• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Proposed NCAA Rule of 5 to play 5

M

mthoopsfan

Well-known member
"The NCAA is currently moving toward a significant shift in eligibility rules, often referred to as the "Five-in-Five" model. This proposal is a major departure from the long-standing "four seasons in five years" framework.

Here is the breakdown of the new rule as it stands in May 2026:

The Core Change: "Five-in-Five"​

Under the proposed rule, Division I student-athletes would be granted five full seasons of competition to be used within a continuous five-year window.
  • The Current Rule: Athletes have 4 seasons of competition to use within 5 years. To get a 5th year of play, they usually need a "redshirt" year or a medical hardship waiver.

  • The New Rule: The concept of "redshirting" to save a year of eligibility would effectively disappear because players would simply have five seasons available by default.

    Key Details of the Proposal
  • Age-Based Clock: The five-year eligibility window would begin the academic year after a student-athlete turns 19or graduates from high school, whichever happens first.

  • No Retroactive Application: The NCAA Board of Directors has indicated that this rule will not apply to athletes who exhaust their eligibility under the current rules during the 2025–26 academic year. It is intended for those entering or remaining in the system after that point.

  • Elimination of Waivers: Because athletes get five years automatically, most traditional waivers (like medical hardships) would be eliminated, except for specific cases like military service, religious missions, or maternity leave.

    Why the Change?
The shift is largely driven by two factors:

  1. Legal Pressure: The NCAA has faced numerous lawsuits regarding eligibility and transfer rules. Moving to a flat five-year window simplifies the process and reduces the need for the discretionary waivers that often lead to litigation.

  2. Modernizing the Game: In sports like basketball, where playing even one minute currently "burns" a full year of eligibility, this allows for more flexibility. In football, it would replace the current "four-game redshirt" rule.

    Implementation Timeline
The Division I Council and Board of Directors advanced the concept in late April 2026. While it is not yet fully codified for every sport, it is being targeted for implementation starting in the 2026–27 academic year.

This will likely result in "older" rosters across collegiate athletics, similar to what was seen during the temporary COVID-19 eligibility extensions."

Gemini. Sorry if previously posted. This took me 5 seconds to obtain, and 10 seconds to post. argh and 5280 can research this by going to the NCAA website, reading the proposal and them summarizing it. I bet Gemini is more accurate than those two would be.
 
Da Boyz Mom said:
I feel like this could have been a good solution if it had been implemented years ago. However at this point it kind of seems like closing the barn door after the horse is already out. Will merely stating that no waivers will be given be enough to stop the litigation? I'm not so sure about that.
Click to expand...
I agree. I believe this would work. With no waivers, I don’t see what the claim would be.
 
Admittedly, I haven’t been following all of the developments closely. Has anything concrete come out about limiting transfers to 1 in that 5 year span?
 
mthoopsfan said:
"The NCAA is currently moving toward a significant shift in eligibility rules, often referred to as the "Five-in-Five" model. This proposal is a major departure from the long-standing "four seasons in five years" framework.

Here is the breakdown of the new rule as it stands in May 2026:

The Core Change: "Five-in-Five"​

Under the proposed rule, Division I student-athletes would be granted five full seasons of competition to be used within a continuous five-year window.
  • The Current Rule: Athletes have 4 seasons of competition to use within 5 years. To get a 5th year of play, they usually need a "redshirt" year or a medical hardship waiver.

  • The New Rule: The concept of "redshirting" to save a year of eligibility would effectively disappear because players would simply have five seasons available by default.

    Key Details of the Proposal
  • Age-Based Clock: The five-year eligibility window would begin the academic year after a student-athlete turns 19or graduates from high school, whichever happens first.

  • No Retroactive Application: The NCAA Board of Directors has indicated that this rule will not apply to athletes who exhaust their eligibility under the current rules during the 2025–26 academic year. It is intended for those entering or remaining in the system after that point.

  • Elimination of Waivers: Because athletes get five years automatically, most traditional waivers (like medical hardships) would be eliminated, except for specific cases like military service, religious missions, or maternity leave.

    Why the Change?
The shift is largely driven by two factors:

  1. Legal Pressure: The NCAA has faced numerous lawsuits regarding eligibility and transfer rules. Moving to a flat five-year window simplifies the process and reduces the need for the discretionary waivers that often lead to litigation.

  2. Modernizing the Game: In sports like basketball, where playing even one minute currently "burns" a full year of eligibility, this allows for more flexibility. In football, it would replace the current "four-game redshirt" rule.

    Implementation Timeline
The Division I Council and Board of Directors advanced the concept in late April 2026. While it is not yet fully codified for every sport, it is being targeted for implementation starting in the 2026–27 academic year.

This will likely result in "older" rosters across collegiate athletics, similar to what was seen during the temporary COVID-19 eligibility extensions."

Gemini. Sorry if previously posted. This took me 5 seconds to obtain, and 10 seconds to post. argh and 5280 can research this by going to the NCAA website, reading the proposal and them summarizing it. I bet Gemini is more accurate than those two would be.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this information my friend!
 
Harm said:
Admittedly, I haven’t been following all of the developments closely. Has anything concrete come out about limiting transfers to 1 in that 5 year span?
Click to expand...
No. In the current legal landscape the NCAA definitely will not be able to limit transfers without an anti-trust exemption. They already lost that case very early on, if my understanding is correct.
 
UncleRico said:
Every action the NCAA takes at this point seems to be like putting duct tape on a sinking cruise ship.
Click to expand...
Until Congress gets them an anti-trust exemption, I think they are just rudderless. "All of our rules will be challenged and we will lose before we even get to merits.... what regulations can we put in that won't get us sued again?" That seems to be their last death rattle of an organizational philosophy.

Honestly, I'd like to believe that college sports is one area our fractured political system could still come together and reasonably regulate, but reality keeps slapping me in the face like a jilted lover.
 
Congress. :rolleyes:
All they are good for is obfuscation and making speeches.
Four syllable word. Damn! Those poor MSDUI alums on this site gotta get somebody to interpret, again.
 
Da Boyz Mom said:
I feel like this could have been a good solution if it had been implemented years ago. However at this point it kind of seems like closing the barn door after the horse is already out. Will merely stating that no waivers will be given be enough to stop the litigation? I'm not so sure about that.
Click to expand...
I emailed Hauck 1.0 an article regarding 5 in 5, that it was being kicked around way back then. Probably should have given it more consideration rather than sweeping it under the rug.
 
I hate to be the guy repeatedly beating this drum, but this feels like just a stopover towards unlimited eligibility so long as you are a full time degree seeking student in good standing.

What is the legal argument for a limit that's not some arbitrary number based on the "Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior" idea? The fact that they're making it 5 years instead of 4 kind of kills even that argument.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, just that I don't see a legal reason players shouldn't be able to keep playing as long as they fulfill those same full-time university student requirements.
 
uofmman1122 said:
I hate to be the guy repeatedly beating this drum, but this feels like just a stopover towards unlimited eligibility so long as you are a full time degree seeking student in good standing.

What is the legal argument for a limit that's not some arbitrary number based on the "Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior" idea? The fact that they're making it 5 years instead of 4 kind of kills even that argument.

I'm not saying it's a good thing, just that I don't see a legal reason players shouldn't be able to keep playing as long as they fulfill those same full-time university student requirements.
Click to expand...
There is no right to keep playing college football. I think the rule will be fine and won’t get knocked out by a court.
 
mthoopsfan said:
There is no right to keep playing college football. I think the rule will be fine and won’t get knocked out by a court.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to argue with you, you are the lawyer and I am not, so this is an honest question.

If a young man sues and says "hey, I am in my 6th year on campus and still seeking my degree, and I want to participate in this sport." Their lawyer files and argues that the NCAA is by definition a monopoly with no anti-trust exemption, and that they have to prove why they have the legal right to deny him eligibility?

My understanding was that the NCAA cannot legally get past that hurdle, and that is why they are forced to keep losing or settling lawsuits around eligibility. Is my understanding around that wrong, or is the a legal argument on the NCAA's side that they don't need the anti-trust exemption?

I defer to you on this one, because I clearly must be missing something.
 
ElrodGrizzly said:
I'm not trying to argue with you, you are the lawyer and I am not, so this is an honest question.

If a young man sues and says "hey, I am in my 6th year on campus and still seeking my degree, and I want to participate in this sport." Their lawyer files and argues that the NCAA is by definition a monopoly with no anti-trust exemption, and that they have to prove why they have the legal right to deny him eligibility?

My understanding was that the NCAA cannot legally get past that hurdle, and that is why they are forced to keep losing or settling lawsuits around eligibility. Is my understanding around that wrong, or is the a legal argument on the NCAA's side that they don't need the anti-trust exemption?

I defer to you on this one, because I clearly must be missing something.
Click to expand...
Right, I'm not saying there isn't or couldn't possibly be a good legal argument for why it should be capped, just that as of this moment I have not heard one that stands up to legal scrutiny.
 
ElrodGrizzly said:
I'm not trying to argue with you, you are the lawyer and I am not, so this is an honest question.

If a young man sues and says "hey, I am in my 6th year on campus and still seeking my degree, and I want to participate in this sport." Their lawyer files and argues that the NCAA is by definition a monopoly with no anti-trust exemption, and that they have to prove why they have the legal right to deny him eligibility?

My understanding was that the NCAA cannot legally get past that hurdle, and that is why they are forced to keep losing or settling lawsuits around eligibility. Is my understanding around that wrong, or is the a legal argument on the NCAA's side that they don't need the anti-trust exemption?

I defer to you on this one, because I clearly must be missing something.
Click to expand...
The NCAA is not by definition a monopoly, to my knowledge. And, even if it is, there is nothing wrong with being a monopoly. A monopoly just can't act in an anticompetitive way. That's what I recall from law school. No, I don't think that's what the ncaa's problem is, but I assume others could challenge rule for some reason. The ncaa's main problems are that they are sometimes acting in anticompetitive ways and that everyone, including courts, hate them. My view is that having a 5 to play 5 is not anticompetitive, but I suppose some would disagree and challenge this in court.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top