Major college football coaches recently voted to recommend significant changes to redshirt rules for players. They want players to be able to play in up to nine games before losing the chance to redshirt for a season, compared with the current limit of four games.
but why?
advertise
The unanimous recommendation was made at the American Football Coaches Association annual meeting on Jan. 13 in Charlotte. AFCA Executive Director Craig Bohl explained this in a statement to USA TODAY Sports.
This is not yet a rule change, it first needs to be considered by the NCAA committee. But that suggestion could lead to a compromise as the NCAA’s eligibility rules are challenged in court, with a federal judge in Nashville on Thursday denying five football players’ requests for a fifth season of eligibility. The players are part of a class-action lawsuit that seeks to keep players eligible for five seasons over five years.
Currently, football players can only play four seasons in five years, but can play up to four games in a season without losing a season of eligibility, a so-called redshirt year.
Why college football coaches want a nine-game redshirt threshold
Bol, the former Wyoming head coach, cited changes in college sports with expanded postseason and roster caps under terms. House vs. NCAA Legal settlement. For example, the Miami Heat will play their fourth playoff game on January 19 when they face the Indiana Pacers for the national championship. Under a rule change last year, players can also participate in the postseason and their games do not count toward the redshirt threshold after the 12-game regular season.
advertise
“College athletics is at an inflection point,” Ball said. “The House settlement introduced a roster cap and multi-year grandfather clause that will significantly shrink the active roster and compress the depth chart. At the same time, it expanded the competitive calendar through the College Football Playoff structure.
“The current redshirt rule — four games plus tournament participation, with potentially as many as five additional games — was made for a different era: bigger rosters, fewer total games, less cumulative physical and mental burden. Weaving today’s realities into a modernized redshirt standard of nine games is as much a matter of student-athlete well-being as it is a matter of competitive sustainability. It’s also consistent with a nine-game conference schedule.”
Ball said this was “not about creating a loophole.”
“This is about aligning policy with today’s environment and prioritizing health, development and opportunity while maintaining the fundamental purpose of a redshirt year,” Ball said.
advertise
What new redshirt rule changes could mean
A redshirt year does not count toward the four-season playing time limit over five years. For example, Colorado State freshman Julian Lewis will be a redshirt freshman in 2026 with four seasons of college eligibility remaining after playing in just four games and a redshirt season in 2025. If he plays five games in 2025, he loses his redshirt year and is considered a sophomore in 2026, with only three seasons of eligibility remaining.
If the rule were changed to a nine-game redshirt threshold, a football player could play up to nine regular-season games in a redshirt season, plus four full seasons.
Judge’s decision doesn’t bode well for five seasons of eligibility
On January 15, a federal judge in Nashville denied a request for a preliminary injunction that would have granted five football players a fifth year of eligibility in 2026 after playing in the NCAA for up to four seasons.
advertise
Judge William Campbell’s ruling gives the NCAA a victory in court as their rules have been attacked in various antitrust lawsuits. In this case, the NCAA is being sued by athletes from multiple sports who challenge an NCAA rule that limits them to playing four seasons in five years. Athletes said the restriction amounted to an unreasonable restraint on trade, and last year athletes were finally allowed to make money from schools using their names, images and likenesses.
The NCAA pushed back, saying it was not an unreasonable rule.
The judge held that “Plaintiffs have not shown that their antitrust claims are likely to prevail.” If the judge rules in favor of the players, the preliminary injunction would temporarily grant only a fifth season of eligibility to the five football players as the larger case progresses in court. After a judge rules against the players, their lawsuits can still proceed. But the judge’s ruling doesn’t bode well for larger cases unless plaintiffs can lay a stronger case for rule changes.
“The consequences of minor changes in eligibility rules may not be fully appreciated as the record develops further,” the judge ruled. “The court noted its limitations in assessing the consequences of invalidating long-standing eligibility rules.”
advertise
This case is different from the Diego Pavia case
The judge previously issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia, who had challenged other NCAA eligibility rules related to junior college transfers. The ban gives Pavia, a former New Mexico Military Academy player, another season of eligibility this year while his underlying case remains pending.
The NCAA said the Pavia case was different from this case because Pavia did not challenge the four-season limit within five years.
Follow reporter Brent Schrotenboer @Schrotenboer. Email: bschrotenb@usatoday.com
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: College football coaches explain why they want new redshirt rule
