The NCAA signaled a federal judge on Monday that he denied Zakai Zeigler's motion to file an injunction in an antitrust lawsuit to continue playing I basketball, becoming a college graduate who has played four D-1 seasons. The NCAA motion issued a warning that Zeigler's lawsuit could keep many players on the team for many years after graduation and take the attractions away from freshmen.

Zeigler, 22, graduated from the University of Tennessee last month. Long Island, New York, is 5-foot-9, a two-time SEC defensive player of the year and has set multiple team records. He played in all four seasons in Tennessee, where he also gained recognition for his academic achievement.

Zeigler hopes to play his fifth season in graduate school, but the NCAA only allows four seasons of intercollegiate games within a five-year window. Ziegler believes that the four seasons rules violate antitrust laws, he deprived him of athletic skills development and zero chances, and Ziegler believes that he will earn up to $4 million in 2025-26 as he is a well-known and successful college player. He believes that if players complete their undergraduate degree within four years, the NCAA can allow for additional seasons with fewer restrictions, meaning they don’t have red shirts and their academic advancement follows the typical path for college students.

The NCAA writes Zeigler's arguments briefly among colleagues from Taylor J. Askew and Rakesh Kilaru, as well as colleagues from Holland & Knight and Wilkinson Stekloff. The point made in the NCAA profile is that Ziegler is not an NBA prospect, so an additional season is unlikely to make him an NBA candidate. The introduction states: "All publicly available evidence shows that at this juncture, the plaintiffs are pleased to give the NBA a difficult path."

Briefly admitting that Zeigler is an amazing college player – he is a historically leading and assisting leader in Tennessee’s history – but since then his claim is “presumably, if (Zeigler) had a viable NBA avenue, he would be a viable prospect given his resume. The introduction also bluntly mentioned: “There is no evidence in the record that the plaintiff was even invited to attend this year’s NBA United or G League Federation.” ”

Similarly, the NCAA highlighted Zeigler's basketball game "no evidence to have to play again in college basketball seasons." By then, Zeigler could have tried to join the NBA, G League or Foreign League a few years ago. He met their minimum age and experience requirements but chose to stay in college and advance to his degree.

Zeigler is also described as selfish. With the NCAA spinning, Zeigler asked the court to make him the first “historical” college athlete to obtain judicial ordinance to play the fifth season with “the right question.” If Zeigler gets the chance, there will be a loser: the roster of graduates of high school students will be added to volunteers and will be "reassigned" to Zeigler.

In fact, the NCAA estimates that if college students who have participated in four seasons can play another season and choose to do so, they will lose 20 to 25% of the freshman’s roster. "While the plaintiffs only focus on what this means to themselves, it hurts the dream of becoming the next Zakai Zeigler's entry student-athlete."

The NCAA defended the rules of four seasons in the same spirit to reflect the “life cycle of college athletes.” The statement is different, NCAA sports are designed to be a profession. A college student participates in a sport and their college athletic career usually ends at graduation. The NCAA believes that this "life cycle" ensures "stable opportunities" for high school players to get college education and participate in sports.

The NCAA asserted that “college track and field is a means of a better ending for student-athletes, not an ending itself.”

The NCAA also insists that Zeigler, like other athletes who sued the NCAA in recent months, has "misunderstood" the U.S. Supreme Court decision NCAA v. Alston (2021) Legal principles for the rejection of the court.

Although Alston Sometimes it has something to do with Neil, and the case has nothing to do with Zero. NCAA emphasizes Alston Pay rules are addressed only for athletes’ education-related expenses, which are subject to antitrust scrutiny because they involve commercial activities. However, Alston The “no touch” eligibility rule, the NCAA asserted, is outside the scope of antitrust review. As the NCAA says, the qualification rules have nothing to do with commercial transactions, but focus on who counts as college athletes, which is a “necessary” ingredient “product that creates college sports.” Even Justice Brett Kavanaugh often ignited consent, which slammed the NCAA and amateurism, made it clear Alston “Only one narrow subset of NCAA compensation rules are involved.”

The NCAA further asserted that the relevant precedent of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was the rule of the Tennessee Federal Court prosecuted by Zeigler, and he also stated that the rules of eligibility fall within the scope of antitrust review. As the NCAA recently cited in Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia’s case against NCAA’s relevant eligibility rules, the Sixth Circuit Court Claude Bassett v. NCAA (2008), the enforcement of NCAA rules is “not within the scope of the authority of antitrust laws” because these rules are not related to business or commercial activities.

Another alleged flaw in the Zeigler lawsuit is that it has a “no limiting principle”, which means that if players have legal rights to play the fifth season so that they can get more zeros and further refine their athletic skills, the same player can make the same arguments in Season 6, etc. There are many graduate programs in universities, in which athletes can participate for at least theoretically for many years.

The NCAA also argues that the core premise of Zeigler’s lawsuit is that removing experienced college players will harm the labor market. Ziegler believes that zero trading is the most profitable for older people, but the NCAA said: “Not the same name has a higher zero valuation than older people on average.” NCAA expert witness Cal Berkeley, professor of economics, provided a manifesto referring to zero zero valuations for college basketball players that non-racing average zero valuations are higher than older people, compared to $1.2 million for $1.07 million.

The NCAA believes that Zeigler's initial ban has also been misplaced because any damage he does not play can be quantified. The core element of the preliminary injunction is that the judge’s refusal to an injunction could cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff, meaning irreparable harm to monetary damage.

The NCAA insists there are some problems with the harm Zeigler claims to be irreparable. One of them was that he "had known since day one of the campus that he had completed four seasons in five years," but waited until after he graduated from college. The NCAA believes that Zeigler actually sued a few years ago, giving the court time to review the merits of the case.

Additionally, the NCAA asserted that any injured Zeigler would suffer denial to continue the game.

The NCAA noted that Zeigler did not enter the transfer portal, "unlike more than 100 other college basketball players, they exhausted their qualifications but are considering filing lawsuits or wishing to change NCAA rules." The NCAA noted that if Zeigler played another season, "he would definitely play for the University of Tennessee," the NCAA noted. Zeigler submitted a data-supported exhibition from Spyre Sports Group, which provides zero collectives for Tennessee track and field athletics and estimates Zeigler's zero value will be worth $2 million to $4 million in another season. The NCAA insists that this is important because it shows that Zeigler's potential legal harm could be compensated through monetary damages if he eventually wins the trial.

U.S. District Judge Katherine A. Crytzer will hold a motion hearing on Ziegler's preliminary injunction Friday at 1:45 p.m. local time in the federal court of Knoxville, Tennessee (Tennessee).