Looks like the NCAA will pass the 5-for-5 rule in May
It sounds like the NCAA President is pushing hard for its passage. Unfortunately, it doesn’t sound like it will apply to this year’s graduating senior
From the linked story
“The proposed "five-for-five" rule, which stakeholders prefer to call age-based eligibility, would allow student-athletes five years to play five seasons without the traditional redshirt years. While the Cabinet previously "kicked down" the idea earlier in April 2026, NCAA president Charlie Baker has expressed optimism regarding the new proposal's eventual implementation.”
And this from President Sands:
“The time is now to reform the period of eligibility rules to provide Division I student-athletes and our schools clear and consistent standards that align with current college athletes' experiences," Virginia Tech president and chair of the board of directors Tim Sands said in a statement.
"The board fully supports student-athletes receiving the unprecedented financial benefits now available to them and emphasized these changes would protect opportunities for high school student-athletes to access the benefits only college sports can provide, while delivering predictable outcomes for student-athletes and our schools."
** Edited by VTChip at 4/28/2026, 6:57:51 AM
Link:
USA Today story
10 Replies
3mo
of eligibility (portal already does this to an extent now) will really put recruitable HS seniors that aren't blue chips as a low priority for the D1 programs in general. The cream will eventually rise to the top even from the lower divisions and I understand why they want to do it but there are negatives to everything as well.
(In response to this post by VTChip)
3mo
starting, they will potentially see positions not open up before it becomes "too late" in their career.
(In response to this post by NC_Hokies)
3mo
Can you imagine the chaos of roster management? Just thinking in terms of softball, Pete has to call a HS recruit and pull their scholarship because he’d rather have Kylie back. What about Sophie and Cassie? Does he drop two more HS players or tell those two they have to move on, he’s not giving them a scholarship next year?
We don’t see it in softball, but in other sports (especially football) you have these 6 year players who’ve been given a medical redshirt. If you’ve granted them extra eligibility for next year, then you should follow through with it. That’s why I’d say 27-28 academic year is the start of the 5th year senior and no more 6 year seniors.
Ultimately it results in less spots for players in all sports. Each team has 5 classes of players instead of 4, but the same total roster spots. With all the redshirts and extra years of eligibility granted, it probably won’t matter much to some sports. It will hit some sports like softball where most players are just 4 year participants.
(In response to this post by VTChip)
3mo
very good players will leave. Those tweeners will stay for the NIL. I agree softball will just have less spots available. But NIL is the great equalizer. Don't need a player? Don't offer any NIL.
(In response to this post by vatechcowpatty)
G
GBOHokie
3mo
Named as well. If you were to say we are starting with the incoming class. That’s hard on several. Bree already sat out a year she wouldn’t have had to. Maybe you give an extra year and scholarship for those in process already. They would slowly move out.
(In response to this post by vatechcowpatty)
3mo
Even if we think of it as "sitting out a year', there is a very good chance she would not have played last year at all, or just minimal.
The word is that she was not getting people out and needed the off-season to work on that. Whether we call it a "redshirt" or whatever, she sat and didn't play and would not have played much. Maybe she gets some spot innings like Addyson Fisher did this year. Fisher got 15 innings of work this year that, in reality, could have gone to someone else. Grizzaard got 1 inning of work this year. So
Players will still sit and not play in this 5-year system, so just saying that it is not like "she would not have had to".
(In response to this post by GBOHokie)
3mo
they just missed the cut.
My point was it can’t effect next years roster because of all the immediate chaos that would cause. It’s gotta be something coaches have time to plan for.
(In response to this post by GBOHokie)
S
schubee
3mo
Losing 5 to graduation, adding 6 freshmen. So there are 26 players on next year's projected roster before any portal exits.
** Edited by schubee at 4/28/2026, 3:47:51 PM
(In response to this post by vatechcowpatty)
G
GBOHokie
3mo
The incoming class. You put the line anywhere else you suddenly have more eligible players. But who knows what they will do.
Anyway you slice it the competition for playing time goes up. The amount of playing time doesn’t change. But the amount of years of eligibility goes up. Potentially lowering the number of players taken in from high school on average.
(In response to this post by vatechcowpatty)