Can anyone explain why it has taken so long to reach a decision on Agee eligibility? Is it court-related or does the NCAA have such a backlog he just has to wait in line? I just can't fathom this is so complex it takes months to reach a decision. Fingers crossed regardless though. It seems like a real negative that's he's being allowed to practice but may not be able to play.

From what I can tell, Agee's case is:

Season 1 (2019-2020): New Mexico State - Redshirt (this is the disputed year - he was ineligible to play for New Mexico State due to academics and was dual enrolled at a JUCO)
Season 2 (2020-2021): New Mexico State - Injured (1 game played)
Season 3 (2021-2022): JUCO in Wyoming
Season 4 (2022-2023): Bowling Green (played full season)
Season 5 (2023-2024): Bowling Green (played full season)
Season 6 (2024-2025): USC (played full season)

You normally get 5 years to play 4 once your clock starts (with a waiver possible in case of an injury that prevented you from playing a significant amount of game). The clock has historically started when you enroll in a university, not when you play. However, I believe the rule says it is when you enroll "full time" in a university, which he apparently did not do during that first season since he was enrolled part time at the JUCO. The board may be having to interpret the language of the rule to determine if that first year counts. If the first year didn't count and the injury year didn't count, then his clock started at JUCO in Wyoming and he has another year left. One would think they could interpret their own rule rather quickly though, so I don't know what the hold up would be.

Hasn't there been a hearing date of October 9 for a while? I thought I remembered Luke posting something about that a while back.

Seven Costanza said:

---

From what I can tell, Agee's case is:

Season 1 (2019-2020): New Mexico State - Redshirt (this is the disputed year - he was ineligible to play for New Mexico State due to academics and was dual enrolled at a JUCO)
Season 2 (2020-2021): New Mexico State - Injured (1 game played)
Season 3 (2021-2022): JUCO in Wyoming
Season 4 (2022-2023): Bowling Green (played full season)
Season 5 (2023-2024): Bowling Green (played full season)
Season 6 (2024-2025): USC (played full season)

You normally get 5 years to play 4 once your clock starts (with a waiver possible in case of an injury that prevented you from playing a significant amount of game). The clock has historically started when you enroll in a university, not when you play. However, I believe the rule says it is when you enroll "full time" in a university, which he apparently did not do during that first season since he was enrolled part time at the JUCO. The board may be having to interpret the language of the rule to determine if that first year counts. If the first year didn't count and the injury year didn't count, then his clock started at JUCO in Wyoming and he has another year left. One would think they could interpret their own rule rather quickly though, so I don't know what the hold up would be.

---

I know your timeline is accurate, but are you sure you have the crux of the exemption claim right? I thought it was the '20-'21 season where he actually played in 1 game that is the issue. NCAA ruled that STARTING your college career in JUCO did not count against eligibility and dors not start your eligibility clock, but that does not mean that leaving an NCAA school and going JUCO for a year would pause your 5 years to play 4

So the 1 game he played in in '20-'21 started his 5 year clock (even if it is a redshirt year), and then last season played was his 5th year.

I really don't know, but injury waivers are extremely common. If he had simply enrolled in the Juco the first year, it probably wouldn't be an issue. But he was enrolled at New Mexico State while also at the Juco. I think that is what's in question.

I thought the NCAA made these decisions in some fancy palace somewhere. I don't understand the court angle. A federal court, with a judge and lawyers? If so, hope the judge isn't a Kentucky fan.

I don't know where exactly we are in the process here and if we're fighting the NCAA on legal grounds or if it's still just between us and the NCAA. I don't know if an initial waiver was denied and we're appealing or what, but whether it's a court hearing or some kind of official NCAA "hearing" or something I dunno, just have seen tomorrow's date thrown around.

I think our best path to winning this is an argument that due to COVID and his redshirting and injuries at NM St that he really didn't have any other option than to go Juco in 2021-22 and should get that year back.

The Juco year is the issue here. He already got the season he played one game back or he wouldn't have been eligible last year at USC. And that was the year that everyone got back anyway.

Most important day of the season is today imo.

Bucky McMillan on Rashaun Agee’s waiver situation:

“Great kid, great leader, and we’re hoping for a favorable outcome. His hearing was moved so we’re hoping for more information within the next week.” pic.twitter.com/vOJDDd2LYj

— Luke Evangelist (@lukeevangelist_) October 8, 2025

Moved to next week

I'm confused.
He was on the New Mex team. So that Redshirt year.(1)
Then to a Juco. If he played, that's year 2
As far as I know there's nonNCAA rule that allows that te be free. Not counting the QB that got Juco back for some reason.
Then 3 more years. I'm not gonna kick him away from the team, but he's had 5 years plus. He's probably like 24/25.
Time to move on.

aggiebones said:

---

As far as I know there's no NCAA rule that allows that to be free. Not counting the QB that got Juco back for some reason.

---

That's the entire case here. Whether or not the NCAA has any standing to count years participating in non-NCAA leagues against your NCAA eligibility.

It's all a huge mess right now but until there's some level of collective bargaining allowed, the NCAA eligibility rules are going to keep getting chipped away at.

Good news so far about Agee. Still waiting on NCAA

According to sources, today was a step in the right direction for Rashaun Agee:

The Texas A&M forward has been granted a temporary injunction in his hearing at the Brazos County Courthouse to allow him to play (for now). Now awaiting a date for a final hearing with the NCAA. pic.twitter.com/LSTrTPEmvS

— Luke Evangelist (@lukeevangelist_) October 13, 2025

If the NCAA eventually rules against Agee, but it's after the season, would wins be vacated?

Was a hearing held on the temporary injunction?

What arguments did the NCAA use for not granting the injunction?

Aggie87 said:

---

If the NCAA eventually rules against Agee, but it's after the season, would wins be vacated?

---

My thought as well...

A ship is a ship, asterisk or not

Great news!

Great news!

bobinator said:

---

Several reporters live tweeting the case this morning.

Texas A&M men’s basketball forward Rashaun Agee is on the witness stand during his eligibility hearing here at the Brazos County Courthouse. He said, if eligible, he would make $1.2 million in revenue sharing for this season. Said he wouldn’t make anything if he’s not eligible.

— Carter Karels (@CarterKarels) October 13, 2025

---

This $1.2 mil number for him under revenue sharing can't be right. The revenue sharing for the athletic department is capped at $20.5 million for this year. So, Agee is saying he alone will get 1/20th of the total revenue sharing for the department? That doesn't compute.

I would think the $1.2M would include NIL deals. He wouldn't get any of those if he were ineligible too.

Carter's initial tweet said NIL. Then he edited it. I think he meant to add in revenue sharing and ended up replacing NIL with revenue sharing.