By Malcolm Butler
College coaches have spent years navigating a maze of redshirts, hardship waivers, medical exemptions, transfer rules and eligibility appeals while trying to build winning rosters.
Beginning with the NCAA’s newly approved age-based eligibility model passed earlier this week, many of those calculations are expected to become much simpler starting this coming year.
The NCAA’s new model replaces the long-standing “four seasons of competition within five years” eligibility standard with an age-based system designed to simplify eligibility and reduce the growing number of waivers and legal challenges.
Under the new rule, a student-athlete’s five-year eligibility period begins at the earlier of two events: when the athlete first enrolls full time at any college or university — including junior colleges and international institutions — or at the beginning of the academic year following the athlete’s 19th birthday.
During the transition, current student-athletes with remaining eligibility will be evaluated under both the previous system and the new age-based model, with whichever provides the most favorable outcome applying to that individual. Student-athletes who exhausted their eligibility under the previous rules will not receive additional eligibility.
The NCAA also created three exceptions that can pause or delay the five-year eligibility clock: pregnancy, active-duty military service and official religious missions, provided the student-athlete does not participate in organized competition during that time.
While the rule is expected to have an immediate impact on recruiting, Louisiana Tech Director of Athletics Ryan Ivey believes its greatest long-term effect may be on how athletic departments and coaches manage their rosters.
“Essentially, it’s an age-based eligibility model,” Ivey said. “You’re trying to create an opportunity where there’s less waivers and a more streamlined approach to eligibility standards and to make sure that we don’t have 27- or 28-year-olds playing college athletics.
“I think this simplifies the eligibility landscape, which I think is really good for everybody.”
But while the rule simplifies eligibility, it also creates a new challenge for coaches.
Current student-athletes with remaining eligibility could receive an additional year under the transition process, but roster limits established under the NCAA’s recent settlement agreements are not increasing.
“You’re adding another year, but we’re not increasing roster limits,” Ivey said.
For coaches, that means every decision carries more weight. Returning veterans who receive an additional year of eligibility occupy roster spots that otherwise might have gone to incoming recruits. Coaches now must decide whether to prioritize experience or continue developing younger players while staying within fixed roster limits.
“You’ve got current student-athletes with additional eligibility, and you’ve got recruits that you’ve promised scholarships,” Ivey said. “Now you’ve got to manage both of those relationships and figure out what’s the best opportunity for the team moving forward.”
Schools have until July 31 to submit remaining waiver requests under the previous eligibility rules before the NCAA fully transitions to the new model.
Even with that short-term challenge, Ivey believes the new system provides something coaches have lacked in recent years.
“It creates clarity and stability and stops some of the guessing that’s been going on,” he said. “It creates opportunities for clarity in roster management and roster construction for coaches moving forward. It is what it is, and you’ve got what you’ve got moving forward.”
Louisiana Tech football coach Sonny Cumbie believes one of the biggest changes will come during the season.
For years, football coaches closely monitored how many games a player appeared in to preserve a redshirt season, often leading to difficult conversations with players who wanted to protect a year of eligibility.
“What it’s going to allow us to do is you’re able to play guys every game for five years if that’s what they want to do,” Cumbie said. “Especially that first year, we would get handcuffed a lot by players — and maybe their representatives — after four games because they didn’t want to play anymore. They wanted to maintain their redshirt.
“I think it takes all of that out, which put players and coaches in a really hard spot in the past.”
Instead of carefully managing participation, Cumbie said coaches can focus on developing players.
“You’re able to get them playing time at an early age if they’re able to do that, and I think that helps with their development,” said Cumbie who is entering his sixth season in Ruston.
He also believes the new model simplifies in-season coaching decisions.
“It makes roster management a lot cleaner,” Cumbie said. “You’re not having to track, ‘This guy has played in three games. This guy has played in two games.’ You’re not trying to figure out when you’re going to play your guys in those four games.”
Louisiana Tech women’s basketball coach Brooke Stoehr said roster management extends well beyond the court and begins with communication.
“I think you have to have some honest conversations with your current roster and just be constantly communicating on what their thoughts are and what their plan is,” Stoehr said.
She said retaining experienced players has become increasingly important while coaches prepare for multiple roster scenarios.
“Being able to retain players the last two years has been a pretty big deal for our success,” said Stoehr, who led the Lady Techsters to the Conference USA regular season title last year. “Trying to find ways to retain that core as long as you possibly can.”
Stoehr said the uncertainty requires coaches to remain flexible.
“It ultimately comes down to you have to be creative and you have to be prepared for anything and everything, and for it to change in any one instance,” she said. “I think what we’re going to see across college basketball is some more movement probably and people going after older players, experienced players.”
One of the NCAA’s goals in adopting the age-based model is to reduce the number of significantly older athletes competing against traditional college-age freshmen.
The combination of COVID-19 eligibility extensions, hardship waivers and transfer rules allowed some athletes to remain in college athletics well into their mid-20s.
“There’s a huge difference, especially physically and strength-wise, between a 23-, 24- or 25-year-old senior and an 18- or 19-year-old freshman or sophomore,” Cumbie said. “I think the age-based eligibility model will preserve the collegiate experience from an age standpoint. I think it’s a great thing for student-athletes, a great thing for coaches and a great thing for all sports.”
Stoehr said women’s basketball has seen fewer examples than football or men’s basketball, although she could point to a few instances in the women’s game of an older player competing against much younger opponents.
“I think it’s been more prevalent in football and men’s basketball,” Stoehr said. “But there have been instances of it.”
Beginning this academic year, many of those calculations are expected to become much simpler under the NCAA’s newly approved age-based eligibility model.
After years of waivers, court rulings and eligibility exceptions, college coaches and administrators across the country know the age-based model won’t eliminate every roster challenge. But they hope it replaces years of uncertainty with something college athletics has lacked in recent seasons — predictability.
