can vary based on which circuit their cases happen to be litigated.