The latest turn in the saga surrounding NCAA eligibility arrived last week when a judge ruled that Class of 2022 athletes would receive an extra season to play in 2026-27.
In recent years, the NCAA has become more than just a punching bag for its most outspoken critics but more consequentially an overmatched and overworked sparring partner for every empowered attorney who goes against it in district or federal courts around the country.
So it really should have come as no surprise that the latest attempt by college sports’ governing body to affix new parameters around student-athlete eligibility would be met with yet another courtroom challenge and defeat — for now.
Let’s work chronologically …
In June, the NCAA Division I Cabinet unanimously approved giving all college athletes five years of eligibility over five seasons once their clock begins — either upon initial full-time enrollment in college or at the start of the academic year following their 19th birthday, whichever comes first.
The intent is to remove the need for redshirt years or medical waivers and ward off the mounting surge of court challenges over individual student-athlete eligibility cases.
There was also a fresh impetus with the wave of college basketball programs this past year working a loophole created by the courts to allow players who had been drafted and signed with NBA teams (even some who played NBA games) to return to college for remaining eligibility. That as much as anything rallied a collective urgency for the need for a real solution and firm clarity on eligibility parameters.
The 5-in-5 age-based eligibility model approved in June would in theory address all these concerns.
But, of course, it wasn’t going to stick without a challenge in the courts — mainly because the NCAA set this new eligibility format to start with incoming Class of 2026 freshmen and not retroactively apply to any Class of 2022 (those who graduated high school in 2022) athletes who just exhausted their four years of eligibility (under the old model) last academic year without a redshirt season.
So the reeling, battered NCAA’s attempt to limit its endless string of losses in the courts instead was the very thing that pulled it right back into the legal ring.
The Latest NCAA Eligibility Twist
And last week in Denver, U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney delivered the latest haymaker to the NCAA, ruling all Class of 2022 athletes who exhausted their fourth season of college eligibility this past spring are eligible for a fifth season in 2026-27.
Sweeney then issued a subsequent order to her ruling clarifying that it does not pertain to players over the age of 24 or those who have signed a professional contract, while those newly eligible again must still abide by NCAA transfer rules and schools must remain in compliance with the revenue-sharing “salary cap” and roster limits set by the House v. NCAA settlement.
The NCAA has, as expected, appealed the injunction.
In the meanwhile, there is fresh chaos — or just more chaos because it’s hard to remember a time in college sports without it now.
Let’s dive deeper into the matter and what it means for college football.
What It Means For The 2026 College Football Season
Basically, it means that any college football player from the incoming Class of 2022 who played four straight seasons without a redshirt, seemingly exhausting their eligibility last year, now has the opportunity to return for a fifth season provided they didn’t sign a professional contract or turn 25 years old.
Among the notable impacted players who have expressed an interest in using this newfound eligibility are former Florida State quarterback Tommy Castellanos, former Indiana defensive lineman Stephen Daley, former Arizona State safety Myles Rowser and former Virginia defensive end Cazeem Moore, who all went undrafted in May.
Along with countless others …
Players who signed contracts with NFL teams would not be eligible to return.
How Did The NCAA Respond?
The NCAA has taken two actions of response in the immediate wake of the injunction ruled on by Sweeney.
It formally filed its notice of appeal to the United State Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and concurrently asked Sweeney to issue a stay on her order until the appellate process is complete, which would prevent any action from taking place as a result of the injunction that might be overturned later.
The two sides have until Monday to exchange briefs with a decision from Sweeney soon to follow, though the NCAA is hoping to expedite that process.
If Sweeney denies the motion, the NCAA would then ask the Tenth Circuit to issue a stay pending the appeal.
Scott Bearby, the NCAA’s chief legal officer, issued this statement: “We recognize that this is a challenging time. But … preliminary injunctions are typically short-term and we remain confident in our legal position. We are working to restore the status quo as soon as possible, because the status quote represented the considered judgment of the membership about what was best for all student-athletes, including the many thousands already on campus who are just starting their college athletic careers.”
How College Football Programs Are Approaching The Ruling
Certainly, if there is the chance to add proven talent back to the roster, college football programs are going to be interested in taking advantage of the court ruling.
But with the NCAA appeal filed and looming, there is some trepidation for programs entertaining the thought of bringing back former players as the eligibility injunction could still be undone at some point.
A relevant reference point is the Charles Bediako case in college basketball last year.
Bediako had played for Alabama for two seasons from 2021-2023 before entering the NBA draft, going undrafted and playing three seasons in the NBA G League before suing the NCAA for the right to use his remaining college eligibility.
A Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court judge issued a temporary restraining order allowing him to play for Alabama and he appeared in five games. A few weeks later, his temporary restraining order expired and a judge ultimately denied his motion, ending his comeback.
That’s something college football programs have to keep in mind as long as the NCAA is actively appealing the injunction.
NCAA Roster Limits And The Latest Eligibility Ruling
There is also the fact that roster limits — college football teams are allowed to roster 105 players — aren’t expanding as a result of this ruling. Most teams have filled out their rosters for 2026 and would have to cut players to make room for new ones.
Also, players returning to college under this injunction may not receive the compensation they’d prefer. Of the money schools can directly pay to athletes under the revenue sharing model, most if not all of that would have already been assigned by now. Traditional NIL money from outside sources would still be available.
And then finally, college coaches might be question the physical readiness of players who went the last eight months not part of a college strength training program.
As it stands, this also would only pertain to players returning to their former schools — not entering a free market to shop their services to any school. The clarifying order from the judge in Denver made that clear, as the only NCAA transfer portal window this year expired in January.
(Of course, an athlete could hire a good lawyer and launch their own battle with the NCAA over this matter, too.)
So the overall scope of how many college football players could return to teams this fall under this injunction is likely rather limited.
What Ultimately Needs To Happen
The Supreme Court has delved into NCAA matters before, such as in the landmark 2021 NCAA vs. Alston antitrust case that ruled the NCAA cannot limit education-related benefits for student-athletes (but did not wade into compensation for athletic participation/performance)
It’s high time that a final, unshakable determination is made on NCAA eligibility matters that is firm and clear and unchallengeable so that college sports, its schools and student-athletes can move forward in years to come without the ever-present threat of sport-shaping chaos anytime an athlete with a good lawyer finds the right judge to agree with them.
