Blab Sports
Former UConn and Other College Athletes File Lawsuit Seeking Extra Year of NCAA Eligibility
A coalition of former college athletes, including several ex‑UConn football players, has filed a federal lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to secure an additional season of competition under the organization’s newly adopted age‑based eligibility framework.
The complaint, lodged in federal court, lists former athletes from Syracuse, Sacramento State, Utah State and UConn. Five former Syracuse men’s lacrosse players are explicitly named, while the number of UConn football players remains undisclosed. The plaintiffs argue that the shift from the traditional “four‑in‑five” rule to a “five‑in‑five” age‑based model unjustly curtails their eligibility.
The NCAA’s updated rule, approved by the Division I Council on June 23 2026, replaces the longstanding season‑counting system with a five‑year window that begins at age 19 and ends at 24. The change takes effect on August 1 2026 and applies to athletes entering the 2026‑27 academic year.
Per the NCAA Eligibility Center, the age‑based model eliminates separate season counts and the medical‑redshirt provision for players who enroll after turning 19. Consequently, a player who sustains an injury after that age forfeits a year of eligibility, whereas a student who enrolls before 19 retains the full five‑year span.
The lawsuit was sparked by the fact that several of the plaintiffs had already exhausted their eligibility under the former rule. For instance, the five Syracuse lacrosse players—each of whom has appeared in Premier Lacrosse League (PLL) games over the summer—maintain that the new rule would enable them to return to college play for an additional season.
The complaint also notes that athletes who have already signed professional contracts would need to rescind those agreements to benefit from the extra year. While the lawsuit does not identify which UConn players are seeking rescission, it acknowledges that high‑profile alumni such as Azzi Fudd, Alex Karaban and Tarris Reed Jr. have moved on to professional careers and appear satisfied with their current status.
This case is not the only legal challenge to the NCAA’s eligibility rules. Other suits have been filed against the organization, but their status and outcomes remain uncertain. The current lawsuit is pending, with no timetable for resolution.
Reactions to the age‑based eligibility model have been mixed among coaches, players and administrators. Proponents claim the rule simplifies tracking and aligns the eligibility clock with a player’s age. Critics argue that it disadvantages athletes who enter college later—many Division I hockey players, for example—and eliminates protections that previously allowed for medical redshirts.
Should the court side with the plaintiffs, the NCAA may be compelled to retroactively grant additional eligibility to those affected by the rule change. Conversely, a ruling against the plaintiffs would reinforce the NCAA’s authority to enforce the new model.
At this juncture, the lawsuit remains in its infancy. No court decision has been issued, and the NCAA has yet to issue a formal response. The parties are expected to engage in discovery and potentially negotiate a settlement before the case proceeds to trial.
The broader impact of the age‑based eligibility rule will become clearer as the 2026‑27 season unfolds. Coaches and administrators will need to adjust roster planning and scholarship allocation to accommodate the new eligibility window. Players who were part of the 2026 graduating class—often referred to as the Class of 2026—have voiced frustration that they were excluded from the new rule’s benefits.
In sum, former UConn football players, along with athletes from Syracuse, Sacramento State and Utah State, have filed a lawsuit seeking an extra year of NCAA eligibility under the new age‑based model. The case is pending, with no resolution in sight. Its outcome could influence how the NCAA’s eligibility rules are applied and may set a precedent for future disputes over athlete eligibility.
The complaint, lodged in federal court, lists former athletes from Syracuse, Sacramento State, Utah State and UConn. Five former Syracuse men’s lacrosse players are explicitly named, while the number of UConn football players remains undisclosed. The plaintiffs argue that the shift from the traditional “four‑in‑five” rule to a “five‑in‑five” age‑based model unjustly curtails their eligibility.
The NCAA’s updated rule, approved by the Division I Council on June 23 2026, replaces the longstanding season‑counting system with a five‑year window that begins at age 19 and ends at 24. The change takes effect on August 1 2026 and applies to athletes entering the 2026‑27 academic year.
Per the NCAA Eligibility Center, the age‑based model eliminates separate season counts and the medical‑redshirt provision for players who enroll after turning 19. Consequently, a player who sustains an injury after that age forfeits a year of eligibility, whereas a student who enrolls before 19 retains the full five‑year span.
The lawsuit was sparked by the fact that several of the plaintiffs had already exhausted their eligibility under the former rule. For instance, the five Syracuse lacrosse players—each of whom has appeared in Premier Lacrosse League (PLL) games over the summer—maintain that the new rule would enable them to return to college play for an additional season.
The complaint also notes that athletes who have already signed professional contracts would need to rescind those agreements to benefit from the extra year. While the lawsuit does not identify which UConn players are seeking rescission, it acknowledges that high‑profile alumni such as Azzi Fudd, Alex Karaban and Tarris Reed Jr. have moved on to professional careers and appear satisfied with their current status.
This case is not the only legal challenge to the NCAA’s eligibility rules. Other suits have been filed against the organization, but their status and outcomes remain uncertain. The current lawsuit is pending, with no timetable for resolution.
Reactions to the age‑based eligibility model have been mixed among coaches, players and administrators. Proponents claim the rule simplifies tracking and aligns the eligibility clock with a player’s age. Critics argue that it disadvantages athletes who enter college later—many Division I hockey players, for example—and eliminates protections that previously allowed for medical redshirts.
Should the court side with the plaintiffs, the NCAA may be compelled to retroactively grant additional eligibility to those affected by the rule change. Conversely, a ruling against the plaintiffs would reinforce the NCAA’s authority to enforce the new model.
At this juncture, the lawsuit remains in its infancy. No court decision has been issued, and the NCAA has yet to issue a formal response. The parties are expected to engage in discovery and potentially negotiate a settlement before the case proceeds to trial.
The broader impact of the age‑based eligibility rule will become clearer as the 2026‑27 season unfolds. Coaches and administrators will need to adjust roster planning and scholarship allocation to accommodate the new eligibility window. Players who were part of the 2026 graduating class—often referred to as the Class of 2026—have voiced frustration that they were excluded from the new rule’s benefits.
In sum, former UConn football players, along with athletes from Syracuse, Sacramento State and Utah State, have filed a lawsuit seeking an extra year of NCAA eligibility under the new age‑based model. The case is pending, with no resolution in sight. Its outcome could influence how the NCAA’s eligibility rules are applied and may set a precedent for future disputes over athlete eligibility.
