New Lawsuit Challenges NCAA Transfer Rules As Settlement Sees NIL Roster Cuts

Former Oklahoma Sooners athlete seeks change to NCAA eligibility rules after being cut due to NIL roster limits set by House settlement.

Joe Camporeale-Imagn Images

As the impending House settlement brings revenue-sharing to college sports, the new NIL landscape has seen many student athletes fall victim to the consequent roster cuts — particularly in non-revenue sports and thereby, women.

A former Oklahoma Sooners athlete is the latest to file a lawsuit against the NCAA as a challenge to their eligibility rules for those who enter the transfer portal.

In the case of college golfer Holly McLean, it was an involuntary decision after she and multiple teammates were told last November that their scholarships would not be renewed due to new roster and budgetary constraints resulting from the settlement.

Kennyhertz Perry LLC sports attorney Mit Winter shared a copy of the lawsuit on X, outlining McLean’s struggles after being cut and trying to start over with the South Florida Bulls. 

The lawsuit objects to the rule that a student athlete can’t play for two schools in the same academic year, seeking for the court to enjoin the NCAA from enforcing its bylaw, Competition in the Year of Transfer Rule and the rule of restitution.

McLean finished in the top 50 of the Big 12 Conference Championship for the Sooners during the 2023-24 season while maintaining excellent academic standing.

The heart of the issue is the OU Schooner Fall Classic that McLean played in last fall, which is a non-championship segment competition. Those results did not count toward Oklahoma’s score, as she competed as an individual, nor did they affect any championship postseason play.

McClean received notification of her cut less than two months after the Fall Classic in late September. Importantly, the lawsuit notes that USF is not a Power 4 conference, and the American Athletic Conference was not believed to have any involvement or say in the settlement discussions. 

“McLean was devastated by the news of her dismissal from the OU team,” the lawsuit reads. “She felt betrayed, abandoned, and uncertain about her future. She had to quickly decide whether to stay at OU without a scholarship and without playing golf or to look for another Division I school that would transfer and offer her a scholarship and a spot on the team.”

It asserts that the timing of OU’s decision was deliberate to allow McLean time to find a new university before the transfer portal was flooded.

She transferred in January, upon which the Bulls submitted a request for a legislative relief waiver, claiming the bylaw in question was inapplicable due to “her unforeseen circumstances.”

The NCAA denied the request five days later, claiming the Fall Classic triggered the Competition in the Year of Transfer Rule.

McClean’s rebuttal is that she was unaware of the impact of that rule on eligibility when she participated in the event, and she had no clue she was about to be cut and needed to transfer that same semester.

Nor did Oklahoma ever alert McLean of an impending conflict that would affect her ability to compete.

A secondary request submitted by USF was swiftly denied. McLean remains ineligible and would miss the entire 2025 spring season of college golf. Her individual rankings would significantly suffer due to her exclusion from the only segment that hosts the NCAA championship.

“McLean will suffer irreparable harm to her athletic development, academic progress, NIL opportunities, and potential professional career,” the suit declares.

Not only are women athletes being left out of revenue-sharing, but they are also seeing their academic and professional dreams squandered in favor of lucrative sports for schools.

McLean had no choice but to look for a program that would enable her to compete since her former one dissolved her scholarship.

Why should she continue to suffer for no credible reason?

A closer look at the large number of injunctive reliefs filed by college athletes that have gone in their favor argues that male athletes are awarded more freedom by the NCAA.

Many college football players have gained years of eligibility after transferring from junior colleges.

It would be absurd to not allow the same movement for women who are inarguably in a worse spot due to NIL revenue sharing in college sports.

Recommended Articles

feed