The NCAA Division I Board of Directors has reaffirmed its commitment to the new age-based eligibility rule, signaling no intention to modify its application despite a series of lawsuits filed by student-athletes challenging the policy. The rule, which restricts athletes to five seasons of competition within a five-year period, aims to standardize eligibility across institutions.
The Division I Cabinet, which approved the rule last month, issued a statement supporting the board's stance. This comes after several lawsuits were filed, primarily in Ohio, with athletes contending the age-based model unfairly prevents them from continuing their college sports careers. Some of these legal actions have resulted in preliminary injunctions allowing affected players to enter the transfer portal.
The age-based eligibility rule dictates that athletes have five seasons of competition over a five-year span. This period begins with their full-time enrollment or the academic year following their 19th birthday, whichever comes first. The new policy significantly limits waivers or redshirt years for extended eligibility, with exceptions only for religious missions, pregnancy, or active-duty military service. Extensions will no longer be granted for athletes who have sustained injuries.
Under the previous model, athletes had four years of competition over a five-year period. Those whose eligibility would have expired by spring 2026 under the old system will not be granted a fifth year of competition under the new rules, which are set to take effect this fall. This change was the catalyst for the initial lawsuit in Ohio.
SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey recently commented on the rule, noting that while the conference ultimately supported it, there were initial reservations regarding its timing. Sankey also mentioned discussions about the Protect College Sports Act, currently under consideration in the Senate, as a potential solution to address the complexities of college athlete eligibility. He indicated that the conference was not initially presented with data to fully justify the rule change, suggesting that the move was made in response to a perceived need for solutions in an environment of increasing eligibility waivers and controversies. "We got on a fast track in this environment because ... people are looking for solutions," Sankey told The Associated Press. "That doesn’t mean there are solutions, but it’s just ‘Oh, what we’re doing isn’t working. There’s so many waivers, there’s so much controversy about eligibility, this must be better.’ But we’re not sure if it is."