- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Current NCAA 5 for 5 Transition Years Rules
Posted on 9/4/26 at 7:03 am
Posted on 9/4/26 at 7:03 am
This is FYI for anybody that might not know the actual NCAA rules on this, to help form your opinion.
Here is the NCAA 5 for 5 rules for those entering prior to Fall of 2027
Student-athletes who used their final season of competition (under previous rules) during 2025-26.
No additional eligibility.
Current student-athletes with eligibility remaining (under previous rules) after the 2025-26 academic year.
Either the previous rules OR the new age-based rule, whichever is most beneficial to the student-athlete.
Prospects who initially enroll full time at any college or university during 2026-27.
Either the previous rules OR the new age-based rule, whichever is most beneficial to the student-athlete.
Prospects who initially enroll full time at any college or university in fall 2027 or later.
The age-based rule only.
I don't understand why the NCAA made a hard cutoff for the those finishing their 4th eligible year in 2025-2026.
Scenario 2 - if they had a redshirt year or had a year of eligibility left they can use whichever rules is beneficial to them.
Scenario 3 - enrolling freshman in 2026-2027 year, they can use previous or new rules or whichever is beneficial to them.
So freshman this year can use either.
If you had a previous redshirt you can use either.
But those using the 4th year in 2026 are stuck using the old rules and can't use either that benefit you.
How is it OK for a coming freshman to use whichever rule they want but the 2026 guys get nothing?
This is the crux of the issue and why the 2022 class is suing. I'm agreeing with them. I just hate the LSU is the bad guy in this to the media and all they talk about.
Here is the NCAA 5 for 5 rules for those entering prior to Fall of 2027
Student-athletes who used their final season of competition (under previous rules) during 2025-26.
No additional eligibility.
Current student-athletes with eligibility remaining (under previous rules) after the 2025-26 academic year.
Either the previous rules OR the new age-based rule, whichever is most beneficial to the student-athlete.
Prospects who initially enroll full time at any college or university during 2026-27.
Either the previous rules OR the new age-based rule, whichever is most beneficial to the student-athlete.
Prospects who initially enroll full time at any college or university in fall 2027 or later.
The age-based rule only.
I don't understand why the NCAA made a hard cutoff for the those finishing their 4th eligible year in 2025-2026.
Scenario 2 - if they had a redshirt year or had a year of eligibility left they can use whichever rules is beneficial to them.
Scenario 3 - enrolling freshman in 2026-2027 year, they can use previous or new rules or whichever is beneficial to them.
So freshman this year can use either.
If you had a previous redshirt you can use either.
But those using the 4th year in 2026 are stuck using the old rules and can't use either that benefit you.
How is it OK for a coming freshman to use whichever rule they want but the 2026 guys get nothing?
This is the crux of the issue and why the 2022 class is suing. I'm agreeing with them. I just hate the LSU is the bad guy in this to the media and all they talk about.
7
Posted on 9/4/26 at 7:30 am to jp4lsu
quote:
If you had a previous redshirt you can use either.
quote:
Scenario 2 - if they had a redshirt year or had a year of eligibility left they can use whichever rules is beneficial to them.
If you were HS class of 2022, that would be a wash. Because the outcome is identical, you can be rostered this season. But you could only do that under the old rule for that high school class, based on the NCAA's new rule before the injunctions were in place.
quote:
This is the crux of the issue and why the 2022 class is suing. I'm agreeing with them. I just hate the LSU is the bad guy in this to the media and all they talk about.
Yup
Posted on 9/4/26 at 7:41 am to jp4lsu
Basically you know more than someone making $4.8 million/yr to know these types of things.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 7:46 am to jp4lsu
quote:
I don't understand why the NCAA made a hard cutoff for the those finishing their 4th eligible year in 2025-2026.
Well if you do the math there are 130+ FBS programs. If they each graduated 20 Srs last year that would be over 2000 football players that retroactively regained eligibility after everyone filled their 105 man rosters.
They did to protect current and incoming student athletes from getting "processed."
quote:
But those using the 4th year in 2026 are stuck using the old rules and can't use either that benefit you.
That's because at the time the rule was announced they were no longer NCAA Student athletes the rule does not and should not apply to them.
quote:
So freshman this year can use either.
There is no either. Redshirts no longer exist. The either rules are there to allow student athletes to finish out their eligibility under the old rules. If they never redshirted then they get to play a 5th year. They did redshirt well they are basically playing under the old rules just like the Class of 22 guys.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 8:11 am
Posted on 9/4/26 at 7:54 am to jp4lsu
Could you please email this to Greg Sankey so he can read it
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:08 am to armytiger96
quote:
Well if you do the math there are 130+ FBS programs. If they each graduated 20 Srs last year that would be over 2000 football players that retroactively regained eligibility after everyone filled their 105 man rosters.
They did to protect current and incoming student athletes from getting "processed."
Except scholarship limits just increased from 85 to 105 last year (or in the case of the SEC, this year).
Additionally there’s no way the average is anywhere near 20 players per school. Keep in mind we aren’t talking about how many players ran out of eligibility - we are talking about how many players exhausted their 4th year of eligibility without ever having a redshirt year. That’s a much smaller number.
The NCAA may justify the distinction on the basis of protecting incoming freshman but I don’t buy that for a second. I think it’s more about not wanting to deal with the ramifications/chaos of tracking eligibility, transfers, etc. for players who were no longer enrolled. Well.. we see how that worked out for them.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:21 am to jp4lsu
quote:
Student-athletes who used their final season of competition (under previous rules) during 2025-26.
No additional eligibility.
So Ole Miss is playing an ineligible player.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:24 am to lostinbr
quote:
The NCAA may justify the distinction on the basis of protecting incoming freshman but I don’t buy that for a second. I think it’s more about not wanting to deal with the ramifications/chaos of tracking eligibility, transfers, etc. for players who were no longer enrolled. Well.. we see how that worked out for them.
The 105 roster spots had been filled by most teams by June. You bring up a good point that several are likely RS Srs. There's no way to easily quantify. Even if its 5 per team that's still 650 athletes that have used up their eligibility that would retroactively been granted a bonus year looking for spots.
It's much easier to control 40 lawsuits than 650 athletes taking rosters spots from current student athletes.
The other part is this circus will force Congress to pass the Protect College Sports Act which is needed to curb all of these frivolous law suits.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 8:26 am
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:28 am to jp4lsu
Hence, the Ole Miss QB is an illegal player.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:28 am to Big4SALTbro
quote:
Could you please email this to Greg Sankey so he can read it
I really don’t understand this
IMO this is a major part of his job & the fact he testified he didn’t know about it should be cause for dismissal
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:33 am to Adajax
quote:
So Ole Miss is playing an ineligible player.
Assuming you're talking about Chambliss he would have been but he received an Injunction/TRO just like all the others that have sued.
My guess his lawsuit is the main reason for the new rule.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:38 am to armytiger96
The problem the sec has is they decided while they didn’t like what ole miss did they would follow the court orders instead of ignoring it, but when these players put in they decided we should now ignore the court order and threaten LSU.
Ole Miss was also much more active and involved in the chambliss thing than LSU is in this.
The other issue here for the sec is bama playing bedioke last year, they didn’t like it but didn’t move to make a rule after his TRO, they didn’t sue bama, they allowed him to play following court order and when it went away they delivered no punishment.
It’s bad to have blurry rules, it’s worse to selectively enforce rules against certain members.
Ole Miss was also much more active and involved in the chambliss thing than LSU is in this.
The other issue here for the sec is bama playing bedioke last year, they didn’t like it but didn’t move to make a rule after his TRO, they didn’t sue bama, they allowed him to play following court order and when it went away they delivered no punishment.
It’s bad to have blurry rules, it’s worse to selectively enforce rules against certain members.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:38 am to LSUJML
quote:
IMO this is a major part of his job & the fact he testified he didn’t know about it should be cause for dismissal
I'm pretty sure he was coached to say this that way he didn't get a trap question that can be used against him later. This was only a hearing in a kangaroo court that was going to give an injunction yesterday regardless of what he said.
No different than the Supreme Court justice saying she's not a biologist so she couldn't define the difference between a man and a woman.
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:40 am to jp4lsu
Embrace the hate .
Posted on 9/4/26 at 8:52 am to Big4SALTbro
quote:
The problem the sec has is they decided while they didn’t like what ole miss did they would follow the court orders instead of ignoring it, but when these players put in they decided we should now ignore the court order and threaten LSU.
Chambliss didn't go pro so it's apples and oranges. We basically told Ole Miss "here hold my beer and watch this!"
quote:
The other issue here for the sec is bama playing bedioke last year, they didn’t like it but didn’t move to make a rule after his TRO, they didn’t sue bama, they allowed him to play following court order and when it went away they delivered no punishment.
This is the "elephant" in the room that will bite the SEC in the arse. However, two wrongs don't make a right either.
They drew a line in the sand and we publicly crossed it. There will be ramifications that won't be public in the areas that they control such as scheduling, selecting us for 11:00 kickoffs instead of 6:00 kickoffs on SEC network, behind the scenes lobbying for us if we are a bubble team, etc.
This post was edited on 9/4/26 at 9:00 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News