The NCAA's Division I Cabinet recently approved an age-based eligibility framework that lets college basketball players compete for up to five seasons within a five-year window. The policy, which replaces the traditional year-by-year eligibility model, is designed to accommodate both domestic and international athletes who may have taken non-linear paths to campus.
Among those testing the new rule is former Penn State guard Josh Reed, who has filed a lawsuit seeking an additional year of eligibility. Reed, who started 31 games last season and averaged 11.5 points and 4.1 rebounds, transferred to State College in 2025 after three seasons at Cincinnati, never redshirting in any of his prior stops.
Legal Challenge and Eligibility Shifts
The eligibility clock under the new system begins either at initial enrollment or in the academic year following a player’s 19th birthday, giving current roster members the choice to remain under the old rules or adopt the age-based timeline. This flexibility has sparked a cascade of decisions across programs, especially those that have added multiple international recruits this offseason.
Penn State’s recent additions include Serbian forward Aleksandar Zecevic, Filipino guard Andy Gemao, and Croatian big man Roko Prkain, each of whom now faces a distinct eligibility countdown. While Zecevic and Gemao began their clocks last year and retain four years of eligibility, Prkain’s started in the 2022-23 season, leaving him with a single year to make an impact before the five-year limit expires.
Other newcomers such as Latvian forward Roberts Blums and Nigerian center Tim Oboh will also benefit from an extra season under the new model, whereas walk-on veterans Chris Lotito and Grant Spacciapolli find themselves with four and five years of eligibility remaining, respectively. Meanwhile, senior guards Jay Rodgers, Thomas Allard and Dasonte Bowen, already in their final eligibility year for the 2026-27 campaign, remain unaffected.
The legal complaint, filed in Ohio, alleges that the NCAA’s abrupt policy shift breaches the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a claim that could set a precedent for how future eligibility reforms are contested. If the court grants Reed’s request, the precedent could reverberate across campuses, reshaping scholarship calculations and roster planning for programs nationwide.
The lawsuit names several university officials and legal scholars as co-defendants, including Penn State coach Mike Rhoades, compliance director Pete Nakos and athletic compliance officer Ryan Downton, who are expected to defend the association’s authority to modify eligibility standards.
Legal analyst Darren Heitner has warned that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could force the NCAA to revisit not only this case but also a host of related disputes involving international athletes from Serbia, Croatia, France and the Philippines, all of whom are currently navigating the new eligibility calculus.
Beyond the courtroom, the policy change has already reshaped recruiting strategies, with schools like Cincinnati adjusting scholarship allocations to accommodate the extended timelines of players such as Ivan Juric, whose freshman campaign featured 26 starts and now grants him four years of remaining eligibility.
As the litigation proceeds, the NCAA’s Division I Cabinet continues to monitor the outcomes, aware that the final decision will influence not just the participating institutions but also the broader landscape of college athletics, where the line between academic progress and athletic eligibility remains under intense scrutiny.