GREENEVILLE, Tenn. – John Honeycutt raised a University of Tennessee flag 60 feet into the air on a crane just outside the James H. Quillen courthouse, where NCAA rules were being challenged Tuesday by the state of Tennessee in a federal lawsuit that could impact UT.

Lifelong UT fans Allen Jones and Beverly Williams showed up an hour before the courthouse opened to get a front-row seat at the preliminary injunction hearing over the NCAA’s rules regarding name, image and likeness benefits for athletes.

But they admittedly didn’t know what they were rooting for.

“Obviously, I want UT to prevail. Or I want Tennessee to prevail,” Jones said. “I’m not really sure about all of this. But I’m curious, and I expect Tennessee to win – however that happens.”

Indeed, it’s complicated. This federal case and the NCAA’s ongoing investigation into UT aren’t directly connected, but the prior impacts the latter.

The ties were clear in the courtroom on Tuesday.

Cam Norris, a lawyer arguing on behalf of the Tennessee attorney general’s office, opened with a defense of UT against the NCAA probe into allegations that the school broke NIL rules.

“This hits close to home,” Norris said. “(The NCAA) is coming after our largest school.”

The states of Tennessee and Virginia faced off with the NCAA, arguing that NIL rules violate antitrust laws. They are seeking a preliminary injunction that would suspend NIL rules nationwide until the case concludes.

But make no mistake, this matters most urgently to UT because it needs the NCAA to back off its investigation.

“If UT is punished with bowl bans or players sitting out games, that is irreparable harm,” Norris argued during the hearing. “But the threat of irreparable harm is also harm.”

And that’s why the Vols were central to the states’ argument in the hearing.

Why UT needs help from federal injunction

Clifton Corker, the federal judge in the Eastern District of Tennessee, didn’t tell UT what it needed to hear to get the NCAA out of its business on Tuesday. But he said his decision on the preliminary injunction would come “in short order.”

That could mean a few hours, days or weeks. Time is of the essence for UT.

A preliminary injunction would defang the NCAA in enforcing and investigating violations of NIL rules, which UT is alleged to have broken. UT has acknowledged the ongoing NCAA investigation, but it hasn’t received a Notice of Allegations.

If the injunction was granted, the NCAA likely would drop the most serious charges against UT. Otherwise, it would be attempting to punish a school for breaking rules in the past that are unenforceable and potentially illegal in the present.

So UT needs the injunction granted, and sooner than later.

Otherwise, the Vols football program will find itself in an unfortunately familiar position, fighting an NCAA probe and the perception that comes with it.

This is already the fourth consecutive offseason that dark cloud has hovered over UT’s campus.

The investigation into recruiting violations under fired coach Jeremy Pruitt lasted from late 2020 to July 2023, when the NCAA put UT on a five-year probation but didn’t give it a postseason ban.

Another major violation would put the Vols in jeopardy of a postseason ban this time around, if the NCAA charged it with culpability in NIL-related infractions.

On Jan. 29, UT Chancellor Donde Plowman referenced that possibility in a scathing letter to NCAA President Charlie Baker, which Knox News obtained via an open records request on Jan. 30.

State attorney: NCAA probe is ‘hurting UT’s reputation now’

Norris, the states’ attorney, told the court that it is “very doubtful” that UT will be punished by the NCAA because NIL rules wouldn’t hold up in court once this case concludes.

He was referring to Corker’s language in a denied restraining order on Feb. 6.

“Considering the evidence currently before the court, plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim under the Sherman Act (antitrust),” Corker wrote.

Rakesh Kilaru, the NCAA attorney, said he had no evidence that UT would be punished for violations. Of course, that’s technically true because a Notice of Allegations hasn’t been issued.

But Norris argued even the negative perception of potential penalties to UT should count as irreparable harm, which could trigger the preliminary injunction.

“Because the NCAA had gone public with the investigation, it’s hurting UT’s reputation now,” Norris said.

Corker must decide if that’s enough harm to grant an injunction.

Exclusive coverage: State of Tennessee vs. NCAA in federal court

• Why Tennessee takes on NCAA in federal court while other states stay on sideline

• What happens to NCAA investigation if Tennessee wins or loses in federal court

• NCAA probe into Tennessee 'payback' for beating bowl ban, attorney general suspects

• Federal judge denies temporary restraining order in Tennessee NIL case vs. NCAA

• NCAA scored first vs. Tennessee in NIL case. But don't mistake that for a final result.

• Josh Heupel joins Tennessee fight against NCAA in court over NIL rules

• Tennessee football player Jackson Lampley files declaration in NCAA lawsuit over NIL

• Tennessee players as employees or no NIL rules? Pros, cons and what's next

• Marsha Blackburn, Cory Booker join forces against NCAA amid UT probe

Judge: ‘That defies common sense’

But another major factor is the potential irreparable harm to recruits, who are not allowed under NCAA rules to negotiate NIL contracts until they enroll at a university. They are, however, allowed to discuss NIL with collectives in general terms, as long as dollar figures aren’t mentioned.

It’s a hard distinction, which even stumped the NCAA attorney. When Corker asked what the difference is between negotiating NIL contracts and discussing NIL value for an athlete, Kilaru struggled to give him a clear answer.

“That defies common sense that you can’t negotiate,” Corker said.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said the NIL rules need to be suspended because they’re too vague and unfair for athletes who are deprived of their actual NIL market value.

“It’s difficult for attorneys to figure out what (athletes) can do in NIL, and we’ve had four years of college and three years of law school,” Skrmetti said. “If you’re a high school kid trying to figure this out, you’re going to have an extremely difficult time.

“That’s a big problem because the consequences are so severe. And the rules are so complicated and nebulous, it’s not right to subject these kids to this unknowable situation where they’re putting their necks out there and they don’t know whether they’re going to get in trouble (with the NCAA).”

Adam Sparks is the Tennessee football beat reporter. Email adam.sparks@knoxnews.com. X, formerly known as Twitter@AdamSparks. Support strong local journalism by subscribing at knoxnews.com/subscribe.

Get the latest news and insight on SEC football by subscribing to the SEC Unfiltered newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox.

This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Why Tennessee football needs federal court to push NCAA off its campus