On June 23, 2026, the NCAA revised its Division I eligibility rules by adopting a new age-based model commonly referred to as “5-in-5.” We previously wrote about this new rule here. Under the new rule, student-athletes may compete in five seasons of their college sport, with eligibility beginning when they enroll in college and running no later than the academic year in which they turn 19. The change marks a significant departure from the NCAA’s prior framework, which generally allowed four seasons of competition within a five-year eligibility window. The NCAA, however, has not applied the new rule retroactively to all student-athletes, leaving one group in a difficult position: 2022 high school graduates who already exhausted, or are close to exhausting, their eligibility under the old system. Those athletes argue they were uniquely disadvantaged by the overlap of COVID-era eligibility waivers, evolving NIL opportunities, and the NCAA’s decision to extend benefits to other classes of student-athletes while excluding them.
So far, at least two groups of student-athletes have sued the NCAA, seeking another season of competition. Although the cases are still developing, they highlight the same core question: whether the NCAA can fairly modernize its eligibility rules while denying the benefit of that modernization to athletes who entered college at a particularly unsettled time for college sports.
The Ohio Basketball Student-Athletes
The first challenge came from a group of basketball players in Ohio. On June 24, 2026, one day after the NCAA adopted the new eligibility model, the players filed suit in Hamilton County, OH, seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief that would allow them to compete for one additional season.
The Ohio plaintiffs argue that the NCAA’s refusal to apply the 5-in-5 rule to their class unfairly deprives them of both athletic competition and related NIL opportunities. Their theory is rooted in disparate treatment. They contend that athletes who graduated high school from 2017 through 2020 benefited from COVID-era eligibility waivers, while athletes in later classes will benefit from the new 5-in-5 rule. By contrast, they argue, many 2022 graduates were required to compete against older fifth- and sixth-year athletes without receiving a comparable opportunity to extend their own eligibility. They also point to the NCAA’s treatment of certain former professional athletes, who may now be permitted to compete in a fifth college season despite prior professional competition. The NCAA’s principal response is practical and administrative: retroactive application of the new rule, it argues, would create roster-management burdens and disrupt institutions that have already planned under the existing eligibility framework.
The Marshall University Student-Athletes
A second lawsuit, brought by Marshall University student-athletes, raises similar fairness concerns through a contract-based lens. Those plaintiffs allege that the NCAA violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by refusing to allow 2022 high school graduates to receive a fifth season of competition after repeatedly communicating and enforcing eligibility rules in ways that affected athletes’ reasonable expectations.
Like the Ohio plaintiffs, the Marshall athletes emphasize that they competed in an era distorted by COVID-era eligibility relief. Their complaint also focuses on the NCAA’s decision to extend eligibility opportunities to other categories of athletes, including certain former professional players, while excluding the 2022 high school class. That exclusion, they argue, is especially difficult to justify because many athletes relied on longstanding NCAA messaging about amateur status and eligibility when making college sports decisions. Marshall University reportedly has kept roster space available for the affected athletes, but whether they may compete for another season remains subject to the NCAA’s position and the outcome of the litigation.
Preliminary Injunction Granted, but the NCAA Remains Firm
On July 9, an Ohio judge granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the Ohio basketball players. Judge Wagner concluded that the NCAA had arbitrarily excluded 2022 high school graduates from the benefits of the new 5-in-5 rule and that injunctive relief was necessary to prevent irreparable harm. The ruling gives the Ohio plaintiffs a path to another season, at least for now, but it does not resolve the broader issue. The NCAA has continued to resist retroactive application of the rule, and the litigation is likely to continue as more affected student-athletes seek similar relief.
The takeaway is straightforward: the NCAA’s new 5-in-5 eligibility model may simplify the rules going forward, but its transition rules have already produced the kind of litigation the new framework was designed, at least in part, to avoid. Notably, the early successful challenge has proceeded in state court on a contract-based theory, rather than on the antitrust theory many observers may have expected. If the preliminary injunction holds — and if courts in other jurisdictions follow Judge Wagner’s lead — similarly situated class-of-2022 athletes around the U.S. will have a meaningful incentive to pursue their own claims. That would recreate, in the eligibility context, the same patchwork problem already familiar in the NIL space: different states, different courts, and potentially different answers for athletes facing the same basic eligibility question.