Syracuse lacrosse players join lawsuit seeking additional year of eligibility

Legal action has been filed against the NCAA in a Colorado court seeking an additional year of NCAA eligibility for members of the high school class of 2022. Athletes named as plaintiffs in the suit include Donovan Branch, Jordan Herman, Bryson Taylor, Joey Spallina, Billy Dwan, Luke Rhoa, Michael Leo, and Finn Thomson. Peter Schaffer is listed as the attorney for the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit is one of many that have been filed for high school class of 2022 athletes following the implementation of the NCAA’s new “5 in 5” rule. Members of the 2022 class were not granted a year in this rule, the suit seeks to grant them a year under this new framework. Spallina, Dwan, Rhoa, Leo and Thomson are all Syracuse lacrosse players, and the first to seek an additional year this way. In this case, the plaintiffs spent weeks trying to work with the NCAA to avoid a lawsuit and come up with a path forward, but the NCAA was unresponsive.

The lawsuit and statements from the lacrosse player plaintiffs make it clear they intend to use their extra year if it is granted. Importantly, the suits say they have discussed this action with current Syracuse head coach Gary Gait, and that they are assured a roster spot is available. More importantly, that roster spot is not one currently used by a recruit from the class of 2026. This presumably reduces the risk of legal action from 2026 recruits who do not want to lose their roster spot as a result of 2022 players being granted another year of eligibility. In fact, the suit says the roster spot given to these players, if granted, will not displace any currently rostered players. The suit would not require Syracuse to choose between giving a roster spot to current player or one of the five plaintiffs.

Spallina, Dwan, Leo, and Rhoa have already appeared in pro games in the Premier Lacrosse League. They were drafted and signed three year rookie contracts. If granted eligibility by the lawsuit, it's not immediately clear what the course of action would be for their pro careers. At a minimum they would have to be released from their pro contracts, or they'd need to be voided.

Reached for comment, the PLL said "The PLL is aware of the filing. This is a matter between the plaintiffs and the NCAA, and it would not be appropriate for us to comment on active litigation or on NCAA eligibility policy."