For years, NCAA eligibility rules have been a puzzle. Coaches hated them and players challenged them as lawyers made careers out of them. And every time a waiver comes, the whole college football world waits to see which exception would be granted next. Now the NCAA is trying to future-proof college athletics before the next Diego Pavia or Trinidad Chambliss case lands on a judge’s desk.

On Friday, the NCAA’s Division I Cabinet officially modified its proposed age-based eligibility model. The biggest update is that the NCAA tweaked where the eligibility clock begins.

“The Cabinet modified the age-based model to start a student-athlete’s eligibility clock upon initial full-time enrollment in college or at the beginning of the academic year following their 19th birthday, whichever occurs earlier,” the NCAA said in its latest statement. “This adjustment would be applicable for all sports if the model is adopted.”

The previous proposal would have started the clock after high school graduation. As The Athletic’s Chris Vanini reported, it’s a “result of key pushback from the hockey people and others.” The major pushback came from groups in men’s hockey, men’s basketball, and the U.S. service academies. The Cabinet’s recommendation still requires formal approval. That vote is expected during its June 23-24 meeting, where the proposal is widely anticipated to pass.

For current athletes, the NCAA said schools and conferences have until July 31 to submit any eligibility waiver requests for cases that happened during or before the 2025-26 academic year. But the ones who will exhaust their fourth year of eligibility by spring 2026 won’t receive any extra seasons under the proposed system There’s some flexibility for those players who still have eligibility remaining beyond the mentioned academic year. Those players would be allowed to choose between the new proposed model and the previous eligibility rules. 

By creating a clear five-year eligibility window, the NCAA hopes to reduce the growing number of waiver requests, exceptions, and eligibility disputes that have become a regular part of college athletics. But the problem is that this is no longer college sports in the pre-NIL world. 

Players fight for eligibility because it has become more than just about playing football anymore. Because of NIL, it’s now about earning opportunities, endorsement deals, and financial value. That’s where the NCAA’s biggest challenge begins and also why the names Diego Pavia and Trinidad Chambliss continue to surface over every eligibility discussion.

Why Diego Pavia and Trinidad Chambliss change the eligibility conversation 

Diego Pavia’s case altered how athletes challenge NCAA authority. The former Vanderbilt QB sued the NCAA in November 2024, arguing that counting his JUCO years against his Division I eligibility unfairly restricted his ability to earn NIL income. He played at New Mexico Military Institute before transferring to New Mexico State and eventually Vanderbilt. 

Under NCAA rules, those JUCO years counted against his eligibility clock as he argued they shouldn’t. A federal judge agreed enough to grant a preliminary injunction in December 2024, allowing him to continue competing while the legal fight played out. 

“His plan is to play in the NFL and doesn’t want there to be any doubt or misunderstanding,” his attorney Ryan Downton said. “He has had a great college career, but he’s planning on playing in the NFL. He wants all other junior college players to have the same opportunity he’s had.”

Then came Trinidad Chambliss who sought a medical hardship waiver after missing the full 2022 season at Ferris State. He missed the year while battling chronic tonsillitis and respiratory issues. The NCAA denied his waiver request and appeals. And that’s when the matter moved into court.

Represented by attorney Tom Mars, Trinidad Chambliss filed suit in Mississippi. In February 2026, Judge Robert Whitwell granted a preliminary injunction, criticizing the NCAA for acting in “bad faith” and failing to properly consider medical evidence. While the NCAA appealed, the Mississippi Supreme Court allowed the QB to play for a sixth season in 2026. 

These cases show how players are no longer simply accepting NCAA rulings and moving on. They’ll fight for their rights if they feel things aren’t fair. That’s why, the NCAA is hoping that this new age-based eligibility system would potentially reduce chaos tied to time.