Jarrin Jay said:

---

His appeal should be denied. He RSd at Ferris State in 2021z. His argument is he only played 2 games in 2022. But he did play, so that's 2022/23/24/25 plus the RS year in 2021. Move on.

His reps/lawyers arguing irreparable harm if he isn't granted another year to play at Ole Miss (aka $$$$).

So, why shouldn't any really good player not in the NFL just apply for more eligibility citing the same? There are hundreds of elite CFB players that never made it to the NFL that could make the same argument. If a 6th year is granted to Chambliss, why not 8 or 10?!?!?!!!!

---

ESPN article says he played no games in 2022, and dealt with respiratory issues that lead to tonsils coming out. Basically Ferris State neglected to ask for it on his behalf at the time. I'm good with him getting another year..

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/47513131/sources-ole-miss-qb-trinidad-chambliss-reach-deal-26

Statement from Tom Mars, Chambliss’ attorney: “I assume that Ole Miss will file an appeal with the NCAA. That said, there is now an opportunity to move this case to a level playing field where Trinidad’s rights will be determined by the Mississippi judiciary instead of some… https://t.co/6FaWYyJs7B

— Pete Thamel (@PeteThamel) January 9, 2026

I am not surprised that the NCAA denied Trinidad Chamblis' waiver for a 6th year.

The basis of Chambliss' waiver case was that he was dealing with persistent respiratory issues during his sophomore season at Division II Ferris State. The NCAA asked after the initial filing for contemporaneous medical notes that showed he was dealing with the issue that year.

"Approval requires schools to submit medical documentation provided by a treating physician at the time of a student's incapacitating injury or illness, which was not provided," the NCAA said in a statement.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/47562197/ncaa-denies-ole-miss-qb-chambliss-waiver-6th-year

Should be denied. We need to get back to kids moving on and no more 23 and 24 year olds in CFB.

No one should get more than 5 years. But the courts are likely to remove eligibility rules. They consider any semblance of oversight as unconstitutional.

JohnClark929 said:

---

But the courts are likely to remove eligibility rules. They consider any semblance of oversight as unconstitutional.

---

Tell that to Dylan Goldstein & Alberto Osuna


Also, it's an issue of violating antitrust laws. Has nothing to do with unconstitutional