That's because they are "sports outlets". They know nothing about the workings of the federal judiciary. If Elliott is granted an injunction by the Judge the case would be moved onto the court calendar. Federal courts are busy places that already have a backboard of cases. Most likely Elliott case won't make it unto the court calendar for months (like 6 or 7). Given that time frame if Elliott gets an injunction that "stay", due to the courts schedule, will likely run through the current NFL season. So yeah, essentially an injunction means he be eligible for the entire year. What would be interesting is if Elliott suffered an injury during the season. Say he pulls a hammy. Would Elliott/Dallas just end the case and use the injury recovery time for the suspension.
What do they have to gain? How about credibility. The NFL has gotten absolutely pummeled in the court of public opinion over how they mishandled the Ray RIce & Josh Brown incidents. Goodell almost lost his 40+ million per annum job over the Rice situation. Goodell and the NFL learned their lesson. When it comes to DV just hammer the player, regardless of the facts, because the fallout from suspending a player is far more preferable than the NYT, WaPO, national writers and ESPN going full blast on how the NFL doesn't take DV seriously and having that blowback possibly effect multi million dollar corporate sponsors. IMO, the NFL's decision to suspend Elliott has far more to do with them seeking to protect their corporate image, than the facts surrounding the case.