Right now they aren’t guaranteed a roster spot, only a scholarship for 4 years. A big difference between many P4s and mid majors is that P4s can cut a kid and if they stay at the university their administration gives them the scholarship money back to spend, where as non P4 institutions often lose that money to spend if kid stays at the university. In some P4s there are kids just living their life in a sorority on a soccer scholarship because they didn’t want to transfer and the coach wanted the money and a roster spot back.
you’re assuming every scholarship is written for four years. So many programs write “$0” in years 2-4.
Fair point, some do that. Most write a 4 year agreement (sometimes with increases written in) figuring that if needed players will transfer to another school if they're cut.
If you are on scholarship - you are taking a roster spot. only a few exceptions to that...mostly due to head coaching change or if they were on the 24-25 roster.
Word I’m hearing is the 5-year eligibility rule is expected to pass and could be announced as early as June. Players who still have eligibility this fall may receive a fifth year unless they already used a redshirt year. All seniors this fall could have leverage to remain on scholarship for another year, whether they make the 28-man roster or not. From everything I’m hearing, the NCAA is staying firm on the 28-player roster limit — no exceptions. The class that may get hurt the most is 2027. With seniors potentially returning for a fifth year, coaches having to pay older players, and roster spots capped at 28, the 2027 class becomes much more vulnerable. The NCAA likely believes this approach reduces the risk of lawsuits because most 2027 players currently only have verbal commitments and nothing officially signed yet. Sad!
I believe Monday June 22 is the meeting date. There really are 2 issues. The 5th year being allowed and a new age clock starting the eligibility window. It's worded so that current students can choose the current model or new model so 'overage' players will be around a few more years as they "age out". Regarding it's effect in women's soccer -IMHO I think coaches are going to be surprised some places when not as many kids are going to automatically want that extra year. It's going to be more coach driven - that is, them asking for good kids to stay as opposed to having to manage tons of kids that really want to stay. At the top of D1, most of the potential pro players are now long gone by year 5. It's going to be about whether players want to earn more credits for another degree or not. Some will for sure, but after the "new shining thing" effect wears off some, it's going to be 1-2 players per year MAYBE. Depends on job market some as well. So, 2027s will be hurt the most as they are really first to be effected and coaches often panic. Then it will settle down to just as I've suggested - recruit 6 new players per year and have 4 spots for transfers/5th years. yes it will be awkward trying to anticipate how many each year might stay over. It will range from Zero in the Ivy league to maybe being more common at the big State schools where there are more degree options. Some schools with selective grad programs or with few grad programs will lose out some for sure. Some players may slide down the "ladder" of college soccer to more D2s and D3s perhaps but again, I think it's hard to argue against something that gives kids more options, more money, and more time to graduate. This change is much better for students than the 28 player roster change was.
Players getting their masters paid for will trump it whether they’re on the roster or not! Personally I hope the ncaa moves the window back where it doesn’t screw the 2027 class!
As I remember it, the current messy situation comes from lawsuits that student athletes filed or threatened to file. That makes it hard to be sympathetic with student athletes as a group about roster limits and the proposed new number of years of eligibility rules. Over time, patterns will become clear and things will settle down. In the meantime, some players will not have as many options as they would like. Hard things happen in life, and as hard things go, this is not one of them.
I appreciate everyone talking me off the ledge. Hahahaha.... Thanks to this board, we knew this would happen. She had a call today, and another on Sunday. Shell keep going.
I am keeping an eye on this without trying to visit more stress on my 2027 committed kid. My husband and I have privately agreed, if her offer is pulled, oh well. Go to college and enjoy your experience. Play soccer and/ or other sports for tbe joy of it. Enough is enough. With that said, I do find myself wondering about how many female soccer players would actually be interested in a 5th year. I know a ton of kids graduating college currently and going on to graduate school/ medical school/ law school, etc. Very few, if any, are looking at one additional year. Typically, they are looking at what is the best program for their future professional goals. The whole program and what it offers, not one year. Also, most kids are done with their experience after 4 years and looking to move on to the next. Perhaps I am naive but unless you commit to a graduate program at your current university, I don’t see the long term advance in getting one additional (5th year) of funding. Most students do not transfer into graduate programs- you commit for the whole program and have to be admitted. Maybe wishful thinking on my part, but I that is my observation
Great post. I agree with what you're observing. But I also think you would be surprised how many different ways graduate programs are offered. Of course, Medical/Law/Pharmacy, etc are competitive and rigorous programs. In many cases, you could not even be an athlete in some of these programs, certainly not with a typical D1 schedule. BUT, in education, business, communications, even some health fields - graduate credits are offered online and some offer "certificates" for less than 2 full years of coursework. VERY many bigger schools are learning to keep kids around, not just athletes, with "plus 1" grad programs. Start taking grad credits in year 3 or 4 and finish in year 4 or 5... There are quite a few grad programs designed for 5 years. (many are a consequence of so many undergrads starting with college credits and so colleges learning how to keep them enrolled and not graduate early). College coaches are about to learn a lot more about their grad schools and those schools that offer creative and convenient graduate programs will have an advantage. Some soccer programs will quickly become well known for being good with 5th year credits and so athletes. The "degree completion" argument we will all hear about is not really about women's soccer, or very many Olympic sports athletes. But for FB and BB players that have been at several schools, maybe with different Majors, it is a valid argument. i.e. give them a chance to finish and get to 120 and still play in that 5th year. AND of course - still make money! Which is the source of many of the law suits the NCAA is attempting to avoid.
Very informative take, I appreciate the information. That is true, there are some very attractive (IMO) 5 year programs offered. I have actually encouraged some of my older children to go this route because it seems like a really efficient and cost effective way to get a degree that you can use immediately after graduation ( particularly some of the healthcare offerings). What I do recall, is that those programs were fairly competitive, limited amount of spots, and you needed to start on the track your freshman year. Probably there is more out there that offer more flexibility. I didn't know as much about the other creative graduate options, "certificates" you were referring to so I googled it. Wow!! You can get a certificate in just about ANYTHING! I saw several I would be interested in myself just for the sake of it. I guess I found myself wondering how many of those graduate certificates translate into jobs or salary increases. I also think those online options are really attractive to adult learners- people looking to advance their existing career, career change, parent going back to school, etc. Do you think a lot of student athletes will find these options attractive for a 5th year? I guess its certainly possible I have already started to see some 2027 soccer offers getting pulled, if twitter information is to be believed ( which sometimes it is not). It seems so premature for coaches to start pulling offers already before the 5 year thing has even passed. Do you think that some coaches are just using that as an excuse because something better came along? Thanks for all the great info!
fyi - very many D1coaches at ecnl NC were saying 5in5 is coming. One said it's 100%. Nothing is quite that sure but they are being told to be ready. I guess anyone reading this is expecting it by now. June 22nd meeting and I don't think it could be official any sooner. Will be interesting how quickly D2 moves on it. May have to wait for 2027. D3 no idea.
I should be paying a bit more attention at this point but is the current thinking that this is coming with some transfer restrictions as well or is 5 colleges in 5 years going to be an option to get an “education”?
5 to play 5 is coming with the 19 year old age cap is coming. I won’t say 100% cuz nothing in life is but 99.98% happening. the transfer restriction language was largely a trump proposal and I don’t expect it to be included. If any is, it will be sued to oblivion. But I don’t expect it to be part of this at all.
Post #98 in this thread has what has been published so far. Guidelines have also been distributed to schools. Agree with the summary from @Underminer - -5th year policy is expected for Fall '27, Fall '26 college Srs can choose the new model so will certainly squeeze the 2027 HS class and those after.....largely because... -Roster limits are not changed in this policy for the 90% of schools that opted in to the House Settlement. -Age-based eligibility is also in this policy but currently enrolled students can choose the current model so essentially, it's grandfathered in. A new age-based "clock" will really start with '26 HS grads. -Transfer limits are NOT in this 5in5 policy. Transfer limits are being discussed in a few legislative proposals in Congress. See testimony from many this week. Saban? IMHO: Congress could limit transfers but it is really hard to take away the free agency the NCAA has already allowed for several years now. Since covid really. Transfer limits and 'exceptions' will continue to be contentious and debated - although the NCAA thinks(hopes) there will be less litigation going forward with this 5-year policy...
Slightly off topic, but help me understand why schools are so vehemently opposed to considering athletes employees? I haven't heard a quote from an AD or a coach (both past and present) saying that the kids shouldn't be paid. So what is the issue? Why is this the hill they're going to die on?
Because then players would get paid, have rights, etc. and that sort of thing is a serious problem for a lot of people (I guess). Imagine just the amount of workers comp claims that could get filed in football every year. Do you mean recently or ever? If ever, then let me ask you this: Have you ever heard of the term "student-athlete"?
Update. The GAP year survives! Hockey folks lobbied and got a change. So the age thing is settled. Not much effect for women's soccer - who has kids reclassifying to start early, not late! Makes it even more likely the policy will be adopted June 22nd. DI Cabinet modifies age-based eligibility concept https://www.ncaa.org/news/2026/6/5/...t-modifies-age-based-eligibility-concept.aspx
I also heard the military academies lobbied for this change since it not that uncommon for normal students let alone athletes to need to do a post graduate year (often at military prep schools) before they get into one of the academies.
Not quite on thread, but roundtable for Protect College Sports was held today in D.C. Trying to stop Big 10 and SEC from breaking away into a superconference, limit transfers to one time, impose an enforceable cap that would likely shrink the amount of money athletes currently receive at major-conference schools, and would mandate that all schools maintain the same number of scholarships and playing opportunities in Olympic and women’s sports as they have in 2024-25. Supporters claim the bill will help bring enforceable rules and stability to college sports, allow more schools to be competitive, and protect playing opportunities in both women’s and Olympic sports. Opponents say the bill will unfairly restrict athletes from being able to pursue their free-market value. Included head coaches and a couple student-athletes; women's soccer represented by Sara Bowler from Akron. Not going to hold my breath on if anything actually happens and reverses changes that have already occurred, but at least there's a discussion happening on behalf of smaller schools and Olympic sports overall.
This week should be judgement day for the 5 for 5 as the NCAA D1 Cabinet meets June 23-24. I can't see it not passing based on everything I have heard, but stranger things have happened. As an aside, it is also where the men's 2 semester model will have a final vote.