A lot of things have shaken up in the NCAA since the announcement of the five in five eligibility rule. A lot of lawsuits were expected, as while it made the rules around eligibility a lot more simplified, loopholes were found that left the door open to legal proceedings.

The new eligibility rule saw a major hit as a Colorado court granted the high school class of 2022 a fifth year of eligibility, undermining the NCAA. However, the NCAA’s response was immediate and unambiguous, with chief legal officer Scott Bearby leading the charge.

“The District Court of Colorado’s decision (Wisne v. NCAA) is egregiously wrong,” Bearby said via the official statement. “The court’s decision to certify a nationwide class and grant sweeping injunctive relief with virtually no evidence, and without witness testimony or even so much as a hearing, invites further chaos in college sports and irreparably harms thousands of student-athletes already on campus.”

In fact, Bearby went so far as to claim that the Colorado District Court doesn’t have the authority to make such a decision, based on the House vs NCAA settlement from 2025. That imposed roster limits and revenue sharing on collegiate sports programs across the USA. Since then, athletes have been cut from the rosters, with programs forced to adhere to the limits.

That chaos was supposed to be mitigated by the NCAA’s latest age-based limitation model, announced in April 2026. The model will allow student-athletes five years of eligibility during a five-year period from the time they turn 19 or enrol in college, whichever comes first. The NCAA did modify the model after appeals by various sports communities, especially hockey.

The modification means that the five-year clock starts once the student-athlete enrols at a college. It has already been implemented as of August 1st, 2026. It meant the class of 2022/23 wouldn’t be eligible for that, leading to an influx of lawsuits. It started when 24 basketball players filed a lawsuit immediately after officials announced the new model.

A decision was imminent: in July 2026, a judge granted an injunction for the players. The court also cleared them for the transfer portal again and kick-started everything. In fact, hours before Charlotte Sweeney’s ruling, a Nashville court granted an injunction to 19 other basketball players. That allowed them a fifth year of eligibility. What makes Sweeney’s ruling different is that it applies to the entire class. Thus, it covers every Division 1 athlete who began competing from the 2022/23 season.

“We intend to appeal the Colorado order and will seek to restore the status quo as soon as possible to protect participation opportunities for the countless student-athletes who chose where to attend school based on the understanding that the rules adopted by the NCAA’s member institutions would be applied as written,” Bearby’s statement further added.

“Schools and coaches must make their own independent decisions, but an injunction is intended to be short in duration and the NCAA intends to appeal it on an expedited basis.”

Bearby’s statement reflected the NCAA’s legal stance, but President Charlie Baker took a broader view of the issue. He believes the challenges underscore the need for Congress to pass the Protect College Sports Act.

Charlie Baker calls to pass Protect College Sports Act After Colorado Decision

While the NCAA’s new model continues to be beset with lawsuits, the Protect College Sports Act is gaining traction. According to Yahoo Sports, the Big Ten and SEC struck a deal earlier this month to support the act. A joint statement confirmed and announced that. The goal of the act is to establish a stricter cap for NIL (Name, image and likeness) deals, among other caps.

The bill would also give the NCAA limited leeway to enforce its rules alongside other add-ons. The goal of the Protect College Sports Act is to become a national standard, unlike the patchwork of state laws under which schools operate now. In light of the Colorado court’s injunction, NCAA president Charlie Baker urged support for the bill.

“Without targeted intervention from Congress, college sports cannot set nationwide rules everyone can play by and without Congress, failed professionals will continue to use college sports as a fallback option — robbing the next class of young athletes of college scholarships,” Baker said via a statement (NCAA).

His concerns have been echoed by several big names across the NCAA, including Nick Saban. The former Alabama coach has been rather vocal about his concerns regarding the NIL and the transfer portal. Like Baker, what Saban has called for is a better structure. That’s something the NCAA president believes the Protect College Sports Act will bring about.

“It is long past time leaders across college sports call for the immediate passage of the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act — a bill supported by student-athlete leaders, Democrats, Republicans and NCAA schools from all three divisions. Today’s rulings and the chaos they bring to college sports are exactly why it’s time to pass this bill,” Baker added.

For now, the Colorado injunction remains in place. However, the NCAA has made it clear that its fight is only beginning. Whether Bearby’s appeal succeeds or Congress moves first on the Protect College Sports Act, the battle over eligibility is far from settled.