NCAA inconsistency takes center stage in Owen Heinecke eligibility case

Court is never as entertaining as it seems on TV, but there's already drama as Oklahoma linebacker Owen Heinecke sues the NCAA for another year of eligibility, and the two sides aren't even in the courtroom yet as they're already exchanging arguments. The chaos, though, is fitting for the situation that the NCAA created.

Last week, the NCAA filed a response to Heinecke's motion for an injunction, then Heinecke's legal counsel on Friday replied to the NCAA's rebuttal with its own 10-page response, which SoonerScoop's George Stoia went through and broke down on X while pointing out a major part of Heinecke's argument is comparing his case to Texas offensive lineman Laurence Seymore, who was just granted a fifth year of eligibility, to emphasize the NCAA's inconsistency.

Owen Heinecke's legal counsel using Texas player in eligibility case

Heinecke's hearing is at 8:30 p.m. CT Thursday in Cleveland County Court after he sued the NCAA in a final effort in getting one more year of college football. Heinecke's college journey started as a lacrosse player at Ohio State, where he played three games and about 15 minutes total, before transferring to Oklahoma and walking onto the football team. Once at OU, Heinecke missed his entire first season because of injury, then played primarily on special teams the next two years before breaking out last season as an All-SEC Second-Team selection.

Read more: Brent Venables faces brutal Owen Heinecke dilemma as NCAA battle drags on

Between his brief playing time as a lacrosse player and missing an entire football season because of injury, Heinecke believes he deserves another year and has been battling the NCAA for it since before the 2025 season even concluded. The NCAA initially denied Heinecke's petition for another year, then also denied the appeal, which ultimately led Heinecke to sue the NCAA and get to this point.

In the latest twist of this saga, as Stoia pointed out, Heinecke's legal counsel compared side-by-side the case between Heinecke and Seymore. There's not much difference, with Seymore actually playing more football seasons and snaps, but Seymore's extra year was approved, while Heinecke's was denied.

The foundation of this argument really comes down to the inconsistency from the NCAA. The organization handed out extra years of eligibility because of COVID-19, then things just unraveled from there as the organization had no order while giving ninth years to some football players and allowing professionals back into college basketball.

OU general manager Jim Nagy immediately pointed out the NCAA's inconsistency when Heinecke's petition was first denied. If there was any order at all to the NCAA, then Heinecke would have no argument. But that would also mean players like Seymore not playing next season. Or Ole Miss quarterback Trinidad Chambliss or Montana linebacker Solomon Tuliaupupu, who was recently given a ninth season.

Most fans agree that college athletes shouldn't get this many years of eligibility, no matter the circumstances, but this is chaos that the NCAA created. Heinecke should get that extra year, because that's the kind of mayhem the NCAA has created, but it's on the NCAA to fix its own mess so athletes know what their futures hold and don't need the legal system to decide.

Add us as a preferred source on Google

Follow