Full Breakdown
NCAA’s New Age-Based Eligibility Model Sparks Lawsuit from 2022 Graduates
6/25/2026, 5:18:21 AM
Rule Change and Immediate Legal Challenge
On June 23, 2024, the NCAA Division I Cabinet approved an age-based eligibility model that limits Division I athletes to five seasons of competition within five years, with the clock starting at full-time enrollment or the academic year after the athlete’s 19th birthday, whichever occurs first. The rule eliminates redshirt years and most waivers, except for religious missions, pregnancy, and active-duty military service. Less than 24 hours later, fifteen college basketball players filed a lawsuit in Hamilton County, Ohio, seeking an injunction that would allow them to compete in the 2026-27 season despite having exhausted four seasons under the prior four-year-over-five-year system.
Background: From COVID Waivers to a Five-Year Clock
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the NCAA granted a blanket waiver that let athletes who enrolled between 2017 and 2020 receive a fifth season of competition. The new model codifies a five-for-five rule while removing the pandemic-era extensions. Plaintiffs argue that the shift retroactively penalizes the 2022 high-school graduating class, who competed against older peers who benefited from the waiver.
Plaintiffs and Legal Team
The suit lists the following athletes: Filip Borovicanin (Xavier), Malik Messina-Moore (Xavier), MJ Collins (Cincinnati), Kolby King (Cincinnati), Javon Bennett, Chevalier Emery Jr., Jalen Quinn, Savannah White, Donovan Brown, Christian Henry, Ziare Wells, Cristian Carroll, Shawn Phillips Jr., Caden Powell, and Josh Reed. Attorneys Darren Heitner, Ryan Downton, and Charles Rittgers represent the players, arguing that the rule violates Ohio’s covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjustly restricts NIL earnings.
Timeline of Events
- June 22-23, 2024 – NCAA Division I Cabinet votes to adopt the age-based model.
- June 24, 2024 – Lawsuit filed in Hamilton County, Ohio; temporary restraining order denied.
- July 1, 2024 – Full hearing on a preliminary injunction scheduled.
- Fall 2026 – New eligibility model takes effect for the 2026-27 season.
- 2027 onward – All incoming athletes must follow the age-based clock.
Numbers at a Glance
- 15 athletes named in the suit.
- 5 seasons of competition permitted over 5 years.
- 2022 high-school graduating class excluded from the transition provision.
- 9 of the plaintiffs have already played or plan to play at Ohio schools.
Official NCAA Statements
The Division I Cabinet posted on X that it is “aware of legal action challenging its decision” and “does not intend to change course.” The Cabinet further asserted that athletes who will exhaust eligibility in 2025-26 “have received the full period of eligibility permitted by NCAA bylaws and the life-changing benefits college sports provides.” It warned that granting an extra season “would destabilize rosters just ahead of the coming season by disrupting settled expectations of countless student-athletes regarding their expected roster spots and playing time next year.”
Criticism and Legal Arguments
Plaintiffs contend the rule “unjustifiably restrains their ability to earn money through use of their name, image, and likeness” and that it breaches a “reasonable expectation” of consistent treatment regardless of high-school graduation year. They also highlight a disparity: athletes who played a professional season before enrolling in college are eligible for a fifth year, while those who entered college directly are barred.
Conflicting Interpretations and Gaps
The NCAA maintains that the rule applies only forward and does not retroactively affect athletes whose eligibility ended by spring 2026. Plaintiffs argue that the exclusion of the 2022 class effectively creates a retroactive penalty. No court ruling on the merits has been issued, and the outcome of the July 1 hearing remains unknown.
Verbatim Quotes
- “NCAA athletes have a reasonable expectation that they will be treated fairly by the NCAA and that NCAA rules will be applied consistently, regardless of the athlete’s background before they attend an NCAA school and regardless of the year in which they graduated from high school,” — Complaint, plaintiffs’ attorneys
- “unjustifiably restrains their ability to earn money through use of their name, image, and likeness (‘NIL’) connected to their work as Division I athletes,” — Attorneys Ryan Downton and Charles Rittgers
- “Student-athletes who will exhaust their eligibility this year have received the full period of eligibility permitted by NCAA bylaws and the life-changing benefits college sports provides,” — NCAA Division I Cabinet statement
- “Giving those student-athletes another season would destabilize rosters just ahead of the coming season by disrupting settled expectations of countless student-athletes regarding their expected roster spots and playing time next year, including incoming freshmen who are eager to participate in the life-changing experience of college athletics.” — NCAA Division I Cabinet statement
What’s Next?
A preliminary injunction hearing is set for July 1, 2024. The plaintiffs anticipate filing similar suits in additional states, while the NCAA has indicated it will enforce the age-based model regardless of pending litigation. The court’s decision will determine whether the 2022 cohort can compete in 2026-27 or must accept the new five-year limit without retroactive relief.
