There was a time when understanding eligibility in college sports wasn’t particularly difficult. An athlete generally had five years to play four seasons. Redshirts, medical hardships and a handful of other exceptions complicated things occasionally, but fans basically understood the system.
Today, here’s a reasonable question: Does anyone actually know who’s eligible anymore?
Major changes in amateur sports
College athletics has undergone such dramatic change that athletes seemingly appear for fifth, sixth and occasionally even longer years. Transfers are commonplace, and COVID eligibility extensions have lingered for years. Court decisions have challenged traditional NCAA restrictions, and athletes can now make substantial money through NIL, work with agents under certain circumstances, explore professional opportunities and, depending on the sport and situation, and return to college afterward.
And now the NCAA is changing eligibility itself. Beginning with athletes entering college in fall 2027, Division I is moving away from the familiar four-seasons-within-five-years model. Under its newly adopted age-based system, student athletes who enroll on the traditional timeline can potentially compete throughout a five-year eligibility period. For current student athletes and those entering during 2026-27, schools may apply either the previous rules or the new model, whichever is more favorable to the athlete.
Think about that for a moment. For generations, four seasons was one of the fundamental assumptions of college athletics. Now even that is changing.
Professional opportunities have become more complicated as well. Division I men’s basketball players, for example, can receive advice from NCAA-certified agents while evaluating NBA opportunities without necessarily sacrificing their remaining college eligibility. And beginning in 2026, certain prospective athletes can enter an opt-in professional draft once, withdraw by the required deadline and still retain college eligibility.
None of this means student athletes are doing anything wrong, it’s the entire system that has dramatically changed. For student athletes, if the rules provide another year of eligibility, why wouldn’t an athlete use it? If transferring creates a better opportunity, why wouldn’t someone transfer? If athletes can make money or explore professional opportunities without forfeiting college eligibility, they would be foolish not to consider those options.
The problem isn’t the athletes — it’s the system trying to define what college athletics is anymore.
And there is considerable irony in watching the NCAA struggle to come to terms with the new landscape. The NCAA is an organization that historically became synonymous with rules — sometimes absurdly specific ones. For decades, schools worried about improper benefits, contact with agents, recruiting violations and whether relatively trivial advantages might jeopardize an athlete’s eligibility. The NCAA seemingly had a rule for everything. Today, however, NCAA rules are inconsistent, change regularly, and when implemented lack consistency. We now regularly watch court decisions, settlements and challenges force changes to many of the boundaries the NCAA once controlled. Even transfer-related restrictions have resulted in additional eligibility relief for some athletes.
Final thoughts
While college athletics seem to be quite the mess today, the NCAA appears to recognize the problem. In announcing its new eligibility system, it specifically described the goal as creating standards that are simpler, clearer and more predictable. Many would argue college athletics desperately needed modernization, and that student athletes deserved greater freedom, mobility and the opportunity to benefit financially from the enormous industry they help create. For decades, the NCAA was criticized for having too many rules, but today we may now have the opposite problem.
drstankovich.com
