The Brendan Sorsby case has directed unprecedented attention to the ability of college players to sue, and beat, the NCAA in state court.
Via Pete Nakos of On3.com, a South Carolina judge [has granted a temporary injunction](https://www.on3.com/news/big-ten-football-2026-cbs-sports-lists-15-breakout-players-from-league-insiders/) to Clemson receiver Tristan Smith, allowing him to play in 2026.
The NCAA had denied Smith’s request for an additional year of eligibility. Smith would have applied for the supplemental draft without the order giving him another season at Clemson.
Although the Smith case likely won’t spark the same degree of performative nonsense that emerged after Sorsby secured another year at Texas Tech, the NCAA undoubtedly will whine (again) that the rules are frustrated by state-court judges in the hopes of building more momentum for a federal law that grants college sports an antitrust exemption.
That effort will continue to gloss over the fact that collective bargaining would include an arbitration process that would provide fair and prompt resolutions of any and all issues regarding eligibility. The NCAA and its member schools have little interest in the give-and-take of collective bargaining; they want to be able to impose uniform rules without making concessions to a players’ union.