The NCAA Wanted Consistency. It Got Litigation Instead. – Trials & Appeals & Compensation

The NCAA introduced sweeping changes to its player eligibility rules earlier this year.¹ The goal? Promote fair play, reduce eligibility appeals, and create a more consistent system across Division I and II athletics.²

The rule change has attracted significant media and legal attention as the 2026-27 season approaches, leaving some student-athletes uncertain whether they will be permitted to compete for another season.

What’s changed?

Prior to this year, NCAA eligibility was governed by a sport-specific system built around a five-year eligibility clock and a host of waiver categories. Medical hardships, delayed enrollment, transfers, and non-competing seasons could all affect a player’s eligibility timeline, often producing inconsistent outcomes. The NCAA’s new age-based model largely eliminates those waiver categories in favour of a more predictable framework.

Crucially, the new age-based model generally permits student-athletes to compete for up to five seasons, replacing the previous four-season framework. The eligibility period begins with the earlier of the student-athlete’s 19^th birthday and their initial full-time college enrollment. Under the new regime, once the eligibility clock starts, it can only be paused by a limited number of exceptions, including military service, religious missions and similar service commitments, and pregnancy.

A fifth year? That depends on the forum.

But every rule change creates winners and losers. The NCAA has made clear who falls on the latter side of the line. Student-athletes who exhausted their eligibility during the 2025-26 season are excluded from the new regime.

Student-athletes in this cohort—those who began college in 2022-23 and have already competed in four seasons—have taken legal action against the NCAA in a number of forums, ultimately seeking an additional year of eligibility.

One such case is a federal class action led by Northern Colorado basketball player Brock Wisne, involving all athletes who had just completed their fourth season in the last four years.³ On July 31, a federal judge issued a nationwide injunction permitting affected athletes to compete in the upcoming season (the Wisne injunction).⁴

However, that relief was short-lived. On August 21, the Tenth Circuit stayed the Wisne injunction and the NCAA’s rule change is proceeding as the league had initially intended—those who used their final season of competition during the 2025-26 season are not allowed to return for a fifth season.⁵

What happens when a rule designed to create uniformity runs headfirst into 50 state court systems? The NCAA may be finding out in real time.

Ironically, a rule designed to create a simpler and more consistent eligibility framework may produce the opposite result, at least in the short term. While the Tenth Circuit’s decision paused the nationwide relief granted in Wisne, several athletes who obtained separate state-court orders remain eligible to compete.⁶ As a result, whether a student-athlete receives a fifth season may depend less on the NCAA’s new rulebook and more on the courthouse in which their case was filed. The NCAA set out to create one rule for everyone. For the moment, the courts appear to have other plans.

Footnotes

1. National Collegiate Athletic Association, “NCAA Division I and Division II Age-Based Eligibility Rules,” online: NCAA https://www.ncaa.org/eligibility-center/division-i-and-division-ii-age-based-eligibility-rules/.

2. Ibid.; Michael McCann, “NCAA Wins Stay of Nationwide Eligibility Injunction,” (August 21, 2026), online: Sportico https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2026/nationwide-eligibility-injunction-stay-explain-ncaa-1234942603/.

3. Dan Murphy, “Court Halts Order, Denies Extra Year of Eligibility,” (August 21, 2026), online: ESPN https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/49682102/court-halts-order-denies-extra-year-eligibility.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.; McCann, supra note 2.

6. Ibid.

Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com