A federal judge overseeing multiple high-profile NCAA eligibility challenges has denied a request that would have expanded playing opportunities for a group of athletes—but the ruling also clarifies where things currently stand for Diego Pavia, who is still actively pursuing another year of college football through a separate lawsuit.
According to The New York Times, on Thursday, January 15, U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell Jr. denied a preliminary injunction sought by five athletes in a lawsuit brought by 19 plaintiffs challenging the NCAA’s redshirt rules.
The plaintiffs, led by Vanderbilt linebacker Langston Patterson, were asking the court to allow a fifth season of competition within the standard five-year eligibility window—a framework commonly referred to as “five for five.”
Campbell’s decision means those athletes will remain ineligible to compete in the 2026–27 season while their lawsuit continues. Importantly, the denial does not apply to Pavia directly, but it arrives while his own eligibility case remains pending before the same judge.
“The NCAA is thankful for the judge’s decision today, which demonstrates the court’s consideration of future generations of student-athletes,” the organization said in a statement. “We will continue to defend the NCAA’s eligibility rules against repeated attempts to rob high school students of the opportunity to compete in college.”
The redshirt case is distinct from Pavia’s current lawsuit, though the two are closely linked in how they challenge NCAA eligibility limits. Pavia originally sued the NCAA in late 2024 over rules that counted his junior college seasons against his Division I eligibility.
Judge Campbell granted him a preliminary injunction in December 2024, allowing him to play during the 2025 season—a ruling that helped spark a wave of similar lawsuits nationwide.
Now, Pavia has filed a new action seeking the right to play another season in 2026, even as he weighs NFL Draft options. His current lawsuit argues that former JUCO players are unfairly restricted compared to other categories of athletes who receive broader eligibility windows, including redshirts and athletes with professional experience in other sports.
In contrast, the redshirt plaintiffs—represented by the same legal team—are attacking the NCAA’s four-seasons-of-competition limit more broadly. Attorney Ryan Downton acknowledged the setback but emphasized that the fight is far from over.
“We are disappointed that our Plaintiffs are unlikely to play next season, but we understand why the Court did not want to require such a major rule change on a limited judicial record,” Downton said. “We remain confident the NCAA has no legitimate reason to make athletes sit out most (or all) of one of their five seasons of eligibility.”