The NCAA has made a few adjustments to their age-based eligibility model for Division I sports, adjusting the language so that an athlete’s clock starts at initial full-time enrollment or at the beginning of the academic year after their 19th birthday, and the cabinet could vote on the proposal as early as June 23rd.
- See Also: NCAA Division I Board of Directors Directs Cabinet to Adopt Five-Year, Age-Based Eligibility
- NCAA Clarifies Status of Current Student-Athletes Under Proposed Age-Based Eligibility Model
- NCAA Expected to Vote on Age Based Eligibility Model in June, But Hockey Pushes Back
This language change comes after a group of hockey stakeholders put together a document opposing the change due to Hockey’s unique development pipeline that led to approximately 80% of the college freshmen this past season being 20 or 21 according to Mike McMahon of “College Hockey Insider”.
Starting the clock at 19, or at initial college enrollment depending on which comes first, will allow athletes of all sports to continue taking a gap year or spending a year in different development organizations (i.e. junior leagues, military prep schools, etc.) following their high school graduation before their eligibility clock starts.
The NCAA released a statement on Friday which stated: “The Division I Cabinet on Friday continued to discuss elements of the age-based eligibility model that could be considered for a formal vote as early as the end of this month.
The Cabinet modified the age-based model to start a student-athlete’s eligibility clock upon initial full-time enrollment in college or at the beginning of the academic year following their 19th birthday, whichever occurs earlier. This adjustment would be applicable for all sports if the model is adopted.”
The proposal will give athletes five full years of eligibility in five years, and would eliminate the concept of redshirt seasons. Waivers for missing a year without it counting against an athlete’s eligibility would only apply to specific groups, such as those on maternity leave, military service, or religious missions.
The cabinet also emphasized that waivers for current athletes with eligibility under current rules must be submitted no later than July 31st. This would be particularly relevant for swimming athletes like David Johnston and Luca Urlando who are both eligible for another year of NCAA competition despite starting college in the 2020-2021 academic year. While they would not be eligible under the new model, the NCAA has stated that athletes currently enrolled with eligibility remaining after the conclusion of the 2025-2026 school year will be eligible under whichever policy is “most beneficial”.
If adopted, the model will take effect beginning with athletes enrolling in college this fall.
The NCAA released the following explanation for implementation process:
- Student-athletes whose fourth season of collegiate eligibility was completed by spring 2026: No additional eligibility.
- Currently enrolled student-athletes with eligibility remaining after the 2025-26 academic year: Flexibility for schools to apply the age-based model or continue with the previous eligibility rules (four seasons to compete with five total years of eligibility), whichever is most beneficial to that individual.
- Prospects expected to graduate from high school in spring 2027: Age-based model only.
- Prospects expected to graduate from high school in spring 2026, regardless of planned enrollment date: Age-based model only.
- Prospects who graduated prior to spring 2026 and have not enrolled: The NCAA Eligibility Center will review the prospect’s individual circumstances and apply the age-based model or existing delayed enrollment eligibility rules, whichever is most beneficial to that individual.
How is it fair to student athletes that just completed their 4 years to have this not apply to them? This has been talked seriously for at least a year, which if had been implemented then, would apply to them. Not to mention many of them qualify based on the age model. I see no reason why they should not have eligibility if they had planned previous to implementation of 5-for-5 to continue school. If they are continuing their education, why can’t they compete for one more year?
I feel like the word “fair” has become so convluted. IDK, it was going to be “unfair” for someone, in that someone was going to be the last class that didn’t get it. I don’t know what makes it fair or unfair for the class of 2026.
I feel like the practical hurdle is that if you applied it to the class of 2026, then you’re going to have to boot from rosters a whole lot of swimmers who have already put down a housing deposit and bought books and enrolled in classes, and what a mess that would be.
And if they would have made 2026 grads eligible I don’t think my daughter would have taken her school up on it even though she is staying there to get her Master’s degree. She was pretty much done with swimming and went out with a bang!
You have made a good point, but realistically most of the graduating class probably will not use that fifth year if implemented (enough to throw roster limits). But I feel they should have the same choice as the current student-athletes (to use it or not), as some could be staying at their college for grad school – so why not compete?
For winter sports, thinking hockey, swimming etc. if someone turns 19 in October, when will their clock start? The upcoming spring semester or the following fall semester?
The question I have is about kids that are young for their grade i.e. have an October-November-December birthday so they graduate high school at 17 and turn 18 in the fall of their theoretical freshman year of college.
The way I read this, “The Cabinet modified the age-based model to start a student-athlete’s eligibility clock upon initial full-time enrollment in college or at the beginning of the academic year following their 19th birthday, whichever occurs earlier.”
Theoretically, it seems like kids in this three month window could get two gap years if they wanted. One because they wouldn’t turn 18 until the fall of what could have been their freshman year. Then another because the clock starts at the… Read more »
Your reading is approximately correct, though you’d have to graduate awfully early to get two full gap years.
But I’m not sure I think it’s an advantage, per se. Their “gap year” just closes the disadvantage they have versus swimmers who didn’t graduate early.
Also small FYI, in my experience as an American student (which is probably the majority this policy would be targeting), students born in the months you mentioned are typically older. I think the latest cutoff for moving up a grade is sometime in September – so October babies are typically on the older side, but some summer birthdays could opt to stay back.
Many schools cutoff is July 31, August 1, August 15, and then Sept. 15. Each state different with the earliest that I am aware of being July 31. Why would anyone graduate their kid at 17 to just have them gap for 2 years? Makes no sense.
It could happen depending on the state through no fault of your own. New York is the biggest and most prominent example as their school cutoff is December for public/Catholic schools. Therefore, you likely have a bunch of kids who could be “young” for their grade.
So does this mean for current ncaa athletes if they want to take an Olympic gap year in the lead up to LA 2028 that will be allowed still?
No.
I mean yes, but they don’t get to extend their eligibility because of it.
(I don’t think).