A Kentucky Court of Appeals judge on Friday denied the NCAA's request for emergency relief, enabling approximately 30 college athletes to remain eligible to play as the basketball season is set to begin. The decision allows the athletes to compete until a panel of three judges can review the governing body's appeal.

The athletes, including Missouri basketball player Mark Mitchell and LSU's Skyy Clark, were granted a temporary injunction on Oct. 16. This ruling permits them to compete while the NCAA contests a decision that allowed members of the 2022 high school graduating class to play a final season under the NCAA's new five-for-five eligibility model.

Judge Sara Walter Combs stated that the NCAA had not demonstrated that the injunction would cause "imminent, ruinous and incalculable injury." She added that it serves no purpose "to flip-flop repeatedly as our courts work through the underlying issues."

The ruling extends beyond basketball players. Football players Alex Afari Jr. of Kentucky, Texas Tech quarterback Thomas Castellanos, and Louisville football players Jabari Mack and Kalib Perry, who are also involved in the litigation, will be allowed to continue competing while the case progresses.

This legal challenge targets the NCAA's new eligibility model, slated for implementation next fall. The model grants athletes five years of eligibility starting from their 19th birthday or high school graduation, whichever comes first. However, the current implementation excludes athletes who began their college careers during the 2022-23 season and have since completed four years of play. These athletes, some of whom have played professionally, are now seeking to compete in their fifth college season.

The Kentucky decision follows a similar ruling in Ohio, where the Ohio Supreme Court upheld an earlier decision allowing two dozen players involved in an eligibility case to remain available for their teams. Among the plaintiffs in the Ohio case are Filip Borovicanin of Xavier and Gonzaga's Javon Bennett.

The NCAA expressed disappointment with the outcome in Ohio, issuing a memo to its members stating that "Every minute played by an ineligible player is an opportunity deprived to an eligible student-athlete — sometimes in the pinnacle events of a season." The memo also contended that such rulings provide a "significant competitive advantage to schools rostering experienced players who exhausted their eligibility."