The Big Ten and SEC both voted Tuesday to ban any player who signed an NFL contract, sat on an NFL roster, or declared for the draft without withdrawing from ever playing college football again. Both votes were unanimous. A Louisiana court ruling triggered it: a state judge granted 16 players from the 2022 high school class — who'd used up their eligibility before the NCAA's new five-year rule kicked in — a path back, and said the NCAA couldn't block players who'd already signed pro contracts from taking it. A similar Colorado case had opened the same door in July, but an appeals panel stayed that ruling on August 21, leaving Louisiana as the only route still open. Former Browns tight end Dae'Quan Wright took it, agreeing to join LSU days after Cleveland waived him. That deal forced the conferences' hand.

Two Conferences Say: Lock The Rosters

Coaches and league officials argue the loophole let a handful of teams grab a late, unfair edge.

Ohio State coach Ryan Day says college rosters can't stay open forever. "To think that we're in a situation where we're this late in the season, and our rosters are not locked in, is frustrating at the very least," Day said, adding that conferences "have to decide if there's a point where their rosters have to be locked in." He's raised the issue directly with Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti. Day isn't against NFL cuts finding a college home in principle — he said teams should "at least consider" players who get cut with nowhere else to go. His objection is the lack of a deadline, not the idea itself.

The SEC went further, calling the distinction between college and pro athletes a line worth defending outright: "College athletes, not former professional athletes, have been at the heart of the Southeastern Conference... College sports are for college athletes." Notre Dame is "totally opposed" to any pro-to-college move, and the ACC and Big 12 looked likely to follow with their own bans within days.

But Kiffin Says He Just Played By The Rules That Existed

LSU's coach argues he didn't break any rule. The courts created the loophole, and he used it before it closed.

Kiffin says the loophole was legal when he used it. "There's a lot of parts of this I don't like. I don't think professionals should come back to college sports and college football," Kiffin said — but he also pointed out he wasn't the only coach calling newly-eligible players once the Louisiana ruling landed. His argument: the ruling made these players eligible, someone was always going to sign them, and LSU just closed a deal first.

The Players Suing Say The NCAA Drew The Line In The Wrong Place

Their lawyers argue the NCAA is punishing the 2022 class for bad timing, not anything they did.

These players say the NCAA got the cutoff wrong. The NCAA's new rule grants most Division I athletes five years of eligibility within five years — but it doesn't start until next season, leaving the 2022 high school class out entirely. Eleven Division I athletes, led by plaintiff Brock Wisne, brought the class-action antitrust suit behind the Colorado case. None of them play football, which is part of why the conferences' new bans reach beyond football to NBA and WNBA returnees too. After the 10th Circuit's stay, plaintiffs' attorney Rob Shelquist said the ruling was procedural and "not a decision on the merits of the athletes' antitrust claims," adding, "We are exploring every available option given the split in the panel's ruling and remain committed to fighting for these college athletes." Legal analysts at Sportico note the new conference bans face the same antitrust exposure as the eligibility rules already being litigated. Categorically shutting out a class of players is the kind of restriction that draws challenges in court.

Where This Lands

Coaches like Day and the SEC's own statement say the sport can't function if rosters stay open to NFL cuts deep into the season. That's an argument about competitive fairness, not a moral judgment about the players themselves. Kiffin's defense is narrower: he broke no rule, because the rule didn't exist yet when he signed Wright. The players suing argue the NCAA's own five-year rule should have covered their class from the start, not that they deserve special treatment. The new bans just added another wall in front of a fight already in court.

Sources