Coaches React to NCAA’s Proposed Five-for-Five Eligibility Plan
By Cate Clark, Executive Director, NFHCA
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO — The NCAA Division I governance structure continues to move closer toward an eligibility reform, a change that could reshape roster management and student-athlete participation across Division I sports.
Last month, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors directed the Division I Cabinet to continue advancing an age-based eligibility proposal commonly referred to as the “Five-for-Five” model. If ultimately adopted, the proposal would fundamentally change how student-athlete eligibility is structured beginning with the 2026–27 academic year.
Under the proposed framework, Division I student-athletes would receive up to five full years of competition eligibility beginning the regular academic year after either graduating high school or turning 19 years old, whichever occurs first. Student-athletes would be permitted to compete during all five years within that eligibility window.
The proposal would also streamline the NCAA’s current waiver and redshirt structure, preserving only limited exceptions for circumstances such as military service, maternity leave, and religious missions. NCAA leadership has positioned the concept as an effort to simplify eligibility rules and reduce the growing volume of legal disputes surrounding participation and waiver decisions.
For Division I field hockey coaches and administrators, however, the proposal extends beyond administrative simplification. It could influence roster construction, scholarship allocation, recruiting timelines, transfer movement, athlete development, and the overall student-athlete experience.
Wake Forest head coach Jen Averill believes the proposal requires a broader philosophical discussion across collegiate athletics.
“Will we take advantage of this or see it as yet another dynamic threat to college athletics? Roster management and long-term focus will be the number one factor to address.”
One of the clearest themes emerging from coaches across Division I field hockey is that the long-term impact of the model will likely depend less on the rule itself and more on how institutions operationalize it.
Fairfield University head coach Laura Gebhart, who also serves as the Division I representative on the NFHCA Board of Directors, noted that the proposal has the potential to create a clearer and more consistent eligibility framework for student-athletes and institutions alike.
“A standardized five-for-five model may reduce confusion surrounding eligibility timelines, waivers, and participation calculations for both institutions and student-athletes,” Gebhart shared.
Northwestern University head coach Tracey Fuchs echoed that sentiment, pointing to the benefit of having a more clearly defined eligibility path for athletes and staff navigating increasingly complex roster decisions.
“I do think it is nice that we do not have to worry about medical redshirts and that we have a clear path of eligibility for each athlete,” Fuchs said.
Roster Management and Recruiting Impact
At the same time, coaches consistently identified roster management as one of the most immediate and significant concerns, particularly during the transition period.
Both Gebhart and Virginia Commonwealth University head coach Stacey Bean compared the potential short-term impact to the roster congestion experienced during the COVID-era eligibility extensions.
“I think in the early stages of the transition to this model, you will see a similar inflation in roster numbers as we had with the student-athletes who received an additional year in the COVID era,” Bean said. “It’ll take a couple of years to rebalance the rosters again, but I think schools will adjust to the new norms.”
Gebhart similarly noted that unless roster caps evolve alongside the proposal, programs may be forced to recruit fewer incoming student-athletes while leaning more heavily into retention and transfer portal management.
Fuchs added that the proposal could create significant challenges for current and future recruiting classes if roster flexibility is not addressed in tandem with the eligibility changes.
“If they are not flexible with roster management, many programs will have to cut players or renege on their commitment to incoming players,” Fuchs said.
University of California, Davis head coach Austin Pile believes some of those pressures could emerge quickly within the current recruiting landscape, particularly for the incoming Class of 2027.
“Teams completed their 2027 classes with the roster limits of 27 athletes (tied to the post House settlement guidelines) in place and were planning on players graduating,” Pile said. “Now with the potential of some of those seniors being able to stay longer, I am intrigued if some committed athletes get cut loose from their current commitment because now there is no roster spot available.”
Long term, coaches believe recruiting models could shift. Programs may reduce the size of incoming classes while accounting for the possibility of fifth-year returners remaining on the roster longer. That reality could ultimately tighten opportunities for high school recruits and increase competition for available roster spots.
“The proposal shifts Division I field hockey closer toward a long-term developmental model rather than a fixed four-year participation cycle,” Averill said. “It requires coaches and administrators to rethink recruiting, retention, leadership development, and what defines a successful student-athlete experience.”
Pile also believes the proposal could create ripple effects for institutions with more traditional four-year participation models, particularly within academically selective conferences.
“It will be very interesting to see how the Ivy League and Patriot League respond,” Pile said. He pointed to recent examples of athletes graduating from academically selective institutions before transferring elsewhere for an additional year of competition, a trend that could become more common under a five-year structure.
Player Development and Academic Flexibility
Player development emerged as another major theme throughout the discussion.
In a sport like field hockey, where tactical understanding, physical maturity, and decision-making often develop later in an athlete’s collegiate career, coaches see meaningful upside in allowing athletes additional time within a program.
Averill believes older and more experienced rosters could elevate the overall quality of play across Division I field hockey.
“In field hockey, where tactical understanding and decision-making often peak later in an athlete’s collegiate career, older rosters could significantly elevate the overall quality of play,” Averill said.
Gebhart similarly noted that the model could positively impact long-term athlete development by providing more time for physical, technical, tactical, and emotional growth within the collegiate environment while reducing pressure on student-athletes to rush development or prematurely enter the transfer portal in search of immediate playing time. University of Maryland Head Coach Missy Meharg also pointed to the student-athlete experience as a key benefit of the proposed model, noting that the Five-for-Five structure could provide “student-athlete clarity and the chance to play right from the start.”
Fuchs also believes the proposal could be particularly beneficial for first-year student-athletes adjusting to the demands of Division I athletics.
“It will allow first years to develop more in their first year without coaches having to decide whether to redshirt them,” Fuchs said. “I think once we have a few years under our belt, it will enhance the student-athlete experience.”
Fuchs also noted that the additional year could create meaningful academic flexibility for student-athletes, whether through graduate school opportunities or lighter academic loads during a fifth competitive season.
Pile similarly believes institutions may begin rethinking how they structure academic timelines for student-athletes.
“I think schools could market the five years as a bachelor’s plus master’s timeline,” Pile said. “But for schools that do not have graduate programs or that have highly selective graduate admissions, it may make more sense to stretch the undergraduate degree over four-and-a-half or five years so student-athletes can reduce course loads and stay enrolled longer.”
Bean, who played collegiately in Canada under a five-year eligibility structure, similarly pointed to the maturity benefits associated with extended participation opportunities.
“At 23 years old, you are typically physically, emotionally, and mentally more mature in that fifth season,” Bean said. “It also provided an avenue to begin postgraduate studies during that fifth year.”
Equity, Scholarships, and Long-Term Questions
Still, concerns surrounding equity and access remain central to the conversation.
Coaches noted that the model could unintentionally widen the gap between programs with significant institutional resources and those operating with more limited scholarship funding, graduate school access, NIL opportunities, and support infrastructure.
The financial implications may be felt during the transition years, when programs are simultaneously managing roster retention and future recruiting classes.
Scholarship allocation may become increasingly complicated where programs already stretch limited scholarship dollars across large rosters.
The student-athlete experience itself may also vary widely depending on institutional support systems. Access to graduate programs, financial aid policies, housing availability, and postgraduate academic pathways could all influence whether a fifth year becomes a meaningful developmental opportunity or an additional financial burden for student-athletes and families.
Academic accountability also remains an important piece of the discussion.
“With that in mind, I think the NCAA needs to stick to the current Progress Toward Degree percentages and markers if they move to this model,” Bean said. “I would not want those standards to fall away in the new model because it could potentially lead to student-athletes stretching a four-year undergraduate degree into five years, lowering academic expectations.”
Fuchs also raised an Olympic-specific consideration that could uniquely impact field hockey and other Olympic sports. She hopes the NCAA will consider maintaining an Olympic training waiver option within the proposed model, particularly for athletes pursuing national team opportunities during Olympic preparation years.
“If they don’t allow for an Olympic waiver, players will be in a tough position choosing between giving up a year of eligibility or not playing for USA in critical times of the year,” Fuchs said. Meharg also emphasized that if the Five-for-Five model is adopted, the NCAA should include the Olympic year training waiver among the additional eligibility waivers connected to the proposal.
The proposal could also create unique implications for institutions with stricter academic participation models, including Ivy League programs that traditionally limit undergraduate participation timelines to four years.
For now, the Five-for-Five proposal remains under active NCAA consideration, but the conversations already taking place across the field hockey community highlight both the opportunity and complexity surrounding the potential change.
While coaches continue to evaluate the long-term impact on roster management, recruiting, scholarships, and player development, the NCAA could finalize its proposed ‘five-for-five’ eligibility model in the coming weeks, with Division I leadership expected to vote soon.
What is becoming increasingly clear is that if adopted, the model would fundamentally reshape the traditional four-year participation cycle that has long defined Division I athletics and require coaches, administrators, and student-athletes alike to adapt to a new roster and development landscape.
AstroTurf is the Official Sponsor of the 2026 NFHCA Annual Convention. With over 50 years of experience and millions and millions of square feet of synthetic turf in use worldwide, AstroTurf products bring more technological expertise and real-world know-how to the game than any other brand.
