Mississippi judge grants Ole Miss QB extra year of eligibility

Ruling in contract case against NCAA sets precedent for future challenges

Published on Feb. 13, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

In a highly unusual case, a 23-year-old Ole Miss quarterback named Trinidad Chambliss was granted an extra year of NCAA eligibility by a local Mississippi judge after the NCAA denied his waiver request three times. The judge ruled that the NCAA breached its contract with Ole Miss by not upholding its commitment to the well-being of student-athletes like Chambliss, who missed the 2022 season due to illness. This decision opens a new legal avenue for athletes to challenge NCAA eligibility rules.

Why it matters

The judge's ruling in this contract-based case, rather than a typical antitrust lawsuit, could set a precedent for future challenges to NCAA eligibility rules. As more athletes take the NCAA to court over denied waivers, this decision shows a potential new strategy for them to gain additional years of play.

The details

Chambliss, who began his career at Division II Ferris State, replaced the Ole Miss starter midway through the 2022 season and led the Rebels to their best season in over 60 years. When the NCAA denied his request for a medical redshirt to cover the 2022 season, which he missed due to illness, Chambliss sued the NCAA. In a five-hour hearing, the judge sided with Chambliss, ruling that the NCAA breached its contract with Ole Miss by not acting in good faith and upholding its commitment to student-athlete well-being.

  • On December 1, 2022, the NCAA initially denied Chambliss' waiver request for an extra year of eligibility.
  • In early January 2023, an NCAA committee also denied Chambliss' appeal of the initial decision.
  • On the morning of the February 13, 2023 hearing, Chambliss' final 'reconsideration' request with the NCAA was rejected.

The players

Trinidad Chambliss

A 23-year-old quarterback who began his career at Division II Ferris State before transferring to Ole Miss, where he replaced the starter midseason and led the Rebels to their best season in over 60 years.

Judge Robert Q. Whitwell

A 70-plus-year-old chancery court judge in Mississippi who holds a law degree from Ole Miss, the school that stands to benefit most from his ruling granting Chambliss an extra year of eligibility.

NCAA

The organization that denied Chambliss' requests for a medical redshirt to cover the 2022 season, which the judge ruled was a breach of its contract with Ole Miss.

Ole Miss

The university that Chambliss plays for, and which the judge ruled the NCAA breached its contract with by not granting Chambliss an extra year of eligibility.

Joe Judge

An Ole Miss assistant coach who testified that an extra year of eligibility would be valuable for Chambliss' development and chances of making the NFL.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“This case may have cracked a door to a new avenue of legal challenges against the NCAA's rules. Chambliss' attorneys, instead of suing over antitrust claims (more difficult to prove), sued the NCAA over breaching its contract with Ole Miss as a member university of which all athletes, including Chambliss, are third-party beneficiaries.”

— Ross Dellenger, Author (yahoo.com)

“By not granting Chambliss a sixth year of eligibility, the NCAA breached its contract and acted in bad faith, causing harm to Chambliss in a number of ways in which the judge detailed, including the loss of compensation in what he described as the new 'labor market' of college sports; loss of an additional year to develop for the NFL (something that Ole Miss assistant coach Joe Judge, a witness in the case, stressed during his time on the stand); and, in an interesting twist, the loss of college football's fan base in witnessing one of the best players in the country, the judge said.”

— Ross Dellenger, Author (yahoo.com)

What’s next

The judge's ruling in this contract-based case against the NCAA could open the door for more athletes to challenge eligibility decisions through the courts rather than the NCAA's internal appeals process. Legal experts expect this decision to be appealed by the NCAA, setting up a potential precedent-setting case.

The takeaway

This case highlights the growing instability and legal challenges facing the NCAA's governance of college athletics. As more athletes turn to the courts to fight eligibility decisions, it could force the NCAA to rethink its rules and processes, or lead to Congressional intervention to provide more stability and clarity in the system.