In January, college campuses buzzed with excitement after CBS insider Jon Rothstein dropped a game-changing tweet: The NCAA might allow five years of eligibility for athletes. It wasn’t just speculation; it felt like a lifeline for seniors and athletes on the brink, reigniting dreams of one more shot at glory. Coaches drew up new rosters, locker rooms buzzed with hope. But it faded faster than a buzzer-beater, as the NCAA hit pause on the possibility.
It didn’t take long for the court to cool. Jeff Goodman of The Field of 68 swiftly poured water on the speculation, reporting that there was no proposal for five-year eligibility that currently exists, according to what an NCAA spokesperson told @TheFieldOf68. And nothing is set to be voted on at any time in the near future. That statement didn’t just dim the lights—it pulled the plug.
Still, many refused to believe the game was over. After all, hadn’t similar shifts—like the COVID waiver—once seemed just as unlikely?
Athletes like Kansas guard Zeke Mayo embodied that defiance. Even with no eligibility left after a strong year at KU, he entered the transfer portal anyway. “Due to the pending NCAA rules, I have been advised to enter my name into the transfer portal,” Mayo posted, clarifying that his main focus remained on turning pro.
His’ was not an isolated case. Clemson’s Ian Schieffelin, also out of eligibility, made a similar move. “While I am pursuing my options on the professional level I have been advised, due to pending NCAA cases, to enter the portal on the very outside chance more eligibility is allowed,” he wrote.
Then came April—and with it, the final buzzer. Rothstein returned to the conversation with a post that ended the speculation for good. “NCAA members will not discuss whether or not players will receive five years of eligibility moving forward via legislation until after a final decision on the House Settlement has been made, per an NCAA official.”
NCAA members will not discuss whether or not players will receive five years of eligibility moving forward via legislation until after a final decision on the House Settlement has been made, per an NCAA official.
— Jon Rothstein (@JonRothstein) April 21, 2025
But while the decision (or indecision) may have played out over months, its impact landed instantly. Players like Shakeel Moore and Lu’Cye Patterson, who had completed their eligibility, briefly entered the portal before backing out. Some, like Mayo, kept their names in—with “no contact” tags—treating the portal like a storm shelter, just in case the legal skies cleared.
The NCAA had precedent for granting extra time. During the pandemic, athletes were given a blanket waiver for an extra year—a decision that led to rare cases like Oregon’s Cam McCormick, who managed to stretch his career over nine years. That goodwill moment became a touchstone for athletes and advocates hoping for permanent reform. A codified five-year eligibility rule would have simplified redshirt complexities and offered more flexibility in managing injuries, transfers, and life. Instead, players now wait—not on the NCAA, but on the courts.
The House antitrust settlement, a case challenging the NCAA’s scholarship and amateurism practices, is now the decider. Until it’s resolved—expected sometime this year—eligibility changes are off the table. And athletes are stuck mid-dribble, unable to advance, unable to pass, unsure whether to shoot or hold.
Ashland Athletic Director Al King drew a sharp line between then and now: “The difference would be in COVID, this happened because kids had something taken away from them and you had to do something to make it fair.”
And eligibility isn’t the only news in contention about the NCAA — the whole game is on the brink of transformation.
College Sports Just Got a Payday
In a bold push that could redefine the very DNA of college athletics, the NCAA D-I Board of Directors has proposed deleting 153 longstanding rules from its handbook, opening the floodgates for schools to directly pay athletes. That’s right: the amateur curtain is falling, and a new era is charging toward the spotlight.
After four hours behind closed doors on Monday, the board dropped a bombshell: 9 sweeping proposals that would rewrite the playbook. At the center? A green light for direct financial compensation to players, including for their Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL). If the House settlement passes, the new era could be live by July 1.
The stakes are sky-high. Schools have until June 15 to decide if they’ll opt into this radically reshaped system — one that could see up to $20.5 million a year in direct benefits flow to athletes. Some schools, like those in the Ivy League, are expected to sit this one out and stick to the old model.
But this revolution isn’t just about money. The proposals include sport-specific roster caps and a game-changing equity play: full scholarships for every student-athlete on a declared roster. For women’s programs, that could mean twice as many scholarships.
To avoid chaos in this pay-for-play era, the NCAA is setting up a digital NIL clearinghouse — a watchdog hub requiring athletes to disclose any third-party NIL deals over $600. These deals will be reviewed, and if they fall outside an approved compensation range, athletes can challenge them. Oversight will fall to a newly created enforcement group run by the very conferences backing the settlement.
Yes, athletes can still sign with agents — but the NCAA will continue to enforce academic and eligibility benchmarks. To qualify for benefits, players must stay enrolled full-time and remain within a five-year eligibility window. This isn’t just change — it’s a redefinition of what college sports mean. A blueprint where student-athletes are no longer just chasing glory — they’re finally seeing the green.
Welcome to the next era. One where the NCAA doesn’t just regulate the game — it reinvents it.
The post Everyone Is Disappointed With NCAA as Decision Over Eligibility Criteria Put on Hold appeared first on EssentiallySports.