Vanderbilt linebacker Langston Patterson Brett Patzke-Imagn Images

New NCAA lawsuit threatens ‘redshirt rule'

Originally posted on CFB-HQ on SI | By Alex Weber | Last updated Sep 2, 2025 7:27 PM ET

The NCAA is embroiled in too many lawsuits to tally up, and lately, they've been wading in losing waters against the players underneath their umbrella. Tuesday, another suit just got stacked on top of the pile, and this one could fundamentally change eligibility rules.

According to paperwork posted to X by Ross Dellenger of Yahoo Sports, ten college athletes, including two Vanderbilt football players, sued on the grounds that the NCAA must remove its requirement for athletes to redshirt during one of their five years of eligibility.

Essentially, all student-athletes under scholarship have five years of normal eligibility — one to redshirt and four to play, plus the waivers for hardship or medical issues that can add years. On a base level, these athletes are asking to be able to use all five of those years to play rather than be forced to either redshirt one or leave the school after just four years.

You can see the filing and the argument within the pictures uploaded by Dellenger right here:

A group of college athletes, led by Vanderbilt LB Langston Patterson, filed a class action lawsuit against the NCAA challenging its "redshirt rule."

The lawsuit's goal is for the NCAA to change its eligibility rules to permit players five full playing seasons over five years. pic.twitter.com/6oYBfBbBJR
— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) September 2, 2025

Their motto? Five years to practice, five years to graduate, five years to play.

The lawsuit notes the fact that all Division 1 NCAA athletes are granted five years of eligibility from the day they first enroll at a college. Their argument is that the redshirt season forces the many players who don't use it to forgo what could, or perhaps should, be their fifth and final season.

"Players are unfairly forced to choose between forfeiting their fifth year of eligibility in order to play immediately as a freshman, or sitting out an entire season to have access to a redshirt senior year," the players argued.

Of course, the real reason behind the lawsuit, in all likelihood? Money. Players argue that the redshirt season and the decision it forces athletes to make ultimately harms their earning potential thanks to new rev-share and NIL rules over the recent years. The lawsuit even states flat-out:

"Now that college athletes can benefit financially from their name image and likeness — and from compensation paid by NCAA member schools directly — forcing the athletes to forfeit a year of eligibility is an anticompetitive restraint on their earning potential," so they say.

Just remember, this is a lawsuit designated to benefit certain players who have that earning potential. But every time a four-year senior becomes a fifth-year senior, that's one extra scholarship for a graduating high schooler.

Plus, if this action does go through, that will likely kick-start another several-year cycle of 6th and 7th-year seniors with fans having zero clue where eligibility ever ends, just like what happened with the additional COVID year of eligibility.

This article first appeared on CFB-HQ on SI and was syndicated with permission.

More must-reads: