UConn athletic director David Benedict didn’t hold back on Monday, voicing strong frustration with the NCAA after a judge ruled that Alabama’s Charles Bediako is eligible to play - despite the NCAA previously deeming him ineligible.
Benedict’s message? If Bediako takes the floor, those games shouldn’t count toward NCAA Tournament consideration.
“The NCAA has deemed (Charles Bediako) ineligible. Fine, he can play (on a judge’s ruling).
It doesn’t mean the games need to count toward the NCAA tournament,” Benedict said. “Otherwise, throw away the rule book and set it on fire.
There are no rules.”
That’s not just a soundbite - it’s a direct challenge to the NCAA’s authority in an era where legal rulings are increasingly influencing eligibility decisions. Benedict is urging NCAA president Charlie Baker and the organization at large to assert control in cases where eligibility rulings are being overturned in court, arguing that the integrity of the rulebook is at stake.
“If legally we can’t control or impose NCAA rules in terms of who can play and who can’t,” Benedict said, “then what are we doing?”
This isn’t just about one player or one program. It’s about the growing tension between institutional governance and legal intervention - a dynamic that’s becoming more common across college athletics. Benedict’s comments reflect a broader concern among administrators: that the NCAA’s ability to enforce its own rules is being undermined, and with it, the consistency and fairness of competition.
And while the legal process may have cleared Bediako to play, Benedict’s stance is clear - there’s a difference between what’s legally permissible and what maintains the competitive integrity of the sport. If the NCAA can’t enforce its own eligibility standards, he argues, then it risks losing credibility altogether.
For now, the ball is in the NCAA’s court. But Benedict’s public call-out signals that this issue isn’t going away quietly.