NCAA battles Owen Heinecke's plea for an extra season with Oklahoma Sooners Football, citing eligibility rules and his own delays in court
With the emergency hearing scheduled for next week, the NCAA has filed its formal response opposing Oklahoma football player Owen Heinecke’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
The NCAA submitted its response Monday to Heinecke’s request for injunctive relief in the District Court of Cleveland County. Heinecke’s emergency hearing is set for April 16 at 8:30 a.m. in District Judge Thad Balkman’s courtroom at the Cleveland County Courthouse.
In his initial filing, Heinecke argued that the NCAA has acted against its mission to empower student-athletes to the best of its ability. Instead, he claims the organization has taken away his opportunity to further both his athletic career and educational aspirations.
The NCAA’s response pushes back on several fronts, arguing a lack of standing in Heinecke’s breach of contract claim, insufficient proof of irreparable harm, and that any claimed harm is weakened by Heinecke’s delay in seeking court relief.
“Plaintiff Owen Heinecke... asks this Court to override the NCAA’s proper application of its Bylaws because he believes those rules are unfair as applied to him. While Plaintiff has only participated in three seasons of college football, his five-year period of eligibility has expired,” the filing reads.
Heinecke, a rising linebacker for the Oklahoma Sooners, burst onto the scene last season, becoming a key contributor for a team that advanced to the College Football Playoff. That breakout campaign represents his only significant season of collegiate football, and he is hoping for one more year with OU.
His college athletic journey began at Ohio State, where he played just three games of lacrosse in 2021. He then transferred to Oklahoma and walked on to the football team. During his time with the Sooners, Heinecke missed the 2022 and 2023 seasons due to injury. He appeared in all 26 games over the next two seasons, primarily as a backup on special teams.
In the 2025 season, he ranked second on the team in tackles and started the final five games, marking his emergence as a starter for the Sooners. However, he ran out of eligibility under the NCAA’s five-year rule, which permits only four seasons of competition within a five-calendar-year window.
The University of Oklahoma requested an additional year of eligibility on December 31. The NCAA denied that request on January 28. OU then filed an appeal, which the NCAA denied on February 19. Those denials prompted Heinecke to file his lawsuit seeking an injunction last month.
Heinecke has been preparing for the 2026 season since the end of the previous campaign, whether that meant returning to Norman or moving on to the NFL. He participated in the NFL Combine, the Senior Bowl, and Oklahoma’s Pro Day. He is currently projected as a late-round selection in this month’s NFL Draft, which begins one week after the upcoming hearing.
While Heinecke has explored professional options, he has made clear his desire to play one more season at Oklahoma. Standing in his way is the NCAA’s opposition to the requested injunction.
The NCAA’s filing highlights two primary reasons for denying Heinecke’s motion.
First, the association argues that Heinecke cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits by clear and convincing evidence. Heinecke claims the NCAA breached its contract with member institutions, positioning himself as a third-party beneficiary. The NCAA counters this under Oklahoma law.
“(Heinecke’s) breach of contract claim fails because, to the extent the DI Manual is a contract, it is a contract between the NCAA and its member institutions under which (Heinecke) lacks standing to sue as a third-party beneficiary. Under Oklahoma law, only those third parties whom the contracting parties expressly intended to receive enforceable rights may bring suit,” the document reads.
The NCAA further contends that Heinecke relies on out-of-jurisdiction cases and aspirational policy statements that do not satisfy the required legal standard.
“Under Oklahoma law, a third-party beneficiary must demonstrate that the contracting parties expressly intended to confer a benefit upon him. (Heinecke) has not made this showing by the ‘clear and convincing evidence’ required by Oklahoma law,” the document reads.
Regarding Heinecke’s assertion that the NCAA’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, the association maintains that its bylaws clearly state he is not entitled to a waiver and that he has failed to provide clear evidence supporting his position.
Heinecke has cited circumstances at Ohio State that prevented him from walking on to the football team, noting the Buckeyes did not hold tryouts that year. The NCAA disputes this characterization.
“(Heinecke) did not lose the opportunity to play football due to circumstances beyond control because he decided to reject multiple scholarships to play football,” the document reads.
“The NCAA denied the waiver because (Heinecke) does not meet the requirements to obtain the relief, he chose to attend Ohio State on a lacrosse scholarship with no guarantee to join the football team. And he made this choice despite multiple scholarship offers from D-I institutions to play football.”
The NCAA also points out that Heinecke has offered no evidence of how similarly situated athletes’ waiver requests have been handled or any procedural flaws in its decision-making process.
“Accordingly, (Heinecke) cannot demonstrate a clear legal right to support a mandatory injunction that requires the NCAA to set aside its eligibility determination and affirmatively grant (Heinecke) a waiver of the Five-Year Rule.”
Second, the NCAA argues that Heinecke cannot show he will suffer irreparable harm by clear and convincing evidence.
“His claimed harms, losing the opportunity to receive ‘pre-season honors and accolades,’ be named team captain, and improve his draft stock—are speculative, and speculative harm cannot support injunctive relief,” the document reads.
The filing references previous court decisions, including the 2025 case Hasz v. NCAA, in which a federal judge denied a similar injunction request and upheld the NCAA’s five-year eligibility rule. It also stresses that under Oklahoma law, athletic participation is considered a benefit rather than a legal right.
The NCAA further notes that Heinecke signed a form acknowledging his responsibility to understand NCAA eligibility rules.
“Plaintiff’s claimed harm is also undermined by his delay in seeking relief. Plaintiff has known since 2021 that he had five years to complete his seasons of competition,” the document reads.
“(Heinecke) cannot plead ignorance; parties are deemed to know and understand the contents of agreements that they have signed.”
The association warns that granting Heinecke another year would harm competitive fairness by taking playing time from other student-athletes who have followed the rules.
“Participation of a student-athlete who is ineligible under Bylaws agreed to by all institutions would harm the fairness of NCAA DI competition,” the document reads.
“If (Heinecke) is allowed to return to college sports, he will take a roster spot and a participation opportunity away from another student-athlete who is eligible, that of a young man who has followed the rules.
“(Heinecke’s) gain is another student-athlete’s loss.”
Finally, the NCAA cautions against judicial overreach, arguing that court intervention in eligibility matters could undermine its role as the governing body of college athletics.
“If this Court decides that it is the role of the judiciary to serve as the appellate review board for the NCAA’s denials of eligibility waivers and exercises its judgment to grant Plaintiff a waiver, the nation’s courts will displace the NCAA as the governing body of college athletics.”
With Oklahoma already making roster adjustments, including the addition of transfer linebacker Cole Sullivan, the hearing on April 16 will carry significant weight for both Heinecke’s future and the broader landscape of NCAA eligibility enforcement.