A Tuscaloosa circuit judge made a major ruling on the fate of Alabama Crimson Tide's Charles Bediako's second college basketball career.
One of, if not the most, absurd NCAA eligibility sagas came to an end on Monday. Charles Bediako’s short-lived college basketball career is over, again, after a Tuscaloosa circuit judge denied his motion for a preliminary injunction, ending his stint with the Alabama Crimson Tide. While he never played in an NBA game, Bediako declared for the NBA draft in 2023 after two seasons with the Tide, went undrafted signed a two-way contract, and played three seasons in the G League. So, Bediako tried, and was briefly successful, to return to the college ranks after not having his professional career go very far.
But it was hard to reconcile a player who was compensated for his play in a professional league – a move that, according to the NCAA disqualifies him from collegiate play – being eligible to return to college basketball. While so many things have destroyed college sports, this felt like a bell that couldn’t be unrung, and one that could really break the dams. People have to live with their decisions, especially ones that, while perhaps not to the level of their dreams, resulted in professional play and pay. It’s the right ruling, but it doesn’t erase the fact that Bediako already played in five games for Alabama, averaging 21.6 minutes per game, with the team going 3-2 during that stretch between Jan. 24 and Feb. 7.
Here is the full story from Bama Roundtable writer Greg Liodice on the major ruling.
According to ESPN, his agent, Darren Heitner, told them that Bediako is weighing his “options” for a possible appeal, which would be made to the Supreme Court of Alabama. Court Judge Daniel F. Pruet ruled that Bediako did not have a "reasonable expectation" to be eligible to return when no other player in his situation was granted that, and that he did not meet the criteria for a preliminary injunction because he "failed to establish that he would suffer irreparable harm," had "failed to establish that he has no adequate remedy at law without the issuance of the injunction" and had "failed to demonstrate that he has at least a reasonable chance of success on the ultimate merits of those claims" that the NCAA had violated antitrust laws in his case.