Seems to me a basis for appeal would be that they changed the rules after these young men entered the portal. I think a lawyer could work with that, but what do I know?
I'm pretty sure that they view it as a clarification of rule already in place rather than an actual new set of rules.
The problem with the argument that they entered the portals before the new "rules" and wouldn't have transferred in the current situation is that the idea behind a waiver is that there are non football related reasons that caused the transfer (being closer to a sick parent, etc). By arguing that you wouldn't have transferred had you known about the new rules is basically admitting that you didn't transfer for one of the reasons the old waivers would be granted for so even if evaluated under old reasons they would be denied.
I think a slightly adjusted argument would be to find someone who they granted a waiver to this year and argue their situation wasn't materially different and argue that not granting our player a waiver while granting the other one violates some sort of fairness clause. If they then argue that the difference is due to the clarification then you make the argument, not that the player wouldn't have transferred with the new rules, but that the school wouldn't have taken them with the new rules, and thus the old standards should be used because we accepted them under the old guidelines. I might be wrong but something like that would seem better than basically admitting you only transferred because you though you could be immediately eligible.
Also, regardless, I would imagine Sims and Ezzard will have stronger cases along this line than Allen due to Allen deciding to transfer so late.
