Oct. 29—A judge in McLennan County, Texas, has tentatively denied a temporary restraining order for Chauncey Wiggins and other player plaintiffs seeking a fifth year of eligibility, likely keeping the Gonzaga wing out of Monday's season opener against Purdue in Las Vegas.
Wiggins and other athletes made a late push to join a lawsuit filed in Waco, Texas, against the NCAA after attempts to seek injunctive relief in other 5-in-5 lawsuits were unsuccessful.
The Gonzaga wing sought an alternate route to eligibility after a stay was granted in his Georgia lawsuit on Sept. 9. Wiggins and other players in the Georgia lawsuit, including Arizona forward RJ Godfrey and Boise State guard Lamar Washington, moved to withdraw their names from the case earlier this week and filed to join a group of athletes that previously received an injunction in the Wheeler v. NCAA case in Texas.
Presiding over the case, Judge Ryan Luna of the 414th Judicial District Court listened to arguments from both sides Thursday morning before tentatively denying the TRO for Wiggins and other plaintiffs applying for late inclusion.
At the end of a two-hour ruling, Luna granted an appearance for the group of players seeking inclusion in Wheeler v. NCAA, but denied a TRO for Wiggins and plaintiffs currently under stays in other state jurisdictions. Luna said he'd sign an order rejecting the TRO, "unless something in the briefing overwhelms me." He gave the plaintiffs' attorneys until 10 p.m. to file a briefing.
"Those players that you can identify that have already gone through this process on these merits, who have sought injunctive relief from another state court or granted it, I think we talked about Tennessee and Georgia," Luna said. "Any of those players we can identify, I'm going to deny the TRO on those."
It's unclear what additional legal options exist for Wiggins, who could be on Gonzaga's bench Monday afternoon while fellow 5-in-5 transfers Xaivian Lee (Florida) and Javon Bennett (Dayton) — currently eligible through legal decisions in California and Ohio — suit up against the Boilermakers in the season opener.
Godfrey committed to Arizona and former Gonzaga assistant Tommy Lloyd late in the offseason, but Thursday's ruling means he also won't be able to compete against UCLA in the second game of Monday's doubleheader, which tips off at 7 p.m. in Vegas.
During Thursday's hearing, Ryan Downton of Texas Trial Group, an attorney who's representing a handful of athletes across the country in various 5-in-5 lawsuits, argued athletes would face irreparable harm if they weren't able to obtain a fifth year of eligibility, citing the loss of scholarship, as well as name, image and likeness (NIL) and professional exposure.
"It does come down to the athletes and if the court believes the players are likely to prevail and suffer irreparable harm if they're not permitted to play and there's limited or no harm to the NCAA, if the court accepts the players should be here, the court should grant the injunction," Downton said. "And the court should not penalize the players for availing themselves of their procedural rights any more than the NCAA should be punished to appeal decisions it doesn't like.
"It ultimately comes down to the athletes. For any players before the court, is it equitable they play while this plays out, or is it equitable that they don't?"
An NCAA attorney raised the issue of breach of contract, arguing any state's law should govern the interpretation of that contract, and contending athletes from other lawsuits shouldn't have the option to jump from one 5-in-5 case to the next.
"These plaintiffs are judicially estopped when coming in and saying that Texas substantive contract law should be applied to their contract claim, because they've already gone to Tennessee and Georgia to say substantive Tennessee and Georgia law applies to my breach of contract claim," the NCAA attorney said. "So we can't bring in Texas law here. ... You've got to act in good faith, which would necessarily require you honor and respect the orders of other courts as opposed to just go somewhere else and say, 'Well I didn't really mean that Georgia and Tennessee law applies to my contract. I actually meant Texas was because that didn't go the way I wanted it to.' "
Wiggins played three seasons at Clemson and one more at Florida State, averaging 13.3 points and 3.9 rebounds while making 38.7% from the 3-point line last year with the Seminoles. Before the fifth-year option was presented as a possibility, Wiggins joined the Boston Celtics at NBA Summer League, logging 8.3 minutes over three appearances in Las Vegas.
The 6-foot-11 wing made a pair of 3s and scored eight points during Gonzaga's Kraziness in the Kennel scrimmage, but wasn't eligible to suit up for the team's exhibition games, on Saturday at Arkansas and Wednesday against NAIA Lewis-Clark State at McCarthey Athletic Center.
Bennett still eligible
Hours after Wiggins' TRO was denied, Gonzaga got a positive update on the 5-in-5 eligibility front.
Bennett, one of three point guards that could see time in Few's rotation this season, remains on track to play in Monday's opener after the Ohio Supreme Court considered supplemental briefs from both parties in the Borovicanin v. NCAA lawsuit, keeping a previous ruling in effect.
Players in the case obtained a preliminary injunction in July, clearing them for a fifth season of eligibility, but a lower court issued a stay that temporarily overturned the original decision. A higher court then stayed that ruling earlier this month, reinstating the plaintiffs' eligibility.
The Ohio Supreme Court examined the legality and the effect of an executive order issued on Oct. 13 by Ohio Governor Mike DeWine extending a fifth year of eligibility to athletes planning to compete at Ohio institutions in 2026-27. DeWine was sued by the NCAA in federal court, with the governing body arguing the decision would make it "impossible for all schools to compete on a level playing field."
According to Thursday's case announcement, "The order of the Hamilton County Common Please Court remains in effect pending this court's consideration of the memorandum in support of jurisdiction."
