The NCAA idea that could reshape college sports: 'It's not a tweak, it's a structural shift'

The NCAA's "five-for-five" eligibility proposal remains an idea and not official policy after the Division I Cabinet kicked the can down the road regarding the concept that would revolutionize student-athletes' eligibility.

"It’s not a tweak, it’s a structural shift," one Division I college basketball coach told USA TODAY Sports.

On Wednesday, April 15, the group elected to "not take a formal position" but will continue to discuss the concept that implements an eligibility window of five years, starting the year after an athlete's high school graduation or their 19th birthday.

This discussion is in part a response to President Donald Trump's recent executive order on college sports, which included a similar five-year eligibility proposal. Currently, college athletes get five years to play four seasons with some exceptions. But recent lawsuits have challenged NCAA eligibility rules. And any NCAA rule change will likely be challenged in courts, too.

Ten individuals who serve in various roles as direct stakeholders in college athletics spoke to USA TODAY Sports on condition of anonymity to provide their candid thoughts on the "period of eligibility" concept.

The support for the de facto "five-for-five" — five years to play five seasons, no redshirts, virtually no medical exemptions and the potential for waivers due to religious missions, military service or pregnancy — was unanimous among those individuals who spoke to USA TODAY Sports. The group represented individuals from the conference level to individual sport head coaches at three levels of NCAA athletics to front-office executives and even an NFL front-office member.

"It's great," said a power conference front-office director. "Helps just stabilize a lot of things. I’ve always said the issue with college football right now is the guidelines just constantly change, so there’s no consistency. Hoping this just gives a baseline to what to follow and we can continue to plan for the future."

The move first gained traction in January at the annual American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) convention in Charlotte. There, the Football Bowl Subdivision leaders exited their business meeting Jan. 13, with a unified message and a clear goal.

An expanded redshirt year was the initial proposal; coaches pushed for football players to be eligible to play in up to nine regular-season games and still utilize a redshirt season that would not count toward an athlete's four full years of competition.

This measure bypasses that route and instead is an attempt to bring some stabilization to roster management at college athletics' highest levels.

"I honestly think it's all pros," said a sitting FBS head coach. "I think it's got the potential to be really good. ... Somebody smarter than me would give some better arguments maybe for some cons, but I just think it takes out a lot of the waiver stuff and all the 'why does this player get an extra year but this one not?' and I think it gives a young player a very clear way of playing early.

"I think it just cleans everything up."

Some coaches want medical redshirt exceptions to remain

A head coach from a lesser-resourced program voiced overall support for the proposal and lauded those who have worked to turn the concept into an NCAA reality.

However, this coach questioned the complete removal of any medical exceptions.

"I think it's unfair to get rid of the medical exemptions entirely," the coach said. "I've had a lot of good experiences with that, some special relationships with guys who have fought through and overcome injury and returned to contribute. So, I'm sad for that. I didn’t find that to be a glitch in the current system.

"But this is a really good thing for roster management. Some athletes don't ever want to have the redshirt conversation. Some develop at different levels. This means you can play your best 11 football players and not worry about saving a year or if it's worth playing someone in that fifth or sixth game. Hopefully, we now see a higher utilization of the bottom-third of rosters, and I think we'll see a chance for more academic continuity and young people to have more intentionality with their academic plans."

Added an additional college football personnel executive with extensive experience in professional and college sports: "Initial thoughts are ... good rule, overall. It will eliminate an inordinate number of sixth- and seventh-year players, which cumulatively inhibits the development of young players and takes away scholarships from high school kids.

"I do wish they still incorporated a medical-redshirt exception similar to the 'old days.' NFL value diminishes for guys that are coming out of college when they are 24 or 25."

New rule would give coaches timeline, roster 'control'

An NCAA D-I college basketball assistant coach went in-depth on the potential benefits of the "five-for-five" approach.

"If 'five-for-five' lands the way people think, it’s not a tweak, it’s a structural shift," the coach declared. "It changes incentives more than anything else, and roster management becomes less about triage and more about long-range portfolio building. From a coaching lens, the biggest impact is timeline control.

"Right now you’re constantly balancing urgency (win now, keep job security) against development (build something sustainable). Five-for-five stretches that window. You’re no longer forced to accelerate a kid before he’s ready just because the clock is burning. That means true developmental redshirts come back into play not just for injury or depth, but for physical and skill maturation. Especially for late bloomers, international kids, or guys coming from under-resourced high school programs, that extra runway is massive."

An NFL front-office staffer also endorsed the NCAA measure to USA TODAY Sports.

"Massive pro for college athletics," the individual said. "Simple way of gaining control back [of rosters]. Agents, parents, even players will hold the availability of the redshirt over your head. We had a team captain quit the team (in the NIL era) because he still had a redshirt year and was losing snaps to an underclassman. Felt it was killing his draft stock. Agents will threaten the need for more money or rework a contract if the player is about to hit that mark."

A head coach added a similar story from this past 2025 season.

"You don't have to worry about what decisions you have to make like last year, which was to make a decision to remove two people from team activities," the coach said. "Because, they were choosing to redshirt. With this, you're taking away some decisions that a player shouldn't have to make about preserving a year and (saying), 'Hey, I'm going to play for our team.' I just think it takes away a player and coach having to try to get through that. Now, it's like, 'Hey, you've got no reason not to play this year and then if you want to leave, leave. But do so at the appropriate time."

An SEC executive also added an overall strong endorsement of the potential for a five-for-five reality.

"Overall, it's good ... potentially really good," the individual said. "Pros are development, no more holding guys back or being strategic with how or when they play. An obvious pro is for longer/more earning potential for players [who do not have projected professional athletics futures]."

How would new NCAA eligibility rules affect current athletes?

That SEC executive, however, asked a question that was raised unanimously with every individual who spoke to USA TODAY Sports.

"The biggest question is how does it apply to athletes currently in college sports? Is it going to extend that fifth year to all athletes or only start with freshmen incoming in 2027? What about (2026) seniors who would have used that additional year that are now just (out of luck)?"

It also, a college general manager added, could stymie early-career earnings for incoming freshmen.

"Probably all the true fourth-year seniors that you would want back are going to take money from recruits," the executive said.

Would this benefit Ivy League, D-2, D-3 athletes?

The Power Four deputy athletic director wondered if it could also have an indirect positive impact on the Ivy League. A head football coach also noted Ivy League school Princeton did not have its "two best players this past basketball season, because they sat out their final year and transferred out. Xaivian Lee went to Florida and Caden Pierce sat out."

"Could it benefit the Ivy League? They don't do grad school (athlete), so they have been having players sit out so that they can go transfer and play their final year somewhere else," the administrator said. "Could this help them get that fourth year from a player? Or will they just then use it to have two years to go somewhere and get paid?"

At present, the move would not be immediately applied to the NCAA's Division II and III programs.

However, an D-III head coach who spoke with his conference's commissioner this week expressed an inevitability that "five-for-five" would trickle down to additional levels — and found some good in that potential development.

"The 'five-for-five' is not going to be for D-III, small college athletics; we've been pretty hardline that we don't believe in that as a division," the coach said. "Our institutions want to do a four-year experience. But, the reality is that that will probably change in the next five years. My hope in the interim is that for the really high-end, really good D-III players who are there for four years, if this passes, then maybe those players get a chance to grad-transfer somewhere and play a fifth year and be rewarded."