kstatecollegian
For years, college sports fans have found themselves asking a perplexing question each season: How is that athlete still eligible? The landscape has been filled with medical hardship waivers, traditional redshirts, and more recently, court-issued injunctions against the NCAA. Even now, some players are utilizing COVID-era extra years five or six seasons after their initial eligibility began. Each offseason has brought fresh eligibility exceptions and debates over whether a player's college career is truly over. Fans have had to track not only where players are transferring but also whether they have any eligibility remaining.
This academic year, the NCAA introduced its 5-for-5 eligibility model to provide a definitive answer to that recurring question. The rule is supported for its potential to bring clarity, not because every athlete needs a fifth season or because it is flawless, but because the previous system had become increasingly difficult to understand, justify, and enforce amid transfers, name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals, and constant legal challenges.
How the New Model Works
Under the NCAA's new age-based framework, Division I and Division II athletes begin their eligibility clock either upon full-time enrollment and class attendance at a university or at the start of the academic year following their 19th birthday. From that point, they receive five continuous years of eligibility with only minimal exceptions—transfers and injuries are not among them. This replaces the old model built around seasons of competition, traditional redshirts, and numerous waiver processes, which had too many moving parts in an era where NIL and transfers are rampant.
The change was needed and overdue. The old eligibility model felt designed for a version of college athletics that no longer exists. It was outdated and becoming obsolete. What should have been a simple question—How many seasons does this player have left?—became nearly impossible to answer. For example, KU basketball players Melvin Council Jr. and Tre White both played in all 35 games for the Jayhawks last season after careers spanning multiple colleges. Both were seniors honored at KU's March 6 senior night against K-State, which realistically should have been their finale. However, White was granted a fifth season, and Council Jr., who sued the NCAA in July for another season, was inexplicably given a seventh year of college basketball. Nobody should play seven years of college hoops, even with extenuating circumstances. This is not a critique of White and Council Jr. as players or a claim they did anything wrong—they used the opportunities available under NCAA rules. But their careers highlight a bigger reality: college athletics has reached a point where nobody seems to know exactly how eligibility works anymore. When senior night honorees can return for another season, it is a clear sign the system has stopped making sense.
Key Analysis
The 5-for-5 model finally provides something college athletics has desperately needed: clarity. The NCAA said the goal was to create a system that is simpler to administer and easier for coaches, players, and fans to understand, and it is succeeding. Instead of wondering whether a player qualifies for another waiver or exemption, athletes, coaches, and fans can largely know the timeline from the start. A player gets five years, and once those are exhausted, it is final. It is simple, transparent, and most importantly, consistent.
K-State fans can appreciate that simplicity and consistency. Look at quarterback Avery Johnson. As one of the most prominent faces for the Wildcats, fans naturally wonder how long he has in Manhattan and what the future of the program looks like with him taking snaps. Under the prior framework, those discussions could quickly turn into questions about redshirting, such as the 2023 season when he largely sat behind Will Howard, and whether that translates into future eligibility in 2027. The new model makes those conversations much easier and answers those questions. Johnson falls under the rule and could play in 2027 if he decides to. Now the question has shifted from can he play another year to will he play another year. As a result, fans can spend less time deciphering NCAA rules and looking for legal loopholes for Johnson, and Johnson now has certainty that, if he chooses, he can return to the Little Apple under center. This shifts the focus to what actually matters: the games.
For years, eligibility fluctuated and felt dependent on who qualified for a waiver and who was willing to lawyer up and challenge NCAA rules in the courtroom. The 5-for-5 model sets a clearer standard that can apply broadly across college athletics, rather than varying by player and relying on an ever-growing list of exceptions. Coaches no longer need to debate whether playing a freshman for a game or two will complicate their eligibility. Athletes can focus on practice and competition instead of learning the rules. Fans no longer need to follow athletes religiously and keep track of the dozen ways to an extra season.
No system is perfect, and this one obviously has its flaws. Some critics have raised concerns about roster management and older athletes staying in college athletics longer, potentially hurting incoming high school seniors looking for a roster spot. This could have unintended consequences, and those issues may be worth watching as the rule becomes more widespread. But compared to the system it replaces, this is a significant improvement. Rather than waiting for the next waiver controversy or redshirt debate, the NCAA chose to simplify the process that had become needlessly complicated. It stuck its feet in the ground and, for this issue, decided enough was enough and change was needed.
College sports will never be simple or easy again. And the 5-for-5 rule does not solve every problem in college athletics. NIL debates are not going away. Revenue-sharing questions remain. Lawsuits will continue to take place. The transfer portal will continue to decimate and reshape rosters every offseason. But unlike many NCAA solutions, this one actually addresses the problem it was designed to solve, and it does a good job. Eligibility should not require a law degree to understand. The NCAA, at long last, finally seemed to recognize that. For once, despite the abundance of issues still present, they deserve credit for it.
Originally reported by kstatecollegian.