In a move that seems more reactive than progressive, the NCAA is reportedly considering a new rule to grant all student-athletes five years of eligibility. Currently, athletes are limited to four years of competition with the possibility of a redshirt year. While this proposed rule might appear to offer greater flexibility, a deeper look reveals it falls short of addressing the real concerns faced by college athletes today.
This initiative is rooted in the aftermath of COVID-19, which saw an influx of backlogged athletes granted extended eligibility. Some athletes leveraged up to seven years due to pandemic-related disruptions, creating logistical challenges for rosters and scholarship limits. On the surface, a standardized five-year window seems like a reasonable fix to avoid such complications in the future.
But is this really the solution athletes need?
It’s worth noting that this proposal emerges as the NCAA finds itself in the middle of a broader conversation about junior college (JUCO) years and their impact on eligibility. In recent months, there’s been growing advocacy to allow athletes to play two full years at JUCO institutions without those years counting against their NCAA eligibility. The NCAA, however, has historically opposed this idea, fearing it would dilute their control and create an uneven playing field for programs relying on JUCO transfers.
The five-year proposal feels like an attempt to sidestep that conversation entirely. By offering an extra year to all athletes, the NCAA appears to be avoiding the more significant issue of how JUCO athletes are treated under the current eligibility system.
Let’s be clear: allowing JUCO athletes two years of competition without penalty is a far more beneficial solution—for athletes, programs, and even the NCAA. Here’s why:
Financially Practical: Junior colleges provide a cost-effective option for athletes, particularly those from low-income backgrounds. Spending two years at a JUCO helps them save money before transitioning to NCAA programs with full eligibility intact.
Developmentally Sound: JUCOs give athletes a chance to grow both athletically and personally. For many, it’s an opportunity to hone their skills, gain confidence, and prepare for the higher demands of NCAA competition.
Academically Supportive: Many athletes use JUCOs as a stepping stone to meet academic requirements for NCAA programs. Penalizing them for this pathway discourages academic growth and equitable access to higher-level opportunities.
On the other hand, the five-year proposal does little to address these realities. It may help mitigate roster logjams for coaches, but it doesn’t solve the financial or developmental challenges faced by athletes. Instead, it feels like a band-aid solution to a deeper structural issue.
What the NCAA needs is a policy that prioritizes athlete development—not one that simply extends the time they’re eligible to play. A model that supports JUCO athletes, allowing them to develop without losing eligibility, would show a genuine commitment to athlete welfare. Anything less is a disservice to the very individuals the NCAA claims to serve.
The five-year eligibility rule might appear to be a step forward, but in reality, it’s a missed opportunity. It’s time for the NCAA to embrace policies that truly benefit athletes—not just the institution.
