10th Circuit Reinstates NCAA's Five-Year Eligibility Rule, Sidelining Class of 2022

Two University of Washington football players—defensive lineman Ta'ita'i Uiagalelei and kicker Grady Gross—returned to practice this month anticipating a fifth season of college competition. On Friday, a federal appeals court sent them, and thousands of other athletes from the high school Class of 2022, back to the sidelines.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit issued a 2-1 decision granting a stay that reinstates the NCAA's five-year eligibility rule. This ruling pauses a nationwide preliminary injunction issued on July 31 by U.S. District Judge Charlotte Sweeney, which had temporarily granted the 2022 cohort an extra year of eligibility just weeks before the fall sports season.[2][3]

The conflict centers on a recent, sweeping change to the NCAA's amateurism model. In June, the organization adjusted its rules to allow Division I athletes five seasons of competition within a five-year window, effectively eliminating the need for redshirts or complex injury waivers. However, the NCAA set the implementation date for the 2026-27 academic year. This timeline explicitly excluded athletes who graduated high school in 2022 and exhausted their traditional four years of eligibility this past spring, leaving them in a procedural gap just as the new standard was adopted.[1][2]

Lead plaintiff Brock Wisne, a basketball player at the University of Northern Colorado, argued that the delayed implementation unfairly truncated the careers of the 2022 cohort. The initial class-action injunction agreed with this premise, ruling that the NCAA's timeline posed a likely antitrust violation that risked athletes losing scholarships and professional development opportunities. The lower court's intervention had immediate ripple effects across college sports, temporarily reopening the door for players who had already begun transitioning to professional leagues or post-athletic careers.[3][4]

The NCAA immediately appealed the injunction, arguing that immediate, retroactive implementation would create profound roster chaos. In its legal brief, the organization contended that schools had already built their 2026 rosters in reliance on the existing rules, and that forcing programs to accommodate thousands of returning veterans would unfairly penalize incoming recruits and strain athletic budgets. The 10th Circuit's majority—Senior U.S. Circuit Judges Timothy Tymkovich and Paul Kelly—concluded the NCAA met its burden for a stay, while Judge Veronica Rossman dissented.[1][3]

While the appellate ruling represents a significant procedural victory for the NCAA, it does not end the legal fragmentation threatening the upcoming football season. The 10th Circuit's stay only applies to the federal class-action injunction; it does not supersede dozens of individual temporary restraining orders granted by state courts across the country. Because the federal ruling is paused, the national standard reverts to the NCAA's rule, but state-level judges continue to carve out exceptions for specific plaintiffs.[2]

This dynamic has created a chaotic, state-by-state patchwork of eligibility that threatens the uniform competitive balance of college sports. Players who filed individual lawsuits in states like Louisiana, Ohio, and Tennessee remain eligible to play under local court orders, completely insulated from Friday's federal appellate decision.

For example, former Ole Miss starters Dae'Quan Wright, Zxavian Harris, and Wydett Williams won a Louisiana state court ruling granting them a fifth season, and they remain eligible to compete despite the 10th Circuit's stay. The result is a landscape where two players in identical academic situations face entirely different eligibility outcomes based purely on where they filed their lawsuits.[1][2]

Conversely, athletes who relied solely on the federal class-action injunction are now strictly ineligible for the 2026 season. Following the 10th Circuit's decision, the NCAA's chief legal officer, Scott Bearby, issued a memo to member institutions clarifying the immediate compliance expectations.

Bearby confirmed that schools will not face retroactive punishment or sanctions for allowing players to practice during the three weeks the federal injunction was active. However, he reiterated that those players must be removed from active competition rosters immediately, abruptly ending the comeback hopes for athletes who had rejoined their teams in August.[1]

Legal analysts note that the NCAA is essentially fighting a war of attrition across multiple jurisdictions. Sam Ehrlich, a former lawyer who operates the College Sports Litigation Tracker, pointed out that the wave of state-court filings was a deliberate "just in case" strategy by athletes and their representatives, who anticipated a potential federal reversal. By filing parallel suits in state courts, athletes ensured they had a localized legal safety net if the 10th Circuit sided with the NCAA.[1]

The broader implications of the ruling extend beyond the gridiron and into college basketball. The initial injunction had affected at least 27 undrafted free agents who had reached tentative Exhibit 10 contracts with NBA teams over the summer, giving them the option to return to school. With the federal stay in place, players like Seth Trimble and Donovan Atwell, who had planned to transfer and play a fifth season, now find their collegiate eligibility revoked unless they secure their own state-level injunctions.[4]

As the college football season kicks off, the regulatory landscape remains deeply fractured. The NCAA has signaled its intent to aggressively appeal the remaining state-court rulings, attempting to close the localized loopholes one by one. However, a final resolution on the merits of the underlying antitrust claims is highly unlikely before the fall season concludes. Until a definitive ruling is reached, college athletics will operate under a dual system where federal authority and state-level legal maneuvering remain locked in a tense standoff.[4]