the court of appeals to determine the validity of the temporary injunction that barred the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility rules against Jones. The issue of this injunction’s validity is now moot; to determine its validity, the court of appeals must issue an impermissible advisory opinion. Furthermore, Jones has all but withdrawn from this case, disclaiming any interest he may have had in the NCAA’s application of the Restitution Rule. Because this case presents no justiciable controversy between the NCAA and Jones, the only ic Ass’n, 119 F.3d 453, 458 (6 th Cir.1997). Similarly, the question of the injunction’s validity becomes moot when the athlete’s season has ended and his eligibility to participate has expired. See Fink v. Hinson, 243 Ga. 337, 253 S.E.2d 757, 758 (1979) (<HOLDING>). With the end of Texas Tech’s 1996 football
holding that plaintiffs who sought injunctive relief under 42 usc  1983 could get same relief in a state court mandamus action holding that inmates transfer mooted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief but that claims for monetary damages were not moot holding that the validity of injunctive relief sought by students was mooted by football seasons end holding that a prisoners transfer mooted claims for declaratory and injunctive relief holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer