Jon Rothstein, a college basketball reporter for CBS Sports, is reporting (https://x.com/JonRothstein/status/1875189417201316040)that the NCAA is considering allowing 5 years of eligibility in all sports.
This isn't breaking news though. Ross Dellinger of Yahoo Sports reported (https://sports.yahoo.com/docs-ncaa-considering-applying-football-redshirt-rule-to-athletes-in-all-sports-154903963.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuc2kuY29tL2NvbGxlZ2UvZ29uemFnYS9iYXNrZXRiYWxsL25jYWEtY29uc2lkZXJpbmctNXRoLXllYXItb2YtZWxpZ2liaWxpdHktZm9yLWFsbC1zcG9ydHMtMDFqNndrNHo5ZDQz&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALVZDmFS24Wyv9K9qKAVUSL1sfWfgV1nOQXrJOeckUtfXUl474QDi0Q9Jz-B8psX_f1K-K4VTFVnHiDBkCypeK9jt-a0jgkP_tDv6JuYDAF7VqZFlxVJlCz1FRqdgGR79hCFcq1egURBVFkJiP8TjMfmICCMh-xNn3STHKZnwwOP)earlier this fall that this was under consideration.
Here is what was reported earlier this fall:
QuoteMember schools plan to seriously consider granting athletes in all sports, not just football, the ability to participate in up to a certain percentage of games in a fifth season and still use their redshirt.
The potential changes are part of what is expected to be a year-long comprehensive review of NCAA athlete-eligibility rules to reflect and operationalize the House settlement terms, according to documents obtained by Yahoo Sports. The documents will be reviewed this coming week during a video call of the NCAA Division I Council.
Recommendations and approval of the athlete-eligibility rules are expected to occur on a rolling basis and be presented to the DI Council for consideration at regular quarterly meetings through October 2025.
That description sounds like an adjustment to the redshirt rule, rather than a blanket 5th year, and since DIII doesn't have a redshirt rule (and has a pretty restrictive injury rule), it presumably wouldn't apply to DIII. Nevertheless, with judicial rulings and political changes altering the landscape significantly over the last few months, it's possible that they are considering a 5th year of eligibility that is both broader (not requiring a redshirt or a modified redshirt for a limited number of games played) and applies to all divisions, similar to the Covid rule.
DIII observers are taking this seriously, with DIII college basketball podcast host Bob Quillman arguing (https://x.com/IWUhoopscom/status/1875227448188793117)that this would create a have and have-nots for DIII schools based on whether they offer grad programs.
QuoteThis would permanently create a non-level playing field in D3 between schools with and without grad programs. It's been one thing to have this in the 4 yrs after the pandemic...but wow.
I really hope @NCAADIII thinks long and hard about the implications here.
I'm not so sure that University Administrators of DIII schools would look at it the way Bob does. I think they are already looking at a shortfall in enrollment with the demographic cliff and they would seriously consider anything that keeps students around and paying tuition for 5 rather than 4 years as an opportunity. Unlike with the Covid year, which was clearly temporary, I think in a long-term rule change schools would pursue ways to capture that extra revenue, whether by starting some grad programs, partnering with other universities on grad programs where they could take classes at the home institution during the semester in which they play their sport and at the grad institution in the other semester (or even a model like the Claremont Graduate University, which is the graduate program for all of the schools in the Claremont consortium), or creating revenue-generating, non-degree earning, study abroad, public service, or externship options that they could do for a semester or more while formally being withdrawn from school and then coming back to finish up their last semester of coursework while playing the last season of their sport (some schools already do these things in the Fall with students who are offered Spring semester starts their freshman year). Many of those options could be structured either in a way that avoids the extra burden on campus housing and infrastructure from having more students on campus at any given time, while still providing schools some revenue (share of fees) while they are away doing other things or in a way that keeps the students on campus to fill up otherwise empty dorms and instead permits the grad work or non-degree earning work to be done remotely or nearby.
By the way, some of this already happened under Covid 5th year rules. I know players at schools without grad programs who took off a semester (either during Covid or at some later point) and worked, often in internships in their expected field, so they could come back and play a 5th season. They sometimes weren't identified as 5th years or grad students, so you wouldn't know if you didn't know the player/team or didn't look at their stats/bio on the website.
Here is more commentary (https://x.com/d3bubble/status/1875261820765946108)from Wooster professor Drew Pasteur on the possibility of DIII going along with a 5th year
QuoteLast January, the D3 membership voted to retain language about D3 athletics being primarily a four-year undergraduate experience, even after the NCAA D3 Management Council had proposed dropping it.
However, the potential for 5th year tuition + room/board might sway the majority.
I think his last point, coming from inside the academy, underscores my point about how academic administrators might view a 5th year differently than fans
The question with the "fifth year tuition/room/board" argument, for schools lacking graduate options, is this: you require "X" credit hours to get an undergraduate degree. I don't think most students are looking to take and pay for X * 1.25 hours just to play sports for five years at the D3 level. So you're not going to realize a full "fifth year" worth of revenue, plus schools will have to continue offering financial aid (aka tuition discounts) to keep students there. And, if you're not taking a full course load, maybe you're also not living on campus that fifth year.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 03, 2025, 04:15:07 PMThe question with the "fifth year tuition/room/board" argument, for schools lacking graduate options, is this: you require "X" credit hours to get an undergraduate degree. I don't think most students are looking to take and pay for X * 1.25 hours just to play sports for five years at the D3 level. So you're not going to realize a full "fifth year" worth of revenue, plus schools will have to continue offering financial aid (aka tuition discounts) to keep students there. And, if you're not taking a full course load, maybe you're also not living on campus that fifth year.
I think the workaround option students have used in Covid years doesn't make schools money because they simply withdraw from school for a semester. Same with just slow-playing a kid's school by lowering the minimum number of credits per semester to be full-time (although you might make back some money from housing and other fees if they stayed enrolled the whole time).
My prediction is that tuition-dependent colleges that are already using sports to attract undergraduates would use sports to generate other types of revenue if they were given the chance. If they have grad programs, they would use sports to attract students to those or add ones to do so. If they don't have grad programs and it's not economical to add some, they would find ways to share fees with schools that can offer grad programs or get fees for non-degree options, such as externship placements (offering supervision) or public service/travel abroad experiences (the latter two providing value-added for existing students to extend their stay and their payments). I've already seen some D1 schools enroll post-BA students in new grad programs to allow them to be eligible for extra years. I'm not saying they necessarily created the new grad programs for the express purpose of supporting their sports teams (there probably aren't enough athletes to sustain that), but it definitely helps justify those programs.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 03, 2025, 04:15:07 PMI don't think most students are looking to take and pay for X * 1.25 hours just to play sports for five years at the D3 level. So you're not going to realize a full "fifth year" worth of revenue, plus schools will have to continue offering financial aid (aka tuition discounts) to keep students there.
I feel like COVID basically functioned as a proof of concept for this idea already. I suspect an overwhelming majority of 5th year players did not pause their undergraduate academic pursuits. The schools probably have a sense already of the % of student-athletes who would have no problem taking on a 5th year of college financially.
Unless they make a rule that your 5th year
has to be graduate school, I could see this opening up multiple options for student-athletes.
Usually, a "full-time" student is anyone taking at least 12 credits a semester. Which means you can be a full-time student and take 12 credits a semester for 10 semesters (Instead of the more traditional 15 credits per 8 semesters) and still come away with, for lack of a better word, a typical, 120-credit degree. And that reduced course load might make sense for someone with an additional significant time commitment. There's only so many hours in a day, and maybe I'm naive in thinking this is how they will do it, maybe the lack of a 5th class to attend/study for will allow students to study
more for their 4 remaining classes, improving their academic performance.
We could also see them use that extra year to complete an additional minor. Or you could decide you're going for a 5th year right away and structure your course load in a way to make a double major realistic, especially if you're already coming into college with credits from AP classes.
Again, maybe I'm naive, but I think this actually opens up a lot of beneficial academic paths for athletes whose families can afford a 5th year. And hey, if not, go ahead and graduate the same way you would have before
Well, it may not be "permanent", but a judge in Colorado just issued an edict requiring the NCAA declare eligible all HS Class of '22 athletes that completed four seasons of eligibility (https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/bombshell-eligibility-ruling-just-dropped-234936277.html).
Edit: this appears only to apply to those who used four years of D1 eligibility.
D3 hasn't adopted the 5 year change, and it's likely they won't.
According to Frank Rossi, D2 just approved "5-5". This just helps the larger D3 schools, (of course the WIAC & EMPIRE). This should in theory mean more players spend 5 years at school than ever before. Less chance of playing time for freshman and sophomore's, then more transferring down a level. The most important thing for any young players is playing time. Does anybody know what triggers a medical redshirt? Would those still apply at the D3 level. I wouldn't be surprised if D3 split into 2 division in the next decade.
I agree that if 5/5 comes to D3, it could be the impetus for schools without grad programs to join together.
D3football FAQ Medical redshirting (also known as a medical hardship season) is still permitted at the Division III level. The general guideline is that you must have played one-third of the scheduled games or fewer in order to be eligible. If you suffer a season-ending injury in that time-frame and can document it, your conference (or athletic director, if an independent) can file paperwork with the NCAA on your behalf to restore a season of eligibility.
Reposting The ARC is sponsoring a bill (with the OAC co-sponsoring) which would enact the 5 year eligibility based rule D1 and D2 have adopted. It will be voted on next year. https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=109408
Quote from: ADL70 on August 15, 2026, 04:11:35 PMReposting The ARC is sponsoring a bill (with the OAC co-sponsoring) which would enact the 5 year eligibility based rule D1 and D2 have adopted. It will be voted on next year. https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/proposalView?id=109408
One rationale for the 5 in 5 rule at D1 is that it might remove the eligibility lawsuits over medical conditions and similar hardships claimed to extend a player's college career, making the extra year automatically available. D3 already allows for medical hardships, but I don't know if I have heard of many lawsuits or disputes over denials at this level. Is that a legitimate problem in D3? I assumed that the extra year of tuition and room and board weeds out all but the most determined/worthy of applicants.
(I do realize that the motivation for pursuing it in D3 might be quite different than the rationale offered in D1 - e.g., extra year of tuition in a time of declining enrollment, students to fill open graduate degree spots, competitive advantage for the team etc)
If the goal of making d3 5 to play 5 in order to retain enrollment because of decline, it feels like that's mutually exclusive with the schools that have enrollment issues. Most of the schools in that situation do not have graduate school options. It feels like a very dangerous game dangling an extra year of competition in front of a 21/22 year old since many are highly likely to want to play an extra year of competition against bottom tier teams even it means another year spending tens of thousands. There is going to be someone who spends an additional $30k or so in order to play against Goucher.
Quote from: stlawus on August 16, 2026, 03:42:33 PMIf the goal of making d3 5 to play 5 in order to retain enrollment because of decline, it feels like that's mutually exclusive with the schools that have enrollment issues. Most of the schools in that situation do not have graduate school options. It feels like a very dangerous game dangling an extra year of competition in front of a 21/22 year old since many are highly likely to want to play an extra year of competition against bottom tier teams even it means another year spending tens of thousands. There is going to be someone who spends an additional $30k or so in order to play against Goucher.
There is no net impact on enrollment if roster sizes are the same. One roster spot is one enrolled student regardless of how long that student occupies the roster spot.
Quote from: ziggy on August 16, 2026, 06:49:09 PMQuote from: stlawus on August 16, 2026, 03:42:33 PMIf the goal of making d3 5 to play 5 in order to retain enrollment because of decline, it feels like that's mutually exclusive with the schools that have enrollment issues. Most of the schools in that situation do not have graduate school options. It feels like a very dangerous game dangling an extra year of competition in front of a 21/22 year old since many are highly likely to want to play an extra year of competition against bottom tier teams even it means another year spending tens of thousands. There is going to be someone who spends an additional $30k or so in order to play against Goucher.
There is no net impact on enrollment if roster sizes are the same. One roster spot is one enrolled student regardless of how long that student occupies the roster spot.
Since this was a discussion about extending 5 for 5 to D3 schools, the roster limits presumably wouldn't apply. Also, the enrollment bump for D1 schools is for their graduate programs, which are often more significantly impacted than undergraduate programs right now because of the drop in international students and research funding.
Quote from: ziggy on August 16, 2026, 06:49:09 PMQuote from: stlawus on August 16, 2026, 03:42:33 PMIf the goal of making d3 5 to play 5 in order to retain enrollment because of decline, it feels like that's mutually exclusive with the schools that have enrollment issues. Most of the schools in that situation do not have graduate school options. It feels like a very dangerous game dangling an extra year of competition in front of a 21/22 year old since many are highly likely to want to play an extra year of competition against bottom tier teams even it means another year spending tens of thousands. There is going to be someone who spends an additional $30k or so in order to play against Goucher.
There is no net impact on enrollment if roster sizes are the same. One roster spot is one enrolled student regardless of how long that student occupies the roster spot.
Is it, though?
One roster spot for four years is four student-athlete years. One roster spot for five years is, well, five.
How about a 5-5-4 Plan? 5 years but only 4 of those can be D3. Fifth year can be a transfer to another division. Call it a compromise to give the same potential eligibility to all NCAA players. Does seem like we're seeing a lot more interdivisional transferring in today's game. If you're good enough to go D2/D1, you've earned it and deserve to have the opportunity the others have.
The Medical hardship would be removed in the 5 year model for d3.
The only exceptions for pausing the 5-year clock are pregnancy, military service, and religious mission/public service commitment.
Not necessarily. It's whatever the Division votes for. If the reverse were true and each division had to mirror one another we wouldn't be waiting for 2027 to figure this out.
Quote from: Patrick Coleman on August 16, 2026, 09:35:58 PMQuote from: ziggy on August 16, 2026, 06:49:09 PMQuote from: stlawus on August 16, 2026, 03:42:33 PMIf the goal of making d3 5 to play 5 in order to retain enrollment because of decline, it feels like that's mutually exclusive with the schools that have enrollment issues. Most of the schools in that situation do not have graduate school options. It feels like a very dangerous game dangling an extra year of competition in front of a 21/22 year old since many are highly likely to want to play an extra year of competition against bottom tier teams even it means another year spending tens of thousands. There is going to be someone who spends an additional $30k or so in order to play against Goucher.
There is no net impact on enrollment if roster sizes are the same. One roster spot is one enrolled student regardless of how long that student occupies the roster spot.
Is it, though?
One roster spot for four years is four student-athlete years. One roster spot for five years is, well, five.
You...just made my point?
Player A has a four year career, graduates and the roster spot is replaced by Player B in year 5.
vs.
Player C has a five year career and occupies a roster spot for five years.
From an enrollment/tuition standpoint over five years, Player A + Player B = Player C.
I guess -- I didn't follow that you were talking about someone only enrolled for one year.
Quote from: Patrick Coleman on August 17, 2026, 10:15:22 AMI guess -- I didn't follow that you were talking about someone only enrolled for one year.
You would figure that player would be there if we continue talking about year six, but at that point Player C would be replaced by Player D.
So we're still ever only talking about one seat per year, the only thing that changes is how long a student athlete might occupy that seat. One seat = one tuition payment, regardless of who is "sitting" in that seat.
If you have a FB team with 100 roster spots, after 20 years you've had 2,000 player-seasons.
In a five-year eligibility model, you've filled those spots with 400 individual student-athletes.
In a four-year eligibility model, you've filled those spots with 500 individual student-athletes.
*roughly
Quote from: KnightSlappy on August 17, 2026, 10:31:39 AMIf you have a FB team with 100 roster spots, after 20 years you've had 2,000 player-seasons.
In a five-year eligibility model, you've filled those spots with 400 individual student-athletes.
In a four-year eligibility model, you've filled those spots with 500 individual student-athletes.
*roughly
Or ... there are 25% more roster spots. Or some sliding scale in between.
I don't really care how it works out. I think fewer and fewer students are working on a four year model with each passing year, so keeping everything tied to that doesn't make a ton of sense.
At the same time, I'd be pretty sad if there's no pathway for nontraditional students to play sports. When I was in college, we had a 28 year old freshman playing for the basketball team. He was a local guy who'd just never gone to college for whatever reason. The Coach found him somewhere, offered him a spot. He commuted, but was on campus all the time, got involved in student life, played four years, and earned a degree he'd not otherwise have had.
I think those stories are generally pretty unique to d3 and I'd hope they'd provide ways for that kind of thing to be preserved.
D1 is having some ramifications with the implementation of the new eligibility rule not sure they expected.
^^^ Fascinating. So it sounds like a football player can just get accepted into a college (not necessarily the one he previously attended and played for) in one day without going through an application process, submitting a transcript, or anything. It really has nothing to do with education. Guess we gotta take the "collegiate" out of the NCAA. Maybe the National Corporate Athletic Association. This will eventually filter down to D3 if 5 for 5 happens because some D3 guys get invited to NFL training camps.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 17, 2026, 03:20:27 PMAt the same time, I'd be pretty sad if there's no pathway for nontraditional students to play sports. When I was in college, we had a 28 year old freshman playing for the basketball team. He was a local guy who'd just never gone to college for whatever reason. The Coach found him somewhere, offered him a spot. He commuted, but was on campus all the time, got involved in student life, played four years, and earned a degree he'd not otherwise have had.
I never thought about this. One of the players on SLU basketball's Mount Rushmore was a non traditional student that enrolled when he was 21. This kind of player is more rare these days even without the eligibility stuff, but I do think they are completely eradicated if these changes apply to all of the NCAA.