NCAA Eligibility Battle: “5 for 5” Hits Legal Roadblock, But the Fight Isn’t Over
The push for college football players to get five full seasons of eligibility - often referred to as “5 for 5” - just ran into another wall. And while the idea of giving athletes a full five-year runway to play five seasons has been floated before, it’s not likely to become reality before at least fall 2027 - if it ever does.
That timeline hasn’t changed. The NCAA made its stance clear back in October, and there’s been no indication it’s budging.
But that hasn’t stopped players and advocates from trying to challenge the rules in court. And on Thursday, Jan. 15, a federal judge in Tennessee handed down a decision that keeps the NCAA’s current eligibility rules intact - for now.
The Patterson Case: A Legal Swing That Came Up Short
The case at the center of this latest ruling is Patterson v. NCAA, named after Vanderbilt linebacker Langston Patterson.
He’s one of five players - three from Wisconsin, one from Nebraska, and Patterson himself - who filed a lawsuit seeking a temporary injunction that would allow them to play a fifth season. All five had played four full years without redshirting and had used up their eligibility under current NCAA rules.
Their argument? That the NCAA’s redshirt rule violates antitrust law.
But U.S. District Judge William Campbell wasn’t convinced. He denied the request for a temporary injunction, stating that the players hadn’t shown that immediate relief was necessary.
That decision keeps the NCAA’s eligibility structure intact - at least in this case. And it’s worth noting that the NCAA has a strong track record in these types of legal battles.
According to reporting, the organization has won 26 of the 36 eligibility-related injunction cases where a judge has ruled. Eight more cases have been voluntarily dismissed, and five are still pending.
Why This Case Mattered
While the ruling was specific to the five players involved in the Patterson case, it drew attention across college football - including in Lubbock. Three Texas Tech seniors from the 2025 roster - wide receivers Caleb Douglas and Reggie Virgil, along with punter Jack Burgess - were in a similar situation. All three played four years without redshirting and had no eligibility remaining under current rules.
Had the judge ruled in favor of Patterson and company, it could’ve opened the door - or at least cracked a window - for other players in similar situations to seek a fifth year. But the decision kept that door firmly shut, at least for now.
A Precedent That Almost Was
Interestingly, this isn’t the first time Judge Campbell has weighed in on a case involving NCAA eligibility. Last winter, he ruled in favor of Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia, granting him more eligibility after his early playing days at New Mexico Military Institute - a non-NCAA school - weren’t counted toward his eligibility clock.
That ruling prompted the NCAA to issue a blanket waiver for 2024-25 seniors who had spent time at non-NCAA institutions, including junior colleges and even Canadian programs like the one former Texas Tech defensive back Devynn Cromwell came through.
But the difference in the Patterson case is that all five players had played exclusively at NCAA schools. That distinction mattered - and it’s likely why the ruling didn’t go their way.
What This Means for Players Like Douglas and Virgil
For players like Douglas and Virgil, the ruling likely didn’t come as a shock. Both have already shifted their focus to the next chapter, announcing after Texas Tech’s Orange Bowl appearance that they’re preparing for the NFL Draft.
Even before the court’s decision, the NCAA signaled it wasn’t planning to bend. In a Jan. 7 email to member schools, the organization stated clearly that if the court granted the Patterson injunction, there was no intention of issuing a broader waiver. “The NCAA’s eligibility rules are legally defensible,” the statement read, “and provide opportunities for prospective student-athletes to compete at the Division I level.”
The Bigger Picture: Coaches Keep Pushing
Despite the legal setbacks, the conversation around eligibility reform isn’t going away. Just this week, the American Football Coaches Association floated a proposal that would allow players to appear in up to nine games during a redshirt season - a significant jump from the current four-game limit.
It’s a bold move, and one that shows how far coaches are willing to push if the NCAA and the courts won’t give ground on the five-season model. The thinking seems to be: if you can’t get a fifth year outright, maybe you can stretch the redshirt rules to get something close.
Final Thoughts
The fight for expanded eligibility is far from over, but Thursday’s ruling is a reminder that the NCAA’s current framework still holds a lot of legal weight. For now, the dream of “5 for 5” remains on the shelf. But as long as players, coaches, and legal teams keep looking for cracks in the system, you can bet this won’t be the last time eligibility rules are put to the test.