The only part of the complaint that I read was Part VI, "Tolling of the Statute of Limitations." I think that part is extremely weak as to each of the three proposed class representatives. I don't know why so many plaintiffs' attorneys in putative class actions use proposed class representatives with such deeply flawed cases. Since they are apparently seeking an absurdly broad plaintiff class of athletes who were in NCAA competition as far back as 1992, perhaps they wanted class representatives from those earlier years, but those proposed class representatives' should get bumped early in the proceedings, and even if they don't, the tolling arguments of the proposed class reps should not generally apply to other members of the putative class.
it wouldn't surprise me if this putative class complaint was rushed to court shortly after pertinent allegations against the coach were made by SafeSport. That's very common when a number of class action attorneys and firms are eyeing the same legal theories against the same defendants, and they're all competiing against one another to be the first filer. In those cases, it's not uncommon to sign up plaintiffs with badly flawed cases, with the idea of adding or substitutig in other plaintiffs later on. But no matter who ends as a class rep, the statute of limitations is a deservedly proper hurdle for the putative class to get over.