Good morning, and thanks for spending part of your day with Extra Points.
I've completely given up trying to keep track of all the lawsuits related to college athlete eligibility cases. The task is probably too expansive for even my pals at the College Litigation Tracker. And even though the NCAA wins the majority of these cases (at least for now), the confusion, expense, and instability caused by regular litigation makes it difficult for coaches and athletes to plan for the future.
Your Bank Should Pay YOU More
Switch to SoFi Plus and get 3.80% APY on your savings. That's like…10x what old banks are giving out. Plus get 1% matching of recurring investments. Why wait to switch?
What SoFi Plus includes:
• 3.80% APY on savings (seriously!)
• Unlocks 20+ perks and $1,000+ in annual value with qualifying activities.
• All your money management in one app
• Rewards points on everything
America's most rewarding financial membership for just $10/month. Your money deserves better.
1 See full terms and conditions. Cancel anytime.
The current best hope? A dramatic refresh of current eligibility rules. If NCAA President Charlie Baker gets his way, "five to play four unless you get a waiver" would become a flat "five in five" eligibility system. That means athletes would get five years to play five seasons. No redshirts, (almost) no waivers.
Baker threw his full-throated support behind a move to the so-called "five-in-five" standard for student-athlete eligibility to eliminate the current restriction in Division I of playing four seasons within a five-year span that features numerous waivers and redshirts. Under the concept, athletes both domestically and internationally would fall under an age-based window of five years to compete beginning upon high-school graduation or when they turn 19 years old.
"The goal here was to come up with something that was a lot simpler and sort of familiar," Baker says. "If you think about it, we all grow up playing sports and our kids grow up playing sports and it's U-10, U-12, U-15, U-18, U-20, U-22 leagues, right? The idea of an age-based dynamic or parameter is pretty familiar. That's the way most of amateur sports is organized in who gets to participate."
On Thursday, the National Association of Basketball Coaches released the following statement about the potential shift to a "five in five" model:
The NABC shares the NCAA's urgency to stabilize college sports eligibility, and coaches have expressed general support for an age-based model during initial discussions with NCAA leaders. However, this rapid shift requires diligent implementation — especially given the active recruiting and transfer cycles. Coach perspective is vital to any legislative reform — on matters of eligibility that immediately impact roster management, the NABC views collaboration and communication with coaches as non-negotiable. As the NCAA expedites this review, the NABC urges that all stakeholders be brought to the table — coaches included — to identify potential unintended consequences and to ensure these generational changes are structured correctly.
I haven't read any particularly convincing arguments against moving to a U-23 or "five in five" system. Consistently enforcing waivers for medical hardship or other extenuating circumstances proved almost impossible, and since the financial stakes for playing just one more year in the NIL era are potentially life-changing, I don't blame anybody for suing to play as long as they can. Potentially moving to something more hard and fast could solve that problem.
But the NABC has a point. "Common sense" solutions could very well have unintended consequences, especially since Baker wants this policy voted on next month — much faster than other significant college sports reforms. How such a policy is implemented is even more important than whether the policy should be implemented.
Let's say the policy is voted on and approved next month. Does it apply to current college students? If it doesn't kick in until, say, 2027–2028, will current students sue to force the issue?
And are there other edge cases that still justify exceptions? The three I've read (and heard from ADs) seem to be centered around athletes interrupting their college or athletic careers for military service, to give birth, or to serve religious missions (such as the typical 24-month, full-time religious mission common among Latter-day Saints). Will those be sufficient?
I don't know! Throwing a huge eligibility wrench right as the athletic season is ending — effective ASAP — doesn't feel especially fair to current coaches, high schoolers, or anybody trying to make roster decisions for 2026–2027. But it's entirely possible that there isn't a way to make this change without alienating some group of people.
I'd be surprised, right now, if a version of this rule doesn't get passed in the next several weeks — but as the idea rolls through the NCAA policy sausage-making apparatus, I wouldn't be surprised if the rule ends up looking very different.
A development to watch, especially for hockey fans, for sure.
What else did we write this week?
We’ve FOIA’d over 1,000 game contracts in football, men’s and women’s basketball, baseball and softball for the Extra Points Library, with more being added almost every single day. I wrote about some of the trends I’ve observed from reading those deals, from which schools/events pay the highest guarentees, to the going rate to buy a women’s college basketball game, and more. I think I’ll be writing about this again, once we get even larger data sets for some of the non-basketball sports.
Also, FOIAing all those contracts means that sometimes, I’ll get news of some 2026-2027 men’s college basketball games before they’re formally announced. For example…Texas A&M, TCU and Tulane? Guess what? You’re all playing UL-Monroe next season. Surprise!We also published some guest legal analysis that argued the Trump administration’s aggressive executive order could establish the NCAA (and various conferences) as ‘State Actors'“…which would nuke much of the NCAA’s remaining legal shields. The EO meant to prevent more lawsuits could accidentally create even more lawsuits that weren’t previously considered?!? Very cool!!!
We also continued our series looking at sport-specific budgets across D-1, with a breakdown of what schools spent on Men’s and Women’s Gymnastics programs in FY25.
And oh yeah, we added more quality of life features to the Extra Points Library, uploaded 300+ more documents, and added new data for our free trivia game, Who’s That Football Team?
That’s a pretty decent week, in my humble opinion. Now that EPL 2.0 is finally out the door, I’ve also had time to make more reporting phone calls, and you’ll start to see more fruit from those efforts, starting next week.
We can make games, file FOIAs, write newsletters, teach college classes and do everything else that comes with Extra Points, thanks to your support. A premium subscription gets you every single newsletter we’ve ever written (that’s like, three books worth of newsletters), all of our games, and my love and respect. That’s a good deal for just nine dollars a month.
Have a great weekend, everybody. Enjoy some sunshine, catch the end of the NFL Draft, and I’ll see you on the internet next week.
