Another high-profile college football quarterback is requesting additional eligibility.

Chandler Morris, the quarterback who helped Virginia to an 11-win season last year, filed a lawsuit against the NCAA in Charlottesville Circuit Court to regain a season of eligibility by asking a judge to prohibit the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility standards, according to court documents.

Advertisement

Morris, who has played in six seasons for four different schools, argues in the complaint that the NCAA should have granted him a medical redshirt for the 2022 football season, citing both mental and physical ailments. As TCU’s starting quarterback that year, Morris suffered a knee injury in the season opener before playing in three more games in backup duty and suffering from mental health issues as a result of the injury. The NCAA denied in January an eligibility waiver from Morris, and an NCAA committee – made up of school administrators – rejected an appeal of the waiver by Virginia.

Morris and his attorneys are urging a judge to grant him a preliminary injunction that would make him eligible for the 2026 football season. His request is timely. Without an injunction, Morris would presumably enter the NFL Draft in April.

If ruled eligible, Morris, currently enrolled at Virginia, may have competition if he remains with the Cavaliers. UVA signed former Missouri starting quarterback Beau Pribula in January.

Morris, the son of former Arkansas and SMU coach Chad Morris, helped the Cavaliers to their most wins in school history and a spot in the ACC championship game last season. He led North Texas to a bowl game as the starter in 2024 and spent three years at TCU before beginning his career at Oklahoma in 2020.

Advertisement

Morris is the latest power conference starting quarterback to attempt to regain a season of eligibility. His argument for a medical hardship is similar to that of Ole Miss quarterback Trinidad Chambliss, who saw a Mississippi court rule in his favor for a sixth year of eligibility over a medical hardship for, as it turns out, the same season of competition.

Chambliss argued that a severe case of tonsillitis – plus lingering symptoms of mononucleosis and COVID – prevented him from playing the 2022 season. The NCAA denied his waiver and appeal, arguing that the quarterback did not submit good enough contemporaneous medical evidence of his affliction.

The NCAA ruled against Morris for similar reasons, citing that the quarterback and Virginia did not submit enough medical documents from 2022 to grant the request. In his lawsuit, Morris and his attorneys detail the 2022 season, when Morris sprained a ligament in his knee during the season opener before his backup, Max Duggan, replaced him as a starter for the rest of the year, leading TCU to a stunning appearance in the national championship game.

While he played in three more games that season in backup duty, Morris’ attorneys argue that his injury in the season opener impacted his mental health to a serious enough degree that he sought a therapist. Because of his mental situation, they contend, he should be granted relief for that season.

Advertisement

Morris’ case vaults into the spotlight another legal battle over the lawfulness of NCAA eligibility rules. Since Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia’s successful eligibility case in December of 2024, nearly 60 lawsuits have been filed by athletes seeking additional eligibility. More than two-thirds of those cases ended in a dismissed case or an NCAA win in a preliminary injunction decision.

However, judges in 12 cases have granted athletes injunctions, resulting in a flood of more legal filings and an imbalance in the college sports ecosystem.

The issue is serious enough that the NCAA, in at least two cases, has threatened to use the “rule of restitution” to retroactively punish a school for knowingly using an NCAA-deemed ineligible player, even if a court rules them eligible. The NCAA’s rule of restitution is only applicable if the NCAA eventually wins an eligibility case, which would overturn a judge’s preliminary injunction.