What to know: NCAA's 5-in-5 eligibility rule sparks chaos, lawsuits and a first-of-its-kind case

The NCAA has passed many controversial rules in its long history but few have led to as much angst as the one approved over the summer giving athletes five years to play five seasons.

The change has resulted in confusion, lawsuits and the once unthinkable notion of players leaving college, signing with professional teams and then turning around to head back to college.

This week, it led to what is believed to be the first lawsuit filed by the NCAA against a state entity, in this case the Ohio governor.

A quick look at how we got here:

The rule passed in June allows athletes to play five seasons over the span of five years. The clock begins with their full-time enrollment or the academic year following their 19th birthday, whichever occurs first. It was a change from the longstanding tenet that gave athletes five years to complete four seasons of competition with their eligibility clock starting at the time of enrollment, regardless of age.

The move all but eliminated waivers or redshirt years for extended eligibility except for religious missions, maternity leave or active-duty military service. No longer will extensions be considered for athletes who are injured.

The NCAA's decision to start applying this new rule to athletes who graduated high school in 2023 is what caused the chaos. By not including the Class of '22, many of whom saw their fourth and final year of eligibility end after the last school year, the NCAA opened itself to accusations of unfairness, yes, but also of denying those athletes the ability to earn NIL compensation or even revenue-sharing money from their schools as well as being deprived of an education.

In justifying the move, the NCAA explained more collective harm would be done to incoming high school athletes whose spots could be eliminated if the Class of ‘22 stayed on than to the Class of ’22 itself.

A basketball player named Brock Wisne filed a federal class-action lawsuit, saying the NCAA violated antitrust law by excluding that Class of 2022 from the new rule.

A judge in Denver ruled in favor of Wisne, opening the door for everyone in the class to come back to college, but only to their former college. An appeals court temporarily halted that judge's order, though that was hardly the end of the confusion.

Earlier this week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed skeptical about the plaintiff's arguments but did not immediately rule.

Players across the country have filed dozens of lawsuits in state courts and many judges granted orders allowing them to come back to school. This “find a local judge” approach has generally been successful for the athletes over the past couple of years. Six weeks into the college football season, a Michigan judge this week cleared the way for two Wolverines players to suit up.

In some cases, a judge not only said the players could come back, but also ordered a brief reopening of the transfer portal, which gave the players a chance to shop around.

According to Boise State's College Sports Litigation Tracker, at least 26 eligibility cases have been filed in state and county courts across the U.S. In at least 10 of those, judges have granted a restraining order or injunction favoring the players.

Court cases move slowly and it could be that nothing will be final until long after football (and maybe basketball and baseball) season is over and there's no relief left to give to the impacted players.

While football teams are well into the season, basketball teams are practicing and preparing for the season that begins in earnest on Nov. 2.

Sign up for Top 25 poll alerts here . Visit the Top 25 here and see AP’s full college football coverage here.