Fug, it works thru the preliminary injunction process. If the court decides the Conners have a good chance to prevail in the case and would be irreparably damaged if not allowed to play in the 2026 season, then the court could issue an injunction against the NCAA requiring it to allow the Conners to play next season. The actual trial on the merits would come later. Which of course by then be too late to effect the Conners eligibility. Fait accompli, if you will.

As I was driving home today and ruminating about the Conners situation I realized that this case may not be one where a jury trial is allowed. That is, if the court decides this is just about an equitable issue regarding whether the Conners eligibility would be reinstated solely by way of the injunction process, then a jury trial is not allowed. The judge alone would make the ultimate judgement. But that may be not the case here because the Conners could argue that the denial of their NIL benefits for the 2026 season would result in actual monetary damages. Thus, a jury trial would be called for. The reason I add this is that the two parties are now in the mediation process. All these little legal issues are relevant to the actual bigger issue “does the NCAA really want to see this case go to trial” with all the negative publicity, costs and attorneys fess (The California Cartwright Act allows for a prevailing party to get their attorneys fees) that is coming if the Conners prevail? I frankly don’t think they will. But again who the hell knows?

River, the court will have to determine if the NCAA rules that apply to this case are fair and reasonable I.e. why the “scheduled”Mercer game was considered a “non game” for all reasons except for the Conners eligibility. I think this is where the court will have to face and determine if this apparent conundrum in the rules is rational and fair or whether it is not. And considering that this case will be decided in an antitrust litigation environment and with NIL considerations, I think the court comes down in favor of the Conners or at the very least consider it a factual matter that must be decided by a jury. Do you think a jury will buy the “Scheduled game” versus “completed game” distinction? I think the NCAA should be thinking that this is a case that they should settle.

My limited research so far in 2026 has not been overly positive in terms of players suing the NCAA for additional year eligibility issues, in fact all of the courts so far have denied additional eligibility. But they were not (to my knowledge) because of a medical disability. One case which does stand out, however, is Trinidad Chambliss v. NCAA which is a medical eligibility case. Filed in Mississippi Chancery Court this year the case alleges that Trinidad who first played at Ferris state in 2022 suffered from acute tonsillitis that year and could not play due to medical conditions. He then transferred to Ole Miss and became the star quarterback. The NCAA has denied his eligibility for the 2026 season. He is projected to be a 6th round NFL pick, but alleges that if he is not allowed another season at Ole Miss he will suffer serious financial hardship because he could otherwise move up in the draft. Fairly new case. I believe the Conners case may be a bit more factually compelling but who the hell knows at this point?

Oh, and I forgot about physical education classes! They were all cut 5 years ago. And that raised such furious response that a class action lawsuit was filed against the university. It went nowhere and was quickly dismissed. PE Never was reinstated.

I still think the real simple here issue is: can a non game (Merser) per NCAA rules. Still be deemed a played game for the players eligibility status? Does the NCAA really want that fight over a couple of FCS kids who just want to play their last year of college football?

I also forgot to mention that men’s swimming and diving was cut a few years back. A lot of very upset people then as well. And this was a much bigger and more popular sport than equestrian.

You know, I thought the same. But when I saw the case was in the hands of outside counsel I knew we probably would never see the denial letter. The case is being negotiated between counsel as we speak so everything is “no comment” at this point until we get a final decision on the negotiations.

I agree this is very disappointing for the riders and coaches affected. But is hardly the first time sports teams have been cancelled by the university. Others may have better memories than I, but some I recall go way back to the late seventies I believe.
There was the freshman football team which was very popular and successful which was culled in I believe the late seventies. Not only did it allow for the younger players to play football (who would never play for the varsity team) but it was the beginning of many Aggie coaches successful careers.
Then there was men’s wrestling.
Then there was women’s rowing
Maybe I missed some more. Polo?
All these eliminations were very hard on the players involved and very unpopular.
I find the equestrian cut hard as well because most of the women in my family are now or were once equestrian riders and horse owners.
But one further thing needs to be said about equestrian: it appeals to a very narrow demographic. Only the very wealthy can afford this sport or even horse ownership. So it raises the ethical question of whether a public university should even field a sport that only caters to the rich student?
Frankly, i cringe at the thought that a sport based on cheerleading is taking equestrians place but it is what it is. NCAA likes STUNT. NCAA doesn’t like equestrian.
Sorry for the rant.

I think that when the sport was made a varsity sport at the DI level at Davis there was expectation that the NCAA would follow through and that it would become a true NCAA sport. That obviously never happened and probably never will. As previously mentioned, it’s way too expensive and very few colleges field an equestrian team, especially in the western United States. STUNT is a growing sport, but there are still very few colleges that offer it as an NCAA sport in California. I sometimes wonder why UC Davis is so concerned about compliance with Title IX while most all DI schools out west appear to care less about that issue.

Disappointing. I thought it was a classy part of our program. But I think I understand the point because the sport is going nowhere as far as the NCAA is concerned. Also it is a very expensive program to operate even with our Vet School footing a lot of the expenses. Stunt seems to me to be a very SEC oriented sport. I don’t see any other high level schools in the west doing this. I may be very wrong though.

“Yee and Dubin Sports” is proudly announcing the opening of their new Davis California office soon. Yee, a sacramento native, will be actively engaging in the representation of UC Davis athletes in their quest for NIL deals and to further their development. Initial meeting with the athletes is without cost, thereafter there will be a 33 1/3 fee attached to any recovery for the athletes. Yee and Dubin will strive to work entirely for the athletes benefit.”
Yes, I know, a fake post. I have no objection to attorneys representing athletes. But, let there be no mistake here, they are perhaps unwittingly on a fateful March to kill the golden goose that is college sports as we know it. Only a matter of time.
New King Hall law school course to come: “Representing the Athlete” 4 units. “Space limited due to high interest”

I continue to be very impressed by coach Plough. His thoughts on the future of football at all levels are really informative and show the depth of his knowledge of the game. Hard to believe that any player speaking to him would not be very impressed. His statement on the Conners has me very hopeful that a successful settlement of this unfortunate situation is possible.

17 you are right on the money. With these agents swooping down on these 19-20 year old kids and their PARENTS, how can the kid ever resist these big money offers? Think of the incredible pressure from moms who want to move to a better home and dads who don’t know if their jobs will last. How can a kid even think about a “quality education” at that point over the needs of his family? But also think of the coaches like Plough. Why recruit a young player and then coach him to a higher level only to see the kid opt for the portal? Yeah, I can see a young Plough now thinking that he’s doing the good thing by helping a kid like CP economically, but I think that eventually that will wear thin and the former good thing becomes a drag emotionally and psychologically. “Why the hell am I doing this”? He is getting nothing from his efforts nor is his team. Surely this has become a no win situation for a majority of FCS schools.
I think that the NCAA must be slowly becoming aware of this situation. And they could have some positive effect by giving FCS schools some breaks on eligibility and scholarship issues. And on other issues that I am not aware of. Otherwise FBS and low budget FBS teams are going to have a very hard time surviving in this environment. Sorry for the rant. This is very sad.

52 please explain “between the lines” or are we missing the obvious? Really don’t understand your point.

I would be very surprised if Rocko did not release the full content of the NCAA decision on the Conner matter. He has always seemed to me to be a straight shooter and the last thing he wants to see is a full blown Freedom of Information Act request on his desk and the same goes for the NCAA. UC Davis is a public institution and it would have to respond to a FOIA demand if one was served. Ditto for the NCAA. I also expect it will take some time for a response due to the holiday/winter break.

I did write a letter to the AD asking for him to make public the NCAA decision letter in the Conners case. No response as of yet.

“We do not have to live like this”. Is this a question or a statement? I assume it refers to the issue of gun violence etc. Anyway, The answer is a resounding no. But bare in mind that even giving account for these atrocities in Australia and Canada Europe, and elsewhere, we, America, the MAGA capital of the world, still have the highest rate of gun violence in the world by a significant margin and we are doing nothing about it. Except for a very few states, including California, New York Massachusetts, etc included. And yet these states are being derided and ridiculed by the Republican Party, and right wing media as too woke and “liberal” purely for political reasons by MAGA gun rights proponents. Yet they do nothing about this: question/statement: “we do not have to live like this”.
Lastly, although I welcome any criticism of this post, I think we should delete this thread because it has strayed too far from the original comment regarding an Aggie going to Europe on vacation. Which I think he survived! I posted this simply for balance on the topic.
Happy holidays to all.

Dr Mike, I totally agree with you. In a sense this case should be far easier for the court than the Robinson cases because it could only affect the Conners situation rather than challenging an entire NCAA policy, I.e. the so-called “5 year rule” which I assume would be the Mercer position. But yes, it would be better if Mercer got involved here. I will add that the K. Robinson v. NCAA case was abruptly dismissed in august. This usually means that a confidential settlement was reached. But again, how does the NCAA plausibly argue that their decision that the Mercer game was a “non-game” yet for the Conners it was a “real game” which just had to be deleted for other reasons. That decision deprived the Conners of their one last season of eligibility just like the one year of lost eligibility in both the Robinson cases. Seems like an arbitrary and capricious decision. To me, of course!

I agree with River the obtuse NCAA eligibility rules will not be in the Conners favor. But bear in mind that all of the rules of the game have been affected/changed by the House settlement. Now, the House court has unequivocally stated that the ability of a player to achieve NIL money is a fundamental right of the student athlete. And this is precedent. In Robinson v. NCAA the court ruled that if an eligibility decision by the NCAA negatively impacted a player’s ability to achieve NIL income it could be determined that it was an unfair antitrust decision. A restraint on the player’s ability to earn money. A violation of Federal Antitrust laws. Let’s ride the wave and see how this all plays out. I hope that the lawsuit is filed in the northern district of the federal district court in Oakland and comes before the district judge Claudia Wilken. She is the judge who decided the House case. She is a great judge.