The NCAA’s long-running battle over player eligibility has taken another turn - and this time, Memphis football could find itself squarely in the crosshairs.
At the center of it all is former Tigers wide receiver Cortez Braham, who played the 2025 season under a court-issued injunction that made him eligible despite the NCAA’s objections. Now, even with Braham preparing for the 2026 NFL Draft and his college career in the rearview mirror, the NCAA isn’t letting this one go. They’re pushing forward with litigation, and the potential consequences for Memphis are significant.
What’s at stake for Memphis?
If the NCAA succeeds in its appeal, the fallout could be heavy. We're talking about the possibility of vacated wins from Memphis’ 8-5 season, Braham being forced to return any awards he earned, and even a financial penalty levied against the university. The NCAA laid out these potential actions in a Feb. 9 court filing, citing its controversial “rule of restitution” - a mechanism that allows the organization to retroactively penalize schools and athletes if a court decision that allowed eligibility is later overturned.
That rule is at the heart of this legal tug-of-war. Braham’s legal team argues the case is moot because the 2025 season is over, and Braham is no longer in college. But the NCAA disagrees, stating that the preliminary injunction still prevents them from enforcing their rules - and that’s something they’re determined to challenge.
How did we get here?
Braham’s path to Memphis wasn’t the typical transfer story. After starting his career at Hutchinson Community College, he nearly joined West Virginia but fell just shy of the academic threshold.
He returned to Hutchinson, got his grades up, and eventually played two seasons at West Virginia. In 2024, he transferred to Nevada, where he made an impact on the field.
But when he sought a final year of eligibility, Nevada declined to file a waiver on his behalf. That’s when Braham took matters into his own hands, suing the NCAA - and winning a preliminary injunction that allowed him to play at Memphis in 2025.
The timing of the lawsuit is key. Braham didn’t even commit to Memphis until after the injunction was granted in July.
Up until now, Memphis hadn’t been directly tied to the legal proceedings. But with the NCAA now arguing that the university could be subject to penalties, the Tigers have officially been pulled into the fray.
Memphis has declined to comment on the situation, but the implications are clear. If the NCAA wins the legal battle, the Tigers could see their 2025 season erased from the record books.
Braham’s impact on the field
What makes this case even more complicated is how vital Braham was to Memphis’ offense. He joined the team just two weeks before the season kicked off, stepping into a receiving corps that lacked a clear No. 1 option. By season’s end, he had hauled in 63 catches for 889 yards and four touchdowns - not just filling a gap, but becoming a focal point of the offense.
Despite the legal cloud hovering over his eligibility, Braham stayed focused on football.
“I feel like it hasn’t really hit me on that aspect,” he said during the season. “I just take it day by day… I’m hoping that it does help other college athletes in my situation.
Because I have friends and things like that that’s going through the same things. I’m hoping that it does help a lot and it does change.
But I just keep my head down, just keep working.”
His case differs from others - like the more widely known situation involving former Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia - in that it centers on the NCAA’s five-year eligibility clock rather than junior college transfers. But the broader theme is the same: players challenging the NCAA’s traditional rules in court, and winning - at least temporarily.
A broader trend across college football
Braham’s case is just one in a growing list of eligibility battles the NCAA is fighting. On Feb. 12, a judge in Mississippi granted Ole Miss quarterback Trinidad Chambliss an extra year of eligibility.
A similar ruling is expected soon in the case of Tennessee quarterback Joey Aguilar. And in another ongoing lawsuit, the NCAA is using the same argument - the right to enforce the rule of restitution - against San Diego State, where defensive lineman Tatuo Martinson played in 2025 after two years at UNLV.
In a letter sent to member schools back in November, the NCAA Board of Governors warned athletic departments not to support players pursuing eligibility through the courts. The message was clear: schools that back these legal challenges are, in the NCAA’s eyes, undermining the rules they helped create.
“Coaches and other athletics department officials who encourage these lawsuits, and even support them on the premise that it is to benefit only one student-athlete, are undermining the very rules their schools have voted to approve and abide by,” the letter stated. “And are depriving future student-athletes of meaningful opportunities to compete.”
What’s next?
The next key moment comes in March, when oral arguments are set to begin. For Memphis, the outcome could retroactively reshape what was a solid 2025 campaign. For Braham, it’s another chapter in a winding journey that’s taken him from junior college to the SEC spotlight - and now, potentially, to the NFL.
And for the NCAA, it’s yet another legal front in an ongoing war over who gets to decide when a college athlete’s career is truly over.