NCAA votes: 5-years for Players
- Thread starter Carolina151
- Start date
The lawsuits will not win with this going into place. The players who graduated this year are just victims of circumstances. That is the same as the 2020 class who was not able to play in the McDonalds AA game, the Jordan Brand game, etc. because of Covid. They need to move on with their lives. They are gone, they have graduated, and there is no room for them to come back. You cannot kick the freshman who just landed on campus out now IMO.
If by "this year" you mean the 2025-26 seniors who just graduated, then no, no reprieve for them.
If you mean "this coming year" the 2026-27 seniors, then yes, they will get an extra year.
As for UNC specifically, this should mean the following rising seniors will gain an additional year if eligibility in 2027-28 because none have used a redshirt year ( based on my limited research):
- Achol Akot
- Syd Barker
- Sophie Burrows
- Chloe Cardy
- Reniya Kelly
They will join the following redshirt Juniors who will also exhaust their eligibility in 2028:
- Laila Hull
- Ciera Toomey
One asterisk: I do not have access to birth date to check these women against the 19 y.o. rule but I do not recall any of them being older than normal.
Wow, this is going to affect the 2027 women coming out of high school. Lot of questions coaches will now have to consider. For example. Do I take a 2027 recruit instead of a 5th year senior? Do I have enough money to sign a fifth year senior with experience as oppose to a top 15 2027 recruit? Do we have enough NIL money to compete with the SEC and Big 10? Where and how can we get more NIL money to compete for these elite players? etc.
Our 2026-27 roster by year:
edit: Bofia and Queiroz both enrolled at early UNC in the Spring of their HS senior year. Not sure yet how that will affect their 5in5 eligibility. But at first glance, it appears that both will need to count those spring redshirts as full seasons?
- 4th Achol Akot
- 4th Syd Barker
- 4th Sophie Burrows
- 4th Chloe Cardy
- 4th Laila Hull
- 4th Reniya Kelly
- 4th Ciera Toomey
- 3rd Blanca Thomas
- 3rd Jordan Zubich
- 2nd or 3rd? Taissa Querioz*
- 2nd Nyla Brooks
- 2nd Gabby White
- 1st or 2nd? Noelle Bofia*
- 1st Kate Harpring
edit: Bofia and Queiroz both enrolled at early UNC in the Spring of their HS senior year. Not sure yet how that will affect their 5in5 eligibility. But at first glance, it appears that both will need to count those spring redshirts as full seasons?
Last edited:
These are great points.
Applying some simple microeconomics to this, the price for a freshman, on average should flatten a bit because there is less demand with less spaces available across P4 programs.
4th year players may also flatten: they are now competing against 5th year players
But quality 5th year players should be at a premium as they are the least risk (known quantities) and a short-term commitment to fill glaring holes in your roster. Any time you land a one year player after the season is already over that places very little harm on your roster long-term. For example, UNC filling its last spot on the 2026-27 roster right now would not affect our ability to land 2027 HS recruits either in roster space or self-imposed salary cap.
But because prices for players has continued to rise exponentially, these nuances may be hard to actually detect as the curve still arcs upward.
And top 20 player will still garner crazy money regardless of class.
Based on your logic with Bofia, Taissa would be in her 3rd year since she came in early as well.
I believe you are wrong about this. This is the ncaa enacting a rule in which the class of 2026 only gets 4 years while everyone in school the 5 years prior and everyone after them gets 5 years.
This isn’t like cancelling one-time events in which a global pandemic caused the cancellations to save lives.
Agreed.
You only need to find one court in one state to rule in the athletes favor. There is already class-action lawsuit in Ohio on behalf of 2025-26 seniors who exhausted their eligibility, probably many more to follow.
The NCAA often lost previous lawsuits on the basis of their rules not being applied evenly and logically and the expense of the earning power through NIL of individual athletes. For example, players did not lose the amateurism status if they played some pro ball overseas, or were paid through endorsements. But if they accepted money from a tennis tournament then their amateurism and eligibility was eliminated. That was deemed arbitrary.
It is not hard to imagine a court deciding that grandfathering in 2024-25 athletes, but not 2025-26 athletes is also arbitrary, providing both classes meet the new 5in5 rules.
The NCAA rationalized that allowing the 2025-26 graduating class to jump right back on the 2026-27 rosters would cause chaos due to roster caps, and signed commitments for the incoming freshman class. The NCAA is of course not wrong here. But the problem is that the turmoil they foresee is protecting their institutions and not the graduated class.
I could easily see the NCAA losing this case given recent precedents.
Nah, Seth Trimble's agent tried to use this for the men's side recently and the NCAA said no. What you said 3397 concerning the 2025 -2026 graduating class is correct. That have to cut it off and start anew at some point; therefore, the student athletes who just graduated will not be able to use this rule because of what you just stated. This rule will come into affect starting the 2026-2027 year. We just saw how the two high schools in soccer who committed to Texas A&M had to go back and open up their soccer recruitment again because of this ruling.