Jack Hasz wanted one more snap. One more year. One more season to finish what he started.
Instead, a federal judge shut the door on that dream; at least for now.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon denied Hasz’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would’ve restored his NCAA eligibility for the 2025 season. The ruling marks another legal victory for the NCAA, which has spent the last few years fending off a wave of eligibility and antitrust lawsuits in the post-Alston era.
Hasz’s case was the latest, and maybe the most relatable, of the bunch: a former JUCO lineman turned Division I starter who simply ran out of time. Not talent. Not drive. Just time.
The Clock That Won’t Stop
If you’ve followed college football even casually over the last few years, you know the “five-year clock” rule. The NCAA gives players five years to complete four seasons of eligibility, starting the moment they enroll full-time.
For Hasz, that clock started at Iowa Western. He played sparingly there, transferred to Buffalo, redshirted one year, saw limited action the next, and then started at UNLV the last two seasons. By the math that actually matters, the NCAA’s, the clock ran out this spring.
Hasz and UNLV applied for the so-called “Pavia waiver,” named after Vanderbilt QB Diego Pavia, who won a similar case last year. But the NCAA only granted relief to athletes who were less than five years out of high school—Hasz wasn’t.
So he sued.
The Legal Fight
The heart of Hasz’s argument was that the Five-Year Rule violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act. He claimed it’s a commercial restraint that unfairly limits players, especially JUCO athletes, from earning NIL money or advancing their careers.
But the judge wasn’t buying it.
The court held that the Five-Year Rule is an “eligibility rule,” not a commercial one. In legal terms: it tells you when you can play, not how you get paid.
“Although the Five-Year Rule has an incidental effect on Hasz’s ability to earn NIL money… it does not directly regulate commercial activity,” the ruling said. “It dictates who can play college sports and for how long.”
Hasz tried to use NCAA v. Alston as his battering ram. But the court made it clear—again—that Alston was about compensation, not eligibility. It only applies to a narrow slice of NCAA regulations, like education-related benefits. The Five-Year Rule? Totally different category.
“Alston is more scalpel than axe,” Judge Bataillon wrote, quoting a recent Georgia district court.
The message was simple: you don’t get to swing Alston at every rule you don’t like.
What About the Harm?
To win an injunction, Hasz also had to prove “irreparable harm”—injury that couldn’t be fixed later with money or eligibility restored down the line.
His case? That sitting out a year could cost him hundreds of thousands in NIL earnings, damage his NFL chances, and crush his mental health.
The court didn’t bite.
“There is no evidence of Hasz being scouted for the NFL,” the judge wrote, calling his claims “too speculative to warrant an injunction.”
And any NIL money lost, the court said, could be repaid later with damages. That’s not irreparable.
The NCAA’s Bigger Win
This ruling doesn’t just affect Jack Hasz. It reinforces the NCAA’s power to define eligibility—at least for now.
Hasz’s lawyers pointed out that people who go on religious missions or serve in the military get exempted from the clock. Why not JUCO guys whose paths aren’t linear?
The court didn’t answer that question directly. But it did make one thing clear: it’s not ready to open the floodgates.
The NCAA argued that changing the Five-Year Rule by court order would create chaos. The judge called that concern “somewhat overstated” but ultimately agreed that Hasz hadn’t met the legal standard to force the NCAA’s hand.
“The balance of harms tips slightly against issuing the requested preliminary injunction.”
What’s Next?
Hasz could still pursue the full case. He could try to build a stronger record with expert testimony, economic evidence, and a fuller challenge. But the 2025 season clock is ticking, and without injunctive relief, it’s hard to see a path back onto the field.
He told Nebraska Public Media that UNLV’s staff has stayed in touch. Whether another school would take the risk, knowing he’s still technically ineligible, is a long shot.
The NCAA says he played four seasons. Hasz argues one should’ve been a redshirt. And ultimately, he says, the point isn’t to blow up the system. It’s to modernize it.
“I agree that you shouldn’t have 30- or 40-year-olds playing college football,” he told reporters. “That’s not what I’m fighting for. We’re really relating it back to what Diego Pavia started, saying that years spent at a junior college shouldn’t count against eligibility.”
It’s a fair question. But not one the court was ready to answer.
Bottom line:The NCAA’s Five-Year Rule survives another test. The legal ground beneath it may be shakier than it once was, but for now, the clock is still the clock.
Hasz ran out of time. But the broader fight over eligibility rules? That’s far from over.