By Isabelle Wilson-
The clock has been unforgiving for thousands of high school athletes in Ohio who graduated in 2022. Recruiting cycles ended, roster spots were filled, and COVID-era disruptions reshaped what “normal” college eligibility even meant. Now, a new NCAA rule is forcing some of those athletes to confront a second clock one they argue should not apply to them at all.
A federal lawsuit filed in Ohio alleges that the NCAA’s newly adopted five-year eligibility model unfairly excludes members of the high school Class of 2022 from receiving what they describe as a lost but legally meaningful “fifth season” of competition.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The complaint, brought by a group of Division I athletes, claims the rule change retroactively disadvantages a specific cohort of players who were already deep into their college careers when the NCAA shifted its eligibility structure.
The lawsuit comes just days after the NCAA approved a sweeping reform that replaces the long-standing “five-year window with four seasons of play” system with a new age-based model allowing athletes five seasons within five years, beginning at age 19 or upon initial enrolment.
According to reports, the NCAA’s Division I leadership approved the change in an effort to simplify eligibility rules and reduce ongoing disputes over redshirts, waivers, and COVID-era exceptions. But for the plaintiffs in Ohio, the reform is anything but simple.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
They argue that the NCAA’s shift while framed as modernisation effectively closes the door on an additional year of competition for athletes who entered college in 2022, even though comparable groups of athletes in earlier or later cohorts may still benefit from eligibility flexibility. In their filing, they contend that the NCAA is creating an arbitrary dividing line that determines who gets access to an extra season of competition and, crucially, the financial benefits tied to name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities.
“This selective application of eligibility rules,” the lawsuit argues, “creates an unequal system in which similarly situated athletes are treated differently based solely on enrolment timing.”
At the center of the dispute is a deceptively simple question: what counts as a fair opportunity to play college sports? The NCAA’s new framework, widely referred to as a “five-in-five” model, was designed to standardise eligibility by ensuring athletes have five seasons of competition within a five-year period, with the eligibility clock tied to age or college enrolment.
The reform also eliminates much of the discretionary “redshirt” system that previously allowed athletes to extend careers through medical waivers or special exceptions. Supporters of the NCAA’s change argue that the system brings clarity after years of confusion created by COVID-19 waivers, injury exceptions, and overlapping eligibility extensions.
The governing body has said the reform is intended to reduce administrative inconsistency and ensure a more uniform structure across Division I athletics. But critics including the Ohio plaintiffs say uniformity comes at a cost.
Their argument is not simply about extra playing time. Instead, it is about what that time represents in the modern era of college sports: economic opportunity. Since the NCAA’s 2021 legal setbacks in cases like NCAA v. Alston, athletes have been able to profit from NIL deals, transforming additional eligibility into potential income.
The Ohio lawsuit claims that denying a fifth playing season to the Class of 2022 effectively denies them access to an evolving marketplace that did not fully exist when they first enrolled.That argument echoes broader tensions already present in college athletics litigation. In multiple cases nationwide, athletes have challenged eligibility restrictions as anticompetitive restraints under federal law, arguing that the NCAA’s rules unfairly limit earning potential and career development.
According to the reporting, similar lawsuits have increasingly framed eligibility not only as a sporting issue but as an economic one tied to antitrust law. The Ohio case pushes that logic further by focusing on timing itself not just whether athletes get five years in college, but whether they get the right five years under rules that changed midstream.
Inside college athletic programs, the effects of the NCAA’s evolving eligibility system are already visible. According to FOX Sports, coaches are already rethinking roster construction under the new “five-in-five” eligibility model, with the rule change expected to reshape how programs manage player development timelines, upperclassman retention, and depth chart planning.
The report notes that the elimination of traditional redshirt years and most eligibility waivers, combined with a more rigid five-year competition window, is forcing staff to adjust long-term roster strategies while factoring in increased player mobility through the transfer portal.
Uncertainty over how the new rules will be interpreted in practice has added another layer of instability for coaches trying to forecast which athletes will qualify for additional seasons under transitional provisions. The Ohio lawsuit argues that this growing instability is precisely why judicial intervention is necessary, claiming the NCAA’s evolving system creates inconsistent outcomes that disproportionately affect athletes depending on timing and classification.
Legal experts note that challenges to NCAA eligibility rules are not new, but they have become more frequent as college sports increasingly resemble a commercial industry. A growing body of litigation has questioned whether eligibility limits serve educational goals or primarily function as competitive controls that restrict athlete opportunity.
In earlier antitrust cases involving the NCAA, courts have already signalled scepticism towards rigid rules that limit athlete benefits without clear justification.
The plaintiffs in Ohio draw on that legal backdrop, arguing that the NCAA’s new model, while presented as neutral, has uneven effects depending on when an athlete entered college. A Class of 2022 athlete, they claim, is uniquely disadvantaged because they began under one system but now finish under another that changes the value of their remaining eligibility.
The lawsuit also emphasises the timing of NIL expansion, which has dramatically altered college sports economics since 2021. Athletes now regularly sign endorsement deals, receive sponsorship payments, and build personal brands while still in school. As a result, an additional season of eligibility can translate into significant financial opportunity something earlier generations of athletes never had.
That economic shift is central to the plaintiffs’ argument that the NCAA’s policy is not merely procedural, but materially impactful. The NCAA has maintained in other litigation that eligibility limits are essential to preserving competitive balance and maintaining the distinction between college and professional sports.
Courts have historically granted the association broad discretion in setting participation rules, though recent decisions including those stemming from O’Bannon v. NCAA and Alston have gradually narrowed that deference.
The Ohio lawsuit is part of a broader surge in legal challenges targeting NCAA eligibility rules. In recent months, multiple groups of athletes have filed suits seeking additional seasons of play or contesting how eligibility clocks are calculated under revised frameworks. According to reports, attorneys involved in these cases expect additional filings across several states as athletes test the boundaries of the NCAA’s new system.
In some cases, courts have already shown willingness to intervene. Judges have occasionally granted injunctions restoring eligibility to individual athletes, particularly when injury history or administrative inconsistencies are involved.
These decisions, while narrow, have contributed to growing uncertainty over how durable NCAA eligibility rules will remain under legal pressure.The The case is believed to add another layer to that uncertainty one focused not on individual hardship, but on an entire graduating class.
If successful, the lawsuit could force the NCAA to revisit how its new eligibility model applies to transitional cohorts of athletes caught between old and new systems. If unsuccessful, it may reinforce the NCAA’s authority to restructure eligibility frameworks even when they have uneven impacts across different groups of players.
Either way, the outcome will likely extend beyond Ohio. For athletes who entered college in 2022, the case represents more than a legal dispute it is a question of timing, fairness, and the shrinking margin between opportunity and exclusion in modern college athletics. Many of them are now in their final seasons, watching from the sidelines of a legal system that could determine whether one more year is possible.
The NCAA has not publicly commented in detail on the Ohio lawsuit, but has consistently defended its eligibility reforms as necessary modernisation. In earlier statements related to similar legal challenges, the association has argued that its rules ensure structure, fairness, and academic progression for student-athletes. Still, the courts have increasingly become the arena where those definitions are tested.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar