What “NCAA Eligibility Extension” Means in 2026

“NCAA eligibility extension” now covers three distinct pathways: the proposed five-year eligibility model, traditional fifth- or sixth-year waivers, and special relief such as COVID and medical hardship seasons. As of this week, the Division I Cabinet and I Board are advancing emergency legislation discussions targeting the 2026–27 academic year for implementation.

This article focuses on how these significant changes extend or limit playing careers for current high school prospects, college athletes, and recent transfers. California Sports Law writes from the perspective of a sports law firm representing student-athletes, families, and schools in NCAA and NAIA eligibility disputes. Later sections walk through who may gain an extra year, who may lose redshirt protections, and how to protect your eligibility timeline.

Current NCAA Eligibility Rules (Through the 2025–26 School Year)

The traditional “four seasons in five years” model remains in effect through the 2025–26 academic year for NCAA Division I. Most student-athletes have four seasons of competition, which must be used within a five-year eligibility period that begins upon their initial full-time enrollment in college—not when they first compete in a game.

Under current NCAA Division I rules, athletes are granted four playing seasons over a five-year calendar, with the option to regain a season of eligibility through a redshirt or waiver request. Standard redshirt rules allow an athlete to sit a year while preserving a season. Limited participation thresholds—like college football’s “four-game” rule or 30% of scheduled contests in most sports—may preserve a full season.

Example: A football player enrolling full-time in fall 2023 would have their five-year clock run through spring 2028, potentially using four seasons with a redshirt in year one if under the participation threshold.

The Proposed Age-Based “Five-in-Five” Eligibility Model

The NCAA is proposing a new eligibility model that would grant athletes up to five years of eligibility starting from their 19th birthday or high school graduation, whichever comes first. This age-based standard removes the current “four seasons in five years” cap, allowing competition in all five seasons within the defined window.

Under the proposed five-year eligibility model, athletes would no longer be able to regain seasons of eligibility through redshirts or waivers, except for specific circumstances such as maternity leave, military service, or religious missions. The focus shifts from counting seasons of competition to tracking whether the athlete remains within their five-year window.

NCAA President Charlie Baker has emphasized this proposal’s goal of creating a “much simpler eligibility process.” The NCAA’s proposed changes aim to simplify eligibility rules and provide clearer standards for student-athletes, addressing inconsistencies that have led to numerous legal challenges.

Transition Timeline: Who the New Rules Will (and Won’t) Help

The NCAA has signaled a non-retroactive approach. Athletes whose athlete eligibility ends by spring 2026 remain under existing rules and do not receive an automatic extra year. Athletes competing in 2025–26 will still be governed by the four-seasons-in-five-years model for that season.

Three groups to understand:

1. Athletes exhausting eligibility by 2025–26: Must pursue traditional waivers under current rules
2. Athletes with remaining eligibility into 2026–27: May face hybrid rule application requiring compliance clarification
3. High school class of 2026 and beyond: Fully governed by five-in-five rules from their first year

Transfer decisions made in 2024–25 and 2025–26 could interact unpredictably with the shift. Athletes should obtain written clarifications from their compliance office and consider legal counsel before entering the transfer portal.

How Redshirts, Medical Hardships, and Waivers Change Under the New Model

One major impact of proposed changes is the near-elimination of traditional redshirt and broad hardship categories as tools to extend eligibility.

Currently, a Medical Hardship Waiver is granted for season-ending injuries or illnesses occurring early in the season, where the injury must happen in the first half and the athlete must not have competed in more than 30% of scheduled contests. Under the five-in-five framework, these tools mostly disappear because athletes simply retain eligibility within the five-year window.

Contrast example: A basketball player injured in 2024–25 might secure a medical hardship waiver preserving one of four seasons. A similar player injured in 2027–28 would simply defer play to the next year within the same window—no waiver needed.

The proposed changes aim to eliminate the ability for athletes to regain seasons through redshirts or waivers, which have been sources of legal disputes.

Legal and Practical Reasons Behind the Eligibility Extension

The NCAA is currently facing dozens of lawsuits from athletes seeking extended eligibility, with some cases supported by their own member schools. In the past year, the NCAA has spent at least $16 million on legal fees related to eligibility cases, with many lawsuits expected to go to trial.

In 2024 alone, the NCAA handled over 1,400 waiver requests, with a significant minority denied and several resulting in expensive litigation. Federal and state courts have increasingly scrutinized NCAA eligibility decisions, pushing toward simpler, transparent rules.

The five-year extension approach reduces reliance on discretionary waivers—often the basis for inequity claims—and aligns NCAA practice more closely with international age-based eligibility norms. From a practical standpoint, schools can plan rosters more predictably even as roster caps and NIL-era pressures complicate scholarship allocation.

Impact on Transfers, Roster Limits, and Playing Opportunities

Extended eligibility means more veteran players remaining on rosters longer, potentially reducing spots for incoming freshmen and transfers. Recent rules allow schools to restrict an athlete’s ability to enter the transfer portal under certain settlement agreements, with tampering presumptions increasing enforcement risk.

Under a five-in-five model, a 23- or 24-year-old athlete could retain eligibility, meaning schools might prioritize experienced players over less proven recruits. NCAA roster caps—adopted in sports like college football and baseball—will force programs to choose between renewing fifth-year players and offering spots to high school signees.

For California NCAA athletes, transfer decisions across divisions or from NAIA/NJCAA into NCAA require careful tracking of both eligibility clocks and sport-specific roster rules.

How California Student-Athletes Can Seek Eligibility Extensions Now

While the new age-based model remains in the proposal phase, current athletes can request traditional eligibility extensions under existing bylaws for 2024–25 and 2025–26.

Main avenues for extra eligibility:

• Medical hardship waivers for season-ending injuries
• Extension of Eligibility Waiver (allows competition in a 6th or 7th year if two seasons were missed due to circumstances beyond control)
• COVID-era relief if not yet used (Temporary COVID-19 Relief allowed affected student-athletes to receive an automatic or self-applied one-year extension)
• NCAA or conference legislative relief in exceptional cases

The process typically involves applying for a waiver through a school’s compliance office. The school’s compliance office submits requests via the NCAA Requests/Self-Reports Online (RSRO) system. Extensions are sport-specific and generally require student-athletes to have been academically eligible during missed seasons.

To qualify for an extension waiver, a student-athlete must show they were unable to compete due to reasons outside their control. Extensions can be granted for documented hardship, mental health concerns, military service, or religious missions. Extenuating circumstances include natural disasters, death of a family member, severe injuries, and documented illnesses.

California athletes transferring from CCCAA programs must be especially careful—junior college enrollment can complicate the NCAA eligibility clock.

How Wingert Grebing Helps With NCAA Eligibility Extensions

Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Walshok LLP is a San Diego–based civil law firm with a sports law practice representing student-athletes, parents, and schools statewide in NCAA, NAIA, and CIF eligibility matters.

Services include:

• Reviewing full eligibility timelines
• Analyzing NCAA bylaws and proposed rule changes
• Drafting waiver and appeal requests
• Representing athletes in hearings before schools, conferences, or NCAA committee proceedings

The firm handles complex situations: multiple transfers, partial seasons of competition within different divisions, prior COVID relief, and NIL-related misconduct cases affecting eligibility windows. Wingert Grebing offers an initial triage conversation to determine realistic paths to an extra season.

Contact the firm early—ideally before signing transfer paperwork or NIL agreements that could unintentionally shorten or forfeit eligibility.