The NCAA’s Division I Cabinet voted unanimously on Tuesday to replace the decades-old rule that gave college athletes five years to play four seasons with a simpler model: five years to play five. The change, framed as a response to years of eligibility lawsuits and a transfer portal in chaos, will end the medical redshirt for everyone except athletes on religious missions, military service, or maternity leave once it takes effect this fall.
The NCAA expects the age-based system to bring “predictable outcomes” to coaches, players, and administrators, NCAA President Charlie Baker said. Lawyers for athletes who have been pressing the NCAA in court for years said the new rule will eliminate the medical waiver litigation almost entirely. Athletes on rosters today, however, do not all enter the new world at once.
What the Cabinet Approved
The Division I Cabinet approved the new age-based eligibility model at its meeting in Indianapolis on Tuesday, according to the Cabinet’s May implementation options and to a report by The Associated Press. The new model will allow Division I athletes five seasons over a five-year period that begins with their full-time enrollment or the academic year following their 19th birthday, whichever comes first. It replaces the longstanding rule that gave athletes five years to complete four seasons, with the clock starting at enrollment regardless of age.
Under the new system, waivers and redshirt years will no longer extend eligibility for any athlete except those on official religious missions, those on active-duty military service, or those taking maternity leave. Athletes who fall into one of those three categories must not participate in organized competition during the waiver period. Athletes who are injured, who redshirt voluntarily to preserve a year of competition, or who play a partial season will not have a path to a fifth season under the new rules. The medical redshirt, a long-running tool for athletes who lost most of a season to injury, is gone. The Cabinet’s decision becomes official when the meeting adjourns on Wednesday.
The age-based model applies to athletes who first enroll in college in fall 2027 and beyond. Currently enrolled athletes and incoming freshmen this fall will have the choice to use the new rules or the previous four-seasons-in-five-years model, whichever gives them more seasons. Schools with current athletes who may be eligible for hardship waivers or extensions of eligibility under the current rules must submit those requests to the NCAA by July 31.
Who Gains, Who Loses in the Transition
For most athletes who enroll in college right after high school, the change opens a new season. The five-in-five language mirrors what the NCAA granted through COVID-era waivers and what some courts have forced on the association through litigation since 2024. The NCAA’s Division I footprint makes the change consequential: the tier includes more than 350 schools and some 200,000 athletes, with football and basketball driving most of the revenue.
Athletes who benefit least are those whose fourth season ended in spring 2026. They get no additional eligibility under the new model, even if their five-year window has not technically expired. That cuts off most of the high school class of 2022, whose members spent their college careers competing against fifth- and sixth-year players on COVID waivers. Their attorney, Ryan Downton, said in an email to the AP that he expects them to file suit.
A third group sits in the awkward middle. Junior hockey players entering college at 20 are common in the sport, the AP notes, a dynamic that has only grown since the NCAA’s Canadian Hockey League eligibility decision opened the CHL-to-NCAA pipeline. For those athletes, sticking with the four-seasons-in-five-years rule gives them a small window of extra eligibility that the new model would not.
Schools have until July 31 to submit any hardship waiver or extension request on behalf of a current athlete. After that date, waivers will not be available for current athletes or prospects. The transition differs depending on when an athlete arrived, and the Cabinet laid out the framework in its May implementation options. Schools will choose between the old and new model for each current athlete on the roster. That choice, made athlete by athlete, will set the tone for the 2026-27 academic year.
The transition looks different depending on when an athlete arrived:
| Group | Rule Applied | Key Condition |
|---|---|---|
| High school class of 2026 | Old or new, whichever is better | School selects by July 31 |
| Current athletes with eligibility after 2025-26 | Old or new, whichever is better | School decides |
| Athletes who completed fourth season by spring 2026 | No additional eligibility | Locked out |
| Class of 2027 and beyond | New 5-in-5 rule | Clock at 19 or enrollment |
The Court Fights That Drove the Rewrite
The 5-in-5 model is the NCAA’s attempt to settle a fight it has been losing in court for two years. The most prominent loss came in the case of Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia, a Heisman Trophy runner-up in 2025 who sued that year over how the NCAA counts junior college seasons. A federal court agreed and gave Pavia a sixth year of play; the broader lawsuit, now consolidated with claims from other athletes, is scheduled for trial in February per the AP.
Attorney Tom Mars, who represented Ole Miss quarterback Trinidad Chambliss in a similar fight, said the new rule eliminates the kind of litigation that defined the last two years. Mars represented Chambliss in a successful quest for an additional year of eligibility at Ole Miss. The Mississippi Supreme Court denied the NCAA’s appeal in that case in March. The Chambliss ruling left him with the extra year he had sought, per the AP.
But the courts are not done. Darren Heitner, a Florida-based lawyer who has handled many high-profile name, image and likeness cases, told The Athletic his firm is currently engaged with 55 basketball players preparing to file suit over eligibility this week. Heitner’s clients all completed their fourth year of competition in spring 2026 and would be seeking a fifth, per The Athletic.
Sam Ehrlich, a Boise State assistant professor of legal studies in business and management who tracks litigation against the NCAA, told the AP that athletes may continue to petition courts for extended eligibility on antitrust grounds. Appellate courts have recently delivered wins for the NCAA by overturning preliminary injunctions in several cases, Ehrlich said. The new rule’s age ceiling may not stop athletes from trying to extend eligibility through the courts. Ehrlich said the rule change itself will not slow lawsuits down.
Five-in-Five in a Senate Bill
The NCAA is not the only body writing eligibility rules this year. The five-in-five language also appears in Senate legislation intended to address concerns across college sports, including revenue sharing and name, image and likeness deals. The bill is aimed at creating a federal framework that would pre-empt state-level NIL laws and stabilize the chaotic transfer portal, per the AP. The NCAA’s rule and the federal bill now travel in parallel.
The Senate bill could move the five-in-five standard into federal law, in which case the NCAA’s rule and the statute would converge. The Senate legislation and the NCAA rule now share the same age-anchor language. The NCAA is betting that a clean, age-based rule will be easier to defend in court than the case-by-case waiver process it ran for the last two decades. The Board of Directors directed the Cabinet to advance the rule in April. The April Board of Directors directive signaled the rule’s path through the NCAA’s own governance.
Where the Athlete Advocates Push Back
The reaction from the athlete-advocate side is mixed. Ramogi Huma, executive director of the National College Players Association, said the general structure of the new rule is “within reason” but stressed that athletes need a path to hardship waivers. Huma wrote in a text to the AP that he had not seen the final language adopted Tuesday but that hardship waivers remain essential for athletes facing real hardship.
“There’s no way somebody could file an eligibility case based on a medical waiver now with the new rule. Can’t be done. You can file it, I guess, but it will be immediately dismissed.”
That was attorney Tom Mars in a statement to the AP. Mars represented Ole Miss quarterback Trinidad Chambliss in his successful quest for an additional year of eligibility at Ole Miss. Mars said the new rule will end that kind of eligibility case. The only eligibility extensions that remain under the rule are for religious missions, active-duty military service, and maternity leave.
Downton, Pavia’s attorney, said the rule’s exclusion of class-of-2022 athletes is likely to land in court. Downton hopes courts will “correct the unfairness” of the NCAA’s cutoff, he wrote in an email to the AP. The Sixth Circuit opinion in Pavia v. NCAA now sets the appellate baseline for that fight. The Cabinet’s chair, Illinois athletic director Josh Whitman, defended the vote. “With these changes, the Cabinet has taken decisive action for the benefit of student-athletes and the system of NCAA Division I athletics,” Whitman said in a statement.
Frequently Asked Questions
When does the new NCAA five-year eligibility rule take effect?
The new rule takes effect this fall after the Division I Cabinet meeting concludes on Wednesday. The age-based system applies to all athletes who first enroll in college in fall 2027 and beyond. Currently enrolled athletes and incoming freshmen for fall 2026 can choose between the new rule and the previous four-seasons-in-five-years model, whichever benefits them most.
Can athletes still get a medical redshirt under the new rule?
No. The medical redshirt is gone for everyone except athletes on religious missions, active-duty military service, or maternity leave. Going forward, an athlete injured during the season can no longer apply for a waiver to restore that year of competition. Schools must submit any pending waiver requests by July 31.
Why is the NCAA changing the rule now?
The NCAA says the new model is easier to administer and easier for athletes and coaches to predict. Years of eligibility lawsuits, the COVID waiver, and changes to redshirt rules made the old system a patchwork of waivers. The Cabinet and Board of Directors wanted a clean rule that courts would find easier to uphold than the case-by-case waiver process.
Does this end the Diego Pavia lawsuit?
No. Pavia v. NCAA is still scheduled for trial in February. The suit challenges a separate NCAA rule that counts junior college seasons against Division I eligibility. The new age-based rule does not address that question, and lawyers say athletes will continue to challenge eligibility restrictions in court on antitrust grounds.
What about athletes whose fourth season ended in spring 2026?
They get no additional eligibility under the new rule, even if their five-year window has not technically expired. The Cabinet and Board of Directors excluded them from the age-based model. Their attorney Ryan Downton said he expects many of them to file suit, and Florida-based lawyer Darren Heitner told The Athletic his firm is engaged with 55 basketball players preparing cases this week.
