Players have taken the NCAA to court in multiple cases to determine outcomes regarding eligibility and waivers. There’s a lot of money – not to mention team success — at stake.
The Mississippi Supreme Court recently handed down a ruling in a high-profile case involving Ole Miss’ quarterback Trinidad Chambliss that people on all sides of the issue are taking notice of.
Denied a medical hardship waiver
Chambliss was fighting for the right to play for one more season. He wasn’t able to play during the 2022 season at Ferris State (before he transferred to Ole Miss) due to respiratory ailments and an eventual tonsillectomy that continued to keep him off the field. However, the NCAA denied him medical redshirt status at the time. A medical redshirt status gives a player the opportunity to play for an additional season since they were unable to play during one season of their initial eligibility due to medical issues. Chambliss took the matter to court.
A state court judge ruled in Chambliss’ favor, stating that “the NCAA fell short of its mission to foster the well-being and development of Trinidad Chambliss…and acted in bad faith….If not for his school’s intervention, Trinidad would be permanently and irrevocably deprived of the college football labor market and the culmination of a stellar college career in the 2026 football season.”
The NCAA appeal and “inconsistent” laws
The NCAA appealed, stating that “differing court decisions…serve to undermine rules agreed to by the same NCAA members who later challenge them in court,” Further, “The NCAA and its member schools are making changes to deliver more benefits to student-athletes, but the patchwork of state laws and inconsistent, conflicting court decisions make partnering with Congress essential to provide stability for current and future college athletes.”
That appeal was denied last month by the state’s high court. That means Chambliss can return as the starting QB for one final season at Ole Miss.
It should be noted that Chambliss didn’t challenge the NCAA rules regarding medical hardship waivers, but how the rules were unevenly and arbitrarily enforced, at least in his case.
A “5-for-5” system
As noted, this is only one of a number of court cases that the NCAA has had to deal with regarding eligibility waivers. That’s a key reason it’s become more agreeable to a change to a “five-to-play-five” or “5-for-5” system where players have five years to play five seasons. This system would eliminate the need for most waivers, including medical hardship waivers.
The legal landscape on eligibility waivers is still in flux and likely will remain so for some time. College players understandably want to get the most out of the limited time they have to play. That’s why it’s important to have experienced legal guidance to protect their rights and fight for their opportunity to continue playing.