NCAA Responds to Lawsuits Filed by Two PC Basketball Recruits
More and more, it looks like the Providence College men’s basketball team is playing the NCAA this season rather than its Big East rivals.
PC has not played its first game yet, and already the Friars have lost one player, and two other recruits are in the midst of legal battles against the governing body of college sports.
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE — SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST
Two Providence College men’s basketball recruits filed lawsuits earlier this month to gain eligibility to play for the Friars this season. PC is not a party to the suit.
As GoLocal first reported, Joseph Pinion and Derek Simpson filed lawsuits specifically, seeking Temporary Restraining Orders to block the NCAA from prohibiting them from playing.
But the NCAA is litigating similar cases across the country and has won three in Rhode Island state court.
The cases filed by Pinion and Simpson are playing out in federal district court in Providence. Their cases are more important than ever for the Friars roster after Providence College was unable to secure approval from the NCAA for former professional player Dink Pate to play this season. On Friday, PC announced that Pink was not approved by the NCAA and was withdrawing from PC.
NCAA vs. Pinion and Simpson
The NCAA argues in court filings that Pinion and Simpson’s claims are flawed as they cannot demonstrate they have suffered “Irreparable Harm” if they are not allowed to play a fifth season.
“Because Plaintiff cannot show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, this Court need not reach the remaining temporary restraining order factors. But even if this Court were to proceed to those factors, Plaintiff still would not be entitled to relief,” writes the NCAA.
“Numerous courts around the country have found that the potential benefits of athletic competition are too speculative to support the issuance of interlocutory relief. (finding that plaintiffs’ “hardships in the absence of an injunction appear minimal” where denial of an injunction would cause an “inability to compete and train as varsity athletes at [a college institution] as [the] litigation proceeds”); (“Plaintiff contends that he will suffer great injury to his professional football career if the injunction is denied because another year of eligibility would allow professional football scouts to see him in action once more . . . . Any injury which the plaintiff might suffer to his professional football career if the injunction is not granted is speculative at best.”); (“[W]hile sitting out a year might inconvenience [the student-athlete], he has not preferred a different transition line does not render the chosen one arbitrary,” claims the NCAA.
Can’t Be Irreparably Harmed from Not Getting More
The NCAA focuses on the claims by the players that they are being harmed, “Even assuming arguendo that the loss of an opportunity to compete in college sports qualifies as irreparable harm, Plaintiff cannot make that showing here. Plaintiff is not losing an existing entitlement—he is seeking a new one. When Plaintiff entered collegiate athletics, he knew that he had five years to compete in up to four seasons of competition, and he received the full measure of eligibility under that rule. The fact that the NCAA implemented a new rule after his eligibility expired does not amount to irreparable harm. (finding no irreparable harm where student-athlete “was ineligible under the previous Four-Seasons-in-Five-Years Rule [and] remained ineligible under the Five-Year Period of Eligibility Bylaw”). Because Plaintiff already received the full measure of eligibility under the rules applicable to him, he cannot show irreparable harm from not getting more.”
“Plaintiff [Simpson] has already presented his claim of irreparable harm to a court, under oath, and it was rejected. After hearing his testimony, the Pennsylvania court found that Plaintiff failed to establish immediate and irreparable harm, explaining that four of the five athletes who testified “made clear the primary reason they seek to play for an additional, post-graduate year is financial,” and that Plaintiff was among those “animated by the prospect of NIL money,” according to the NCAA.
The Balance of the Equities and the Public Interest Weigh in the NCAA’s Favor.
Further, the NCAA argues, “This case should not be viewed in a vacuum. While it is a single-plaintiff case, challenges to the enforcement of the NCAA’s eligibility rules determine the opportunities available to over 180,000 DI student-athletes. That broader context matters, and it strongly counsels against judicial intervention on an expedited basis. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal recently underscored this very point in a similar challenge to the NCAA’s eligibility rules, recognizing that decisions of this kind carry consequences far beyond the individual litigant before the court. [T]he NCAA—a private organization—could have substantial harm to its intercollegiate sports programs by ineligible players being judicially granted eligibility status to which they are not entitled; the organization’s purpose could be undermined if courts interject their own notions of fair play.”). If the NCAA is to endure as the organization that facilitates and governs intercollegiate athletics for the benefit of student-athletes nationwide, it must be permitted to adopt and enforce eligibility rules without those rules being displaced, on an emergency basis, by judicial exceptions for individual litigants.”
Simpson and Pinion Argue
Simpson’s suit states and Pinion’s mimics:
“Derek Simpson is a Division I men’s basketball student-athlete who comes to this Court as a last resort, and as a direct result of the NCAA’s unlawful action in implementing a new eligibility rule on June 24, 2026 (hereinafter the “Five-Year eligibility Rule” or “5-in-5 Rule”) in a manner designed to prevent Plaintiff from playing his sport at an NCAA member college or university for the 2026-2027 season. Unless this Court grants Plaintiff both immediate and lasting relief, Plaintiff will incur significant irreparable harm and monetary damages. More specifically, Plaintiff will forever lose the opportunity to complete the remainder of his collegiate career alongside his teammates who will benefit from the rule change––as well as significant Name, Image, and Likeness (“NIL”) compensation that is contingent on him playing this next season.”
Further, Simpson asserts, “Through no fault of his own, Plaintiff has been arbitrarily singled out by the NCAA to be limited to four seasons of eligibility and deprived of the baseline fifth season of competition that the NCAA now deems to be the standard that it affords all student-athletes except those who graduated high school in 2022. As a result of the NCAA’s arbitrary decision, and absent intervention of this Court, Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed by being deprived of the equal opportunity to participate in five seasons of athletic competition within the five-year window afforded to all other athletes and deprived of the tremendous educational benefits that come with such collegiate competition.”
A hearing on the player’s motion for a TRO is scheduled for this week.
Pinion and Simpson’s Stats
Joe Pinion 6’5” 190lb G
2025-2026 at USF
14.6 points; 40% FG%; 38% 3’s; 78%FT’s; 1.7 steals; 2.4 assists
Derek Simpson, 6’3”, 170lbs G
2025-2026 at St. Joe’s.
13.8 points; 42% FG’s; 31% 3’s; 91% FT’s; 5.2 assists; 1.4 steals
