Twelve athletes. One filing. A single rule change with the power to end careers that still had one more season left in them. That’s the situation unfolding in Huntington, West Virginia, where a group of Marshall University student-athletes has taken the NCAA to court over its newest eligibility framework.
This isn’t an isolated grievance from a handful of disgruntled seniors. It’s part of a legal wave spreading across multiple states, and Marshall’s case adds another data point to a fight that could ultimately force the NCAA to rewrite how it treats an entire class of athletes.
The Rule That Started the Fight
Back in June, an NCAA panel approved what’s now commonly called the “5-for-5” rule: five years to play five seasons, replacing the older four-seasons-in-five-years standard. On paper, it’s a generous expansion. In practice, the NCAA carved out an exception that left one specific group stranded — athletes who enrolled in college straight out of high school in 2022 and played all four of their seasons without ever taking a redshirt year.
Because the new rule takes effect for the 2027-28 academic year, that 2022 cohort finishes its eligibility right as the old rules expire and the new ones haven’t kicked in yet for them. They’re not covered by the benefit going forward, and they didn’t get any COVID-era extensions that classes before them received. Caught between two systems, they get nothing from either one.
Who’s Named in the Marshall Lawsuit
The complaint, filed July 6 in Cabell County Circuit Court, lists twelve plaintiffs pulled from across Marshall’s athletic programs: Meredith Maier, Peyton Ilderton, and Blessing King from women’s basketball; Dewain “Boogie” Trotter from football; Bryce Blevins and Cam Harthan from baseball; Bailey Fisher from women’s soccer; Johanna Strom from tennis; Paige Simpson from softball; Ryan Holmes and Momo Diop from men’s soccer; and Hannah Wyler from cross country.
That spread across sports matters. This isn’t a basketball-specific complaint or a football grievance dressed up as something bigger — it’s a genuinely cross-program challenge, which strengthens the argument that the rule’s impact is systemic rather than isolated to one sport’s scheduling quirks.
What the Athletes Are Actually Asking For
The lawsuit leans on more than just fairness arguments. It alleges the NCAA violated West Virginia’s Consumer Credit and Protection Act and breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by carving out this particular exception. The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the NCAA’s conduct violates state consumer protection law, along with temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions blocking enforcement of both the eligibility rule and the NCAA’s Rule of Restitution against them and against Marshall itself.
That second part is worth pausing on. The Rule of Restitution is what would otherwise expose Marshall to penalties for playing these athletes while their eligibility is in dispute. Blocking it protects the university as much as it protects the individual plaintiffs, which is likely why Marshall’s athletic department hasn’t fought the suit even though it isn’t the one bringing it.
How Marshall’s Athletic Department Has Responded
Athletic Director Gerald Harrison addressed the situation directly, confirming his department had already told these athletes they wouldn’t be eligible for the 2026-27 season under the current rule. Notably, Harrison said he actually supports the broader intent of the new five-year rule, pointing to the uncertainty that repeated NCAA waiver appeals have created for programs in years past. His comments suggest Marshall isn’t opposing its own athletes here — the university simply has no authority to grant the exception the players are seeking.
Each plaintiff, according to the filing, currently has a roster spot available at Marshall contingent on the outcome of the case, meaning the athletic department has essentially left the door open pending a ruling.
A Pattern Playing Out Nationwide
Marshall’s case didn’t happen in a vacuum. A month earlier, 15 basketball players filed a nearly identical suit in Hamilton County, Ohio. Similar injunctions have also emerged from Tennessee courts covering a different group of athletes across multiple sports. Taken together, these filings paint a clear picture: the “class of 2022” exclusion is being challenged state by state, and courts have shown some willingness to grant temporary relief while the underlying legal questions get sorted out.
The NCAA, for its part, has pushed back publicly against these rulings and has called for federal legislation to settle the eligibility question once and for all, rather than leaving it to a patchwork of state court decisions that could produce different outcomes depending on where an athlete happens to file.
FAQs
Q. Why weren’t these athletes just included in the new five-year rule from the start?
The rule only applies going forward from its June approval, and it takes full effect for the 2027-28 season. Athletes who finished four seasons without a redshirt by the end of 2025-26 fall into a gap between the old and new systems, since they didn’t get the extensions offered to earlier classes and won’t be around when the new rule fully applies.
Q. Does this lawsuit guarantee these twelve Marshall athletes will play again?
No. The case is still working through Cabell County Circuit Court, and nothing has been finalized. Their roster spots at Marshall are contingent on the court granting the injunctive relief they’re seeking, so the outcome remains genuinely uncertain.
Q. Is this the only lawsuit of its kind, or are other schools involved?
Marshall’s isn’t unique. Similar suits have been filed by athletes in Ohio and Tennessee, and more are likely given how many programs recruited players from the same 2022 high school class. This looks like a broader legal pattern rather than a one-school dispute.
Q. What happens to Marshall if the court sides with these athletes?
If the injunctions are granted, Marshall would be shielded from NCAA penalties under the Rule of Restitution for fielding these athletes, meaning the university could add them back to its rosters without facing sanctions while the larger legal questions get resolved.
