The NCAA Division I Cabinet was set to meet on May 22 to discuss and vote on a new eligibility rule called “5 in 5” in which players will be granted five years of eligibility to play five years. There’s consensus to simplify eligibility rules, and to toss the term redshirt year to the curb, yet the meeting was surprisingly delayed until June 22.
While we expect the rule to pass, the delay adds some intrigue not only to the rule change but to the membership’s ability to find the consensus required for self-governance.
What is the change and why is there near-unanimous support?
The proposed “Five in Five” rule simplifies eligibility compared to the current rule for everyone from the players all the way up to the NCAA, which has spent millions on defending itself against loopholes or nuances in the current system.
Conference offices and campus compliance offices applaud the proposal because throwing out the “redshirt” year should eliminate, or drastically reduce, the amount of time being consumed to manage the eligibility of 500-plus student-athletes, and their eligibility appeals, many of which are nuanced.
Under the proposed plan every Division I student-athlete would receive five full seasons of eligibility within a five-year window, starting the academic year after they graduate high school or celebrate their 19th birthday, whichever comes first.
That’s it. No complicated eligibility rules that are difficult to explain to players, coaches or the media when the NCAA approves a eligibility waiver for the rival school and not for Florida State.
The term redshirt year would go the way of the leather helmet, a relic of the past.
“I love the 5 in 5,” FSU Athletic Director Michael Alford said after a briefing at the ACC Spring Meeting. “I think it's a great rule. I think it saves a lot.”
ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips came out of those meetings in Amelia Island with a similar feeling after meeting with his football and basketball coaches, faculty athletic representatives, senior women’s administrators and athletic directors.
“Play up to five – awesome,” Phillips said. “Can we start tomorrow?”
That is the question that will likely be on the agenda for June 22, but even if implementation isn’t practical tomorrow, Phillips is encouraged this is a problem the NCAA can solve for itself.
“We did get a chance to talk with the coaches and faculty athletic reps, who are really important, the SWAs and the ADs about it. And there's consensus,” Phillips said.
Here’s how the proposed plan would work, if approved:
Eligibility clock starts: The five-year period begins the year after high school graduation or age 19, not when the athlete first enrolls
Five years to play five: Each year the athlete competes counts as a season, no matter how much they play. There is no “redshirt” year to preserve eligibility.
No redshirts: The old rules allowed an athlete to sit out for a development year and preserve a year of eligibility; under 5-for-5, they still receive five years but now every year counts toward the five-year limit whether they are a starter or spend that year in development, or anything in between.
Eliminate many extensions: The new rule eliminates medical hardships and all the diagnosed bureaucracy involved in justifying the hardship, COVID and other limited-participation waivers that were often ambiguous.
Exceptions: Military service, religious missions or maternity leave would be the only exceptions.
The proposal is to make the changes effective for the 2026-27 academic year and beyond with no retroactive extension for athletes whose eligibility expired in spring 2026.
Pros and cons
As with any proposed rule change there are known consequences and unknown consequences to be discovered and discussed before taking a vote.
There is no disagreement that the new rule is easier for high school prospects, players, coaches and administrators to understand, fewer nuances and less room for the unscrupulous to game the system.
Clock will start earlier for some: Any years spent at a prep school after high school will now count toward the five-year clock. Years spent at junior college will continue to count against eligibility.
Age-based eligibility could reduce the number of older athletes entering college. The first player who comes to mind for Florida State fans would be Chris Weinke, who chose to try his hand in pro baseball first. Under the new rules, Weinke’s five-year clock would have started on his 19th birthday or senior graduation, whichever occurred first, and expired before he chose to come to FSU. While Weinke’s case is exceptional, international basketball players are common, with some of them playing in professional leagues after high school before enrolling in American universities. Those days would be over.
There is consensus that “5 in 5” is superior to “4 in 5” from the conference office to the campus compliance office, because it will reduce misunderstanding (even among media and fans), reduce paperwork, appeals, and some lawsuits, all of which save time and money to use on other needs.
Provides the coaches with more depth with the same roster size as they are not having to manage redshirt years. Roster planning becomes more predictable. Coaches and administrators don’t have to manage how many games a player has played, nor concern themselves with a player not wanting to play at some point in the season because they want to preserve an extra season as they have full five seasons to play. But as noted above, coaches who believe in developmental recruiting of freshmen will have to adapt to how they manage freshman expectations and participation.
Positive for freshmen: There will be more playing opportunities for those true freshmen who are mentally, emotionally and physically ready to compete against older players. And, one could argue, beneficial for the first-year players who aren’t quite ready, as any playing experience received provides first-hand feedback on areas they need development.
Negative for freshmen: While the new rule would allow those players who are physically and emotionally ready to compete against older, more-developed players, dissenting coaches fear the players who aren’t quite ready to play may become discouraged.
“Now you’re going to have a full roster that expects to play,” Purdue men’s basketball coach Matt Painter said. “If guys aren’t going to be in a rotation or they’re going to be our eighth or ninth man, we’ve redshirted a lot of those guys.”
Painter believes the redshirt year can reduce dissension on a team and lead to frustrated freshmen entering the portal than now, when the focus of the redshirt year is on development and adjusting to college and not playing time.
“A redshirt allows a player to make improvements without the pressure of thinking, ‘man, I’m not good enough here. I’m not playing.’ Well, just because you’re not ready doesn’t mean you’re not good enough,” Painter said. “It’s hard when you’re 19 years old to adjust to major college basketball when you’re going against 22, 23, 24-year-olds. That year allows for a lot of growth, and now it sets you up for a better career.”
Alford agrees with Painter on how difficult the transition from high school to collegiate sports is on a freshman, but feels “5 in 5” addresses Painter’s concerns.
“It gives more opportunities for young men and women in their sports to excel, to come in and grow,” Alford said. “Coming in as a freshman is hard. You only have four years (of eligibility now), and your first year is difficult physically, mentally. It's a strain to watch freshmen go through that. But I think this gives them the best opportunity to grow. Some mature at a different pace than others. Some physically mature differently than others, and it allows them to come and have that extra time to be their best and not have to worry (about) playing in four games and having to sit out. You just come in, you can play that first year, grow physically, emotionally, everything and then be prepared for your career and it gives you that extra year.”
Whether under the existing rule or the new rule, the player has the same five years, and the coach has the same opportunity to have the “redshirt” conversation with a promising player who he deems would benefit by not playing their freshman year.
Other dissenting coaches, like Santa Clara’s Herb Sendek, is concerned that it is harder for a freshman to earn playing time, which could lead to more roster movement.
University of New Mexico head basketball coach Eric Olen sees a world where “5 in 5” could push high school prospects to consider starting at lower levels, where they could win playing time, which would generate player movement in a different direction.
“For a long time, everyone at every level kind of felt kids are gonna go to the highest level they can,” Olen said. “I think you’re gonna see more of that dissipate a little bit, where players, even right out of high school, are gonna be reluctant to go to places where they can’t play sooner... Or you’re going to see more of the two-year, multiyear deals come into play.”
While there is significant consensus among Division I athletics for the “5 in 5” eligibility rule change, the Division I Cabinet will hear from all its members, including the dissenting, and consider potential unintended consequences.
Florida State football coach Mike Norvell is in favor of the rule change.
“We’re in a developmental sport where we signed 32 high school players this year,” Norvell said. “There's absolutely going to be some that come in and play at Florida State, ready week one, and there'll be some that will be ready maybe midway through the season. There might be some that are, you hope not, forced into action, maybe even earlier than what you hope. I've seen that in certain years, just with injuries.”
Football is a collision sport and the season outlook can be quickly compromised by an injury or two at a position.
Under the current rule, a player or his agent may not want the player to participate in more than four games in an effort to preserve his redshirt year.
“You're not having guys that that are being withheld from game opportunities where they might be needed,” Norvell said of the “5 in 5” rule.
Norvell noted the temptation to preserve a redshirt extends beyond freshmen.
“You have guys that are maybe even further in their careers, that they make the decision that they don't want to go past a fourth game and they really put some challenges and stress to your roster,” Norvell said. “So I think being able to have that fifth year is great for everybody involved. It's good for the players. I think it's good for the schools. It takes a lot of the other factors of eligibility out of it.”
Test the ability for self governance
At a time when collegiate athletics has not been able to find consensus on self-governance, nor get antitrust help from Congress after seven years of lobbying, this “5 in 5” rule change appears to be a layup.
But make no mistake, even though there is consensus, this June 22 meeting is an important test – a simple quiz really – of the membership’s willingness to find consensus on a simple issue.
Finding consensus and making the layup would be an encouraging sign for more problematic self-governance issues the membership will have to solve, if Washington cannot find consensus.
“The system right now is not sustainable. It just isn't,” Phillips said. “And (the 5 in 5 rule change) is one where I do not believe that we (need) any help or intervention from DC. The areas where you can help yourself in college athletics, we'd be well served to help ourselves without needing federal help.”
