Hearing schools are now delaying recruiting ‘27 class until this gets addressed. Anyone have an update on this?
You don’t need a medical hardship exception to sit out a year and retain four years of eligibility. Just sit out. It’s part of the four in five year clock currently in place. What has been harder since the covid year is getting a sixth year. So if you redshirt one season and get an injury later you’d better have a good pitch-man to get a hardship year.
This is, in fact, what is happening. DI currently has no plan to address this in February. See below for more context. No, this is written into the DII proposal that will be voted on in January. If a DI graduate wants to transfer to a DII school, they must be in their fourth year of athletic eligibility. It would not allow them to play a fifth season at the DII level. An athlete who took a red shirt at a DI, graduates from said DI, and then wants to transfer to a DII school for some reason could do that because it would be their fourth year of eligibility. But a DI athlete who plays all four years at the DI level will have exhausted all of their eligibility at both the DI and DII levels. Hope that helps.
My understanding is D1 kids Will be able to play their 5th year in D2. They can use semesters 9 or 10 to play a 5th college soccer season. Semester 9 or 10 could be at the graduate level at a D2 school that offers graduate programs. The D2 policy is likely to be approve in January and will apply to students in year 4 during the 25-26 academic year. So current Seniors in Any NCAA Division could play a 5th season in D2. That means a fantastic D1 forward, or pitcher, or quarterback could parachute into a D2 school and have a very real impact in Fall 2026. IMHO, I don't see the D1 folks allowing this to happen for very long. My guess is THAT is what D1 coaches are concerned about regarding committing Class of 2027s. Some may be thinking, or being told to think, that 5in5 could become real in D1 for 2027.
From the proposal: "Any competition, regardless of timing, counts as a season of competition unless a student-athlete is transferring from a non-Division II school and does not use a season according to the non-Division II school." If a DI player transfers to a DII school with a year of DI eligibility, they are good to go. If they have used all four years at the DI level, then they are not able to transfer. The FINAL draft has not been release so there's the potential for change, but currently this loophole is closed.
Isn't this the same as it has always been? Since when couldn't a D1 athlete with eligibility remaining transfer to a D2 school? Unless I am reading your statement wrong.
Had a meeting today but no one had a good answer on the D1 to D2 5in5 question. It's a work in progress and may have more info next month. However, I have trouble with D1 just deciding to not permit D1 SA's to play a 5th year in D2 if D2 allows it. Seems like the kind of arbitrary thing that could be appealed or easily challenged in court. Kinda why we're here.... So, if D1 tried to restrict D1 kids from playing a 5th year in D2, what happens when D1 allows it in a future year? Could D2 or D3 say we aren't allowing "our kids" to play a 5th year in another division? That makes no sense at all and infringes on the student's freedom to transfer and play that 5th year. A freedom US Courts have been VERY sympathetic too. (again, why we're here). That's why I think my statement above is going to be correct. D1 kids will be able to play a 5th year in D2 as soon as Fall 2026. Could there be a delay on all of this to Fall '27? Perhaps, maybe so the transfer portal and 'windows' line up for current 4th year kids.
Interesting. The meeting I attended made it clear that the door would not be open. In any case, The latest info being released (that has nothing really to do with D1 to D2 transfers) has put the whole proposal in doubt. It's gone from a slam dunk to "does it even make it to the convention for a vote?" Opinions could potentially swing dramatically against the entire proposal once people have time to see and digest the latest documents making the rounds. Some of the stronger DII conferences do not have a strong consensus to back the proposal at the moment. That could change, of course, but the winds seem to be shifting.
I've heard that D1 has pretty much shelved the idea. They are waiting to see how some current lawsuits play out and then may bring the discussion back up. but for now its not even being discussed anymore
Correct. This is causing some serious hesitation on the part of DII presidents and ADs. The latest document I've seen says the rules of the division a student-athlete is transferring FROM will apply to fifth-year DII eligibility.
I'm not disagreeing with your updates. IMHO, I have big concerns with only D2 doing this before D1 or 3 for that matter. When I first heard about it, my initial reaction was that d1 folks won't like this much at all if they aren't doing it at the same time. but when this statement is made: the rules of the division a student-athlete is transferring FROM will apply to fifth-year DII eligibility. My question is - how does this rule help the student-athlete? What benefit is there for the student-athlete in restricting their movement to another school and denying them the opportunity to continue to play? The NCAA has very well-paid lawyers that have not satisfied quite a few judges in their answer to this question...
I'm not sure it really is geared toward SAs. I think it was 1) more about simplifying things at the NCAA offices, but eliminating a lot of time and paperwork with redshirts, and 2) an expectation that this might have been addressed in the spring during the House settlement. There was some thought that the pending lawsuits about the potential restraint the 4 in 5 rule places on SAs would have been addressed in the settlement, or that all divisions would have withdrawn the 5 in 5 proposal. DII pushed forward while DI seemed to think it's well-paid lawyers would get things right on these cases, OR that the NCAA is better off waiting to see what the courts say before moving forward on any new legislation.
As I think about it, having 5 years of eligibility is a good example of what's wrong with college sports. In their origins, colleges were 4-year academic institutions. Students were expected to attend for four years, "pass" each year, and get their degrees. Yes, graduate degree programs have been added to some colleges. But that doesn't change the historic basis for the institutions' existence. Sports, theatre, choral groups, student newspapers and radio stations, clubs, fraternities and sororities, and so on all were extra-curricular activities students could choose to engage in or not. They were something you did as an addition to your course work and were intended as secondary to your four-year education. Could you have a year when you were not in school, then come back for a year and engage in extra-curricular activities? Yes. But extra-curricular activities always were something extra you engaged in while completing your four-year program. It was the four-year program that was the central fulcrum for everything else. Everything since then that has tried to extend athletic elegibility beyond those four academic years is a betrayal of the basic reason for the existence of colleges. This includes injury-based red shirt years, Covid years, and now fifth years. They turn the reason for attending college into playing a sport for X years, rather than spending the traditional 4 years getting your degree, taking some of that time to do something extra-curricular, and then heading out into the world to make your way or on to graduate school and then heading out into the world. Alternatively, if one wants students to continue to be able to engage in their extra-curricular activities beyond their four degree-pursuing years, while they are in graduate school, then let them engage so long as they are in their graduate degree programs, with no limit in how long they can do it. The institutions' presidents need to get their acts together and put things back in the right order: degree programs first, sports as secondary extra-curricular activities.
Except that students at large only graduate in 4 years 40% of the time these days. And the number is falling. Fully 1/3 of those Who do graduate take 5-6 years. My son took 5 + summer school and my daughter took 6 years to graduate. Both had learning/mental health issues to deal with, but daughter's husband and her best friend, both of whom were far superior students, took 4.5 years to graduate. 5 years of eligibility better aligns with the college experience these days.
Good info. So, if the reasons for taking an extra half-year, year, or two, or even more are academic, they should be able to engage in any extra-curricular activity for however long it takes to get their "four year" degrees. That fits with the institutions' core purpose. But an extra half-year, year, or two, or even more after they have satisified their degree requirements, in order to extend their athletic careers, No. (I recognize the possibility of difficult enforcement issues.)
Both great posts and I feel like I can agree with both takes. In the D2 proposal, they cite research that 30% of current D2 SA's needed a 9th or 10th semester to get their Bachelors Degree. So they are making a case about SA welfare and helping them with degree completion. Many really need their athletic aid to help pay for that extra semester so keeps them in school and helps get them a degree. Hard to argue that point. It is also about business to some degree. If a school could just keep 10-15% of their students to stay enrolled longer, that helps the bottom line. Most D2 kids are not on full rides at all. However, in my experience, more women's soccer players could graduate early then need to stay longer. True for very many SAs in all 3 divisions. Mainly caused by the expansion of AP credits and dual enrollment so earning college credits in HS. These kids are smart and if 5in5 were the policy now, I don't know how many women's soccer players would take advantage. 1 or 2 per class so per school....maybe? These players have a life to go live and ligaments to protect! P4 FB and BB is a completely different model and this thread is not really about that (at least for the D2 proposal). Many of the D1 eligibility 5th year cases have been about denying economic opportunity to D1 athletes, esp FB players (that don't apply the same in d2 or 3). I think D3, 90% of D2, and at least half of D1 athletes experience what @cpthomas is describing above. Having the 5th year option to increase enrollment and help with degree completion or even to help pay for graduate credits, as a policy it has some merit.
NCAA set out a memo from the Division 1 Cabinet saying there will be no changes to eligibility rules through the 2026-2027 season. The funny part of the statement is that they still apparently think Congress will be the best avenue to answer these questions.
I do see 2 things out there. The D1 statement mentioned above about no changes until 2027. BUT, the D2 governance folks put out a statement of support for 5in5 and an "early Q&A" doc linked below. The following statements below are in there so credit to @Lensois for some insider knowledge. IMHO, I like the idea that D1 folks can't play a 5th year in D2 BUT, I can also see it challenged, with appeals or in court. If a kid started in D1, say only for 1 year, then transfers to a D2, some years later, they won't be able to play that 5th year?? I could see not transferring to D2 just for year 5, but allowing year 5 if the SA spent year 4 in D2. Not sure that is exactly addressed here. There will be more questions/answers before the Jan convention. Appeals and legal challenges are something this "cleaner" policy with less exemptions is intended to avoid. The scholarship policy does mention exemptions against the caps applying only to the "home school" SA so that concept is out there for sure. I could see (and would support) the entire policy only applying to "original school" 5th year SAs, not just the scholarship max exemption for 26-27. From Question #4: "A transfer student-athlete is subject to the legislation applicable to the division or association of which the previous institution was a member." From Question #24: (regarding exemptions to scholarship limits for 5th years in 26-27) "This relief would only apply if the student-athlete remains at their original institution" https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/governance/d2/legislation/2026/2025-26D2GOV_Proposal2026-6.pdf
I think everyone should just get five years. All in one fell swoop. Or else we'll keep getting this piecemeal sh!t.