NCAA on the verge of a major cut: the “five years for five seasons” model is changing the careers of Division I athletes
On June 23, 2026, the NCAA reached the threshold of one of the most important eligibility rule changes in the recent history of college sports in the United States of America. According to reports by Yahoo Sports and Saturday Down South, the NCAA Division I Cabinet unanimously supported an age-based eligibility model, known as “5-in-5”, under which student-athletes in Division I would receive five years to compete in five seasons. According to the announcement carried by American sports media, the decision was not yet final on June 23 because the Cabinet meeting continues until Wednesday, June 24, 2026, when additional details and the formal closing of the process are expected.
The new model changes the basic logic of the existing system. Instead of the rule under which athletes generally had four seasons of competition within a five-year period, the NCAA would move to a system in which athletes are allowed to compete during all five years of eligibility. In practice, this would almost eliminate the need for the classic “redshirt”, that is, a season in which an athlete remains in the program, trains and develops, but does not use one season of competitive eligibility. According to NCAA documents from June, the eligibility clock would start running at the first full enrollment at any higher-education institution or at the beginning of the academic year following the athlete’s 19th birthday, whichever comes first.
What exactly is changing in the eligibility rules
According to the report of the NCAA Division I Cabinet from June 5, 2026, the adjusted model removes the previously considered criterion of the actual or expected final year of high school as the trigger for the start of the five-year period. The NCAA states that the change was introduced after feedback from men’s basketball, men’s ice hockey and American military academies, which warned of possible imbalances in the application of the system. In the final proposal, therefore, the key point is the earlier of two events: the first regular academic term of full enrollment at any higher-education institution or the start of the academic year after the athlete turns 19.
According to the NCAA, the change would apply to all sports in Division I if it is formally completed and incorporated into the rules. In practical terms, this means that athletes would no longer have to save a season of competition in order to retain eligibility for a later year. Coaches could use a larger part of the roster without constantly calculating whether an appearance in a limited number of games will activate or use up a season. Athletes, on the other hand, would get a clearer calendar: a five-year window in which they can compete, but without broad room for later extensions through exceptions.
The current model has created a large number of special situations. Redshirts, medical exceptions, extensions due to circumstances beyond the athlete’s control and special requests to restore a season have become an important part of college sports administration. According to earlier NCAA materials, the new age-based model should reduce dependence on discretionary decisions and replace a complex system with a simpler rule applied at the beginning of a career. This does not mean that every special circumstance disappears, but it does mean that most cases would be handled within a pre-known five-year framework.
Why the NCAA wants change now
As early as April 27, 2026, the NCAA announced that the Division I Board of Directors had asked the Cabinet to develop an age-based eligibility model. In that announcement, Virginia Tech president and board chair Tim Sands said it was time to reform the rules on the eligibility period so that student-athletes and college programs would receive clearer and more consistent standards. The NCAA also emphasized that the new system should correspond to the modern circumstances of college sports, in which athletes have access to financial opportunities that did not previously exist to the same extent.
One of the key reasons for the change is pressure on the existing system. According to Yahoo Sports reports, in recent years the NCAA has faced a series of legal disputes in which athletes seek additional seasons of eligibility, often after denied exceptions or because of previous periods spent in other competitive environments. In an era in which athletes can earn income from name, image and likeness rights and, in some programs, direct payments under the new financial model of college sports, an additional season is no longer just a sporting matter. It can also mean an additional year of education, visibility, development and income.
The NCAA is trying to establish a rule that is easier to apply and harder to stretch. The “five years for five seasons” model sends a clear message: an athlete can play more seasons than before, but a Division I career must fit within a limited age and academic window. This reduces the room for cases in which athletes, through a combination of delays, transfers, medical exemptions, COVID relief and other mechanisms, remain in college sports deep into their mid-twenties. The NCAA describes this approach as an attempt at stabilization and simplification, while critics will likely warn that a stricter calendar could hurt athletes with injuries or nontraditional educational paths.
The end of the redshirt as it has existed until now
The most visible consequence of the new model would be the almost complete abolition of the traditional role of the redshirt. In the current system, the redshirt has often served as a tool for the development of young players, especially in sports with large rosters such as American football. An athlete could remain in the program, train, physically adapt, learn the system and only later use a full competitive season. Under the new model, such “saving” of a season would no longer have the same value because the athlete could compete in all five years, but the five-year clock would continue to run regardless of whether the athlete competes or not.
In the NCAA’s April announcement, Board of Directors member and Michigan State athlete Sam Edwards assessed that such a model could make particular sense in American football because coaches would no longer have to hold back some players for redshirts. In his assessment, programs could make better use of the entire roster, especially in the context of limits on the number of players. This argument is important because the eligibility change does not come in isolation: it overlaps with reforms to rosters, scholarships and athletes’ financial rights that are changing the way colleges build teams.
However, the redshirt was not only an administrative convenience for coaches. For many athletes, it represented a protective mechanism after injury, late physical development, a change of position or adjustment to the academic and athletic rhythm. The new model simplifies the rules, but reduces the room for individual adjustment. An athlete who loses a year due to less-than-ideal circumstances still remains within the five-year window, unless one of the narrowly defined exceptions applies. That is precisely why the manner of implementation, transition rules and interpretations by the NCAA Eligibility Center will be decisive for the real effects of the reform.
Who gets transition protection, and who does not
According to the NCAA report from June 5, the transition period should distinguish several groups of athletes. Student-athletes who first enrolled at a higher-education institution before the 2026/27 academic year and who still have remaining eligibility could be evaluated under the current rules or under the new age-based model, depending on which is more favorable for them. This is an important protective mechanism for athletes who had already planned their careers under the old system and who could be harmed by the sudden introduction of new criteria.
At the same time, the NCAA clearly indicated that the change would not retroactively open the door to everyone. According to the Cabinet report, athletes who exhausted their eligibility in the 2025/26 season remain without the right to continue competing under the new model. The same applies to those who used their final season of competition in the 2025/26 season, even if they may have had time remaining in the old five-year period. In other words, the new system is not intended as a mass addition of another season to all athletes who have just finished their careers.
The deadline for requests under the old rules is especially important. In the June report, the NCAA confirmed that schools and conferences must submit by July 31, 2026, exception requests based on circumstances that occurred during or before the 2025/26 academic year. After that, such requests, including extensions, hardship waivers and enrollment-related delays, would no longer be available for future circumstances under the old rules. For future student-athletes who first enroll in the 2026/27 academic year, the NCAA envisages evaluation under the more favorable model, while those who first enroll in 2027/28 or later would be covered exclusively by the age-based system.
Limited exceptions remain, but the room for waivers narrows
NCAA materials show that the new system does not remove absolutely every exception. According to the Cabinet report from May 22, 2026, the NCAA continued to support exceptions that could stop or extend the five-year period in cases of pregnancy, official religious missions and active military service. The same document states that an athlete who, during an official religious mission or military service, participates in organized competition, except at a low or minimally organized level, would not be able to use such an exception.
Such an approach shows the direction of the reform: exceptions remain, but they become narrow, predefined and administratively clearer. According to the June Cabinet report, the NCAA Eligibility Center should administer the confirmation of eligibility periods and the application of prescribed exceptions. In cases in which the facts are disputed, decisions would be made by the NCAA Division I Subcommittee for Legislative Relief. In this way, the NCAA is trying to reduce the number of ad hoc decisions and legal gray areas that have characterized part of the previous system.
For athletes and their families, this means that planning will become more important than before. The decision on first full enrollment at a higher-education institution, the choice between a domestic and international educational path, participation in semiprofessional or developmental leagues and delays for personal reasons could directly affect the number of remaining years of eligibility. This is particularly important for athletes from outside the United States, but also for American athletes who, after high school, choose academic or athletic detours before entering Division I.
Special pressure on international athletes and late recruits
One of the most sensitive questions will be the application of the rules to international athletes. In many sports, especially ice hockey, basketball, tennis, golf and Olympic sports, the path toward an American college does not look the same as for athletes coming from the typical American high-school system. Some international players, before arriving in the NCAA, compete in club academies, junior leagues or other developmental systems, and their status often requires a separate assessment of amateur and academic criteria. According to the NCAA, feedback from ice hockey and basketball contributed precisely to the removal of the high-school graduation criterion from the adjusted model.
The change could have a significant impact on recruiting. Coaches will have to assess much earlier not only an athlete’s quality, but also his or her age, academic path and the moment of first full enrollment at a higher-education institution. Older recruits, athletes who delayed college or those who had already been in other higher-education systems could enter Division I with fewer remaining years of eligibility. At the same time, younger athletes who enroll faster and do not interrupt their academic path could have a clearer and fuller five-year window.
This does not necessarily have to reduce international recruiting, but it makes it more complex. Division I programs will need more precise checks before offering a scholarship or a roster spot, because an incorrect eligibility assessment can change a recruit’s value to the team. For athletes from outside the United States, early communication with the NCAA Eligibility Center and school compliance offices will be most important. In practice, professional status assessment will become almost as important as athletic assessment of potential.
Broader context: college sports enters a period of stricter planning
The age-based model comes at a time when American college sports is rapidly commercializing and legally reshaping. The College Sports Commission states that participating institutions can directly share revenue with student-athletes, alongside additional opportunities athletes have through NIL deals and scholarships. Such a financial framework increases the value of every season of eligibility, especially in the most visible sports and programs. For that reason, rules on the duration of a career are no longer just technical questions, but part of a broader debate about the labor market, education, competitive balance and athletes’ rights.
For colleges, the new model brings more predictable roster planning. If it is known that most athletes have a five-year window that cannot be significantly extended, programs can more clearly plan scholarships, development minutes and recruiting classes. This can help coaches in sports with large rosters, but also create pressure on athletes who develop more slowly. In a system with fewer exceptions, every injury, school change or missed season carries greater weight.
The reform will likely open new questions as soon as the rule begins to be applied. Debates are possible about athletes on the boundary between the two systems, international cases, previous professional or semiprofessional experience and whether the stricter model can withstand new legal challenges. For now, the NCAA emphasizes simplicity and predictability, while the final effect will depend on the details of implementation after the Cabinet meeting concludes on June 24, 2026.
For athletes, coaches and colleges, the most important change can be summarized simply: Division I is moving from a model of counting seasons and exceptions to a model of managing a time window. Five years could become more opportunity for some, but less room to maneuver for others. If the decision is completed as announced, the NCAA will simultaneously expand the right to compete to five seasons and close the door to most of the previous ways of extending a college athletic career.
Sources:
- NCAA – announcement of June 5, 2026, on the adjustment of the age-based model and the start of the eligibility clock (link)
- NCAA – announcement of April 27, 2026, on referring the model to the Division I Cabinet and the reasons for the reform (link)
- NCAA Division I Cabinet – report from the June 5, 2026 meeting on transition rules, deadlines and eligibility administration (link)
- NCAA Division I Cabinet – report from the May 22, 2026 meeting on exceptions, implementation and the planned legislative process (link)
- Yahoo Sports – Ross Dellenger’s reports on the approval of changes and the legal context of the NCAA eligibility rules (link)
- Saturday Down South – report on the unanimous approval of the model at the Division I Cabinet meeting on June 23, 2026 (link)
- College Sports Commission – information on direct revenue sharing, NIL rules and the new financial framework of college sports (link)