Summer Series: Hockey Leaders Unite to Ease Impact of NCAA "Five for Five" Rule
This is the first in a series of summer articles that will tackle some of the pressing issues currently impacting hockey in North America.
By Scott Lowe – MYHockeyRankings.com
While we’ve witnessed on many occasions how powerful the grassroots North American hockey community can be when rallying to support a cause, rarely have those who run hockey at the highest levels demonstrated the ability to unite and work toward common goals that are in the best interest of the sport and its participants.
That changed recently when it was revealed that the National Collegiate Athletic Association was pushing to alter and simplify its eligibility rules for student-athletes.
Instead of allowing Division I athletes to complete their four seasons of eligibility in five years – with the possibility of extending that limit multiple times through a waiver process for injuries and other hardships – the NCAA was going to implement a “five-for-five” eligibility model that would provide all DI student-athlete with five years to complete five seasons of eligibility.
No redshirts. No waivers. Less confusion.
No more seventh-year seniors or 26-year-old student-athletes.
This concept of this eligibility model was presented at a White House roundtable on college athletics in early April and was formally introduced and recommended for consideration in late April by NCAA President Charlie Baker. The NCAA Division I Cabinet began discussing the proposal in early May, and by the end of the month it was clear that the governing body was going to vote in June to implement some version of the model.
While the concept was widely heralded by college sports fans and media as a necessary and positive step for NCAA Division I athletics overall, the proposed change sent shockwaves throughout the North American hockey community.
That reaction was caused by the NCAA’s initially stated intention to begin the five-year eligibility clock either the fall after high school graduation or after the student-athlete’s 19thbirthday, whichever came first. Given the unique pathway to NCAA-level competition required of hockey players – about 90 percent of NCAA players at all levels play under-20 junior hockey for at least one season after the conclusion of their 18U and high school careers – the proposed eligibility model raised immediate concerns.
Since the timetable for implementation was unclear and the NCAA seemed to be moving toward adopting the change at lightning speed, the level of panic across many levels of North American hockey grew daily, prompting many valid questions.
The most pressing concern was when the new legislation might take effect and how it would impact players who already chosen to pursue junior hockey in hopes of playing at the NCAA level. While a unilateral decision by the NCAA to alter eligibility rules without considering the potential impact on hockey seemed patently unfair, even more concerning was the impact it might have on players born in 2006, 2007 and 2008 who already were in the junior pipeline.
If implemented for the 2026-27 academic year, the rule could have limited a player born in 2005 who had just aged out of juniors after graduating from high school in 2024 to three years of eligibility. And even if not put into effect until the following year, those same athletes still would only be granted four years of eligibility while other freshmen matriculating to compete in other sports would have five.
With only 64 men’s teams competing at the NCAA Division I level for the 2026-27 season and between 500 and 550 total first-year roster spots available most years, the number of players the rule might impact if implemented immediately was relatively low when considering North American hockey in totality. There also were fears that the rule might extend to Division II and III programs, however.
While it was reported initially that the change only would impact Division I student-athletes, last year’s rule change granting NCAA eligibility to Canadian Hockey League players was only a Division I modification when introduced. Later, with almost no public fanfare, Divisions II and III were included. If something like that were to happen again with the “five-for-five” rule, the number of hockey players impacted would more than double.
The initial uproar created among the hockey community, combined with the uncertainty as to the timing of implementation, the hope for hockey to be treated differently given its structure and the speed with which the NCAA seemed to be moving toward a final vote, was enough to bring hockey’s North American ruling class together in attempt to ensure that the sport’s interests were considered beore a final vote and implementation.
With the threat of widespread lawsuits hanging over the proposed eligibility change – remember, it was a lawsuit that ultimately set the process of admitting CHL players in motion – the leaders of hockey in North America came together in a matter of days to fight for the sport and its players. While the NCAA made it clear that a change was imminent, hockey’s leadership wanted to make sure that the potential implications on the sport and its participants were understood and considered.
The NHL, USA Hockey, College Hockey Inc., the Canadian Hockey League, the USHL, the American Hockey Coaches Association and the Hockey Commissioners Association sent letters to the NCAA asking it to remove high school graduation as a determining factor for eligibility. The group instead proposed that the five-year eligibility window would commence upon the date of an athlete’s full-time enrollment in college or the fall semester after the 19thbirthday.
This slight change in wording would allow players born during the final four months of the calendar year to pursue junior hockey for a season after turning 18 without losing a year of eligibility. Players who turned 19 prior to the beginning of the college academic calendar still would retain four years of eligibility if they played that year at the junior level, while players born latter in the calendar year who wanted to play two years of juniors also would have four years of remaining eligibility.
Thanks to the timely and coordinated response from hockey’s heavy hitters and the lingering threat of legal action, that’s how the rule ultimately was worded when it was adopted by the NCAA June 23. So, while the initial panic might not have been completely warranted, the strong reaction from the hockey community at large in conjunction with the unified efforts of the organizations that responded led to a compromise.
The NCAA stated in an announcement prior to the final vote that the wording had been changed in response to “recommendations from stakeholders in men’s ice hockey, men’s basketball and the U.S. national service academies.”
"While we want to be good partners with the NCAA, we also feel like we have a responsibility to the sport of hockey and our developmental pathway," Heather Weems, commissioner of the National Collegiate Hockey Conference (NCHC), told Meredith Turrets of Front Office Sports while also pointing out that 99 percent of the freshmen on NCAA Division I hockey rosters in 2025 came from junior programs. "We just didn't want to be collateral damage because our system is fundamentally different."
While the ultimate outcome quelled most of the outrage and panic that initially had spread throughout the hockey community, many hockey families still express fear and concerns when the topic is discussed. Some of those sentiments are fueled by a combination of misunderstanding the rule and misinformation, which seems prevalent about almost any topic these days.
"With these changes, the Cabinet has taken decisive action for the benefit of student-athletes and the system of NCAA Division I athletics," Josh Whitman, director of athletics at the University of Illinois and chair of the NCAA Division I Cabinet, said in a statement released when the rule was adopted. "For many student-athletes who enroll in college immediately after high school, these changes will result in the opportunity to potentially compete for an additional season in their chosen sport. For campus officials and coaches, this change provides rules that are simpler to administer and easier to predict for roster management decisions."
With that in mind, here is how the new NCAA “five-for-five” eligibility rule, which will take effect for the 2027-28 academic year, reads:
- The rule change will be effective for all NCAA Division I student-athletes initially enrolling full time in fall 2027 or later.
- It allows Division I student-athletes up to five years of eligibility if they enroll in college no later than the academic year after their 19th birthday. The rule streamlines a significant portion of the Division I rule book by eliminating season-of-competition limits, sport-specific eligibility and redshirt rules and eligibility extension waivers.
- For students enrolling full time in college for the first time in fall 2026 and current student-athletes with eligibility remaining after the 2025-26 academic year, Division I schools will apply the previous rules (allowing four seasons of competition within five years) or the age-based model, whichever results in the most favorable outcome for each individual.
- Exceptions that could delay or pause an individual's five-year period of eligibility under the age-based rules include pregnancy, active-duty military service and official religious missions. These exceptions will only be available if the student-athlete does not participate in organized competition for the duration of the exception.
- The five-year eligibility clock begins ticking when a student-athlete enrolls as a full-time student or at the beginning of the fall semester following the 19th birthday, whichever occurs first.
Although the rule has only been adopted at the Division I level, continuing concerns from hockey families revolve around the larger number of NCAA prospects who might have the ability play for Division II or III programs. Those concerns filter down to families of younger players who might be considering prep school and potentially reclassifying or pursuing a postgraduate year.
What happens if a similar rule is passed for Division II and III athletics, which seems logical? The decision about CHL players being eligible to play at those levels quietly was passed along to college coaches without any public announcement. It just sort of happened one day.
If that were to happen again with the new eligibility model, how quickly would it be implemented and how might it impact players who have reclassified for school or already begun their junior hockey journeys?
The one situation that may need to be further addressed would be for any 2006-born players who have decided to age out of juniors and will turn 20 before college classes begin in September. By letter of the law, those players would only have three years of remaining eligibiilty if they enrolled in schools with Division I hockey programs for the 2027-28 academic year.
That seems pretty harsh and raises concerns about those players being unfairly punished for simlply doing what they were told to do for years. As long as they've dreamed of playing NCAA hockey it was understood that playing juniors was the only realistic path for them to get there. Suddenly, instead of the four seasons of eligibility they were expecting, they are being told that they will only be allowed to play for three years.
Those players not being able to play a fifth year seems like it would be acceptable, but for them to lose a season of eligibility from what they were expecting after following the path that has been laid out for them since they were bantams doesn't smell right. Again, given the small number of players who would be impacted, it seems like an easy enough fix for the NCAA to just grant them an exception for a fourth season.
Whether the NCAA steps up and does the right thing on its own or is forced to legally, it seems likely that a compromise will be reached for players in that situation, too.
“I kind of hope it stays the same for us,” said Matt Bruneteau, head coach at NCAA Division III Stevenson University in Maryland. “But it sounds like if they did adopt the rule it would make things a lot cleaner for compliance. Right now, it’s still messy with a lot of waivers. I could see that passing soon, but most kids at the D3 level would probably only use four years anyway because of the additional expense.”
Paul Totorella, head coach at Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass., thinks a wait-and-see approach is best for most players and families.
“I don’t think there is anything to see here until Division III is affected by the same rule,” he said. “I have never had a postgrad who was ‘going for D1.’ We did send some PGs to Division II schools, so that would be up to the D2 schools and the player if four years are enough for a college hockey career. Most postgrads go on to play juniors, then go to a Division III school. There’s nothing new there. For anyone else, let it play out.
“If you are good, you’re good; you get there if you are good and train hard. There are many paths. If you get a D1 commitment after your 10th-grade year and already reclassified, you and your parents can decide what to do as far as your life and hockey path going forward. I’m not sure how many former prep players went to juniors without a Division I commitment and then got one. I’ve had one in the last 15 years. People value different things when reclassifying. You can still graduate high school at 19 and play a year of juniors then have four years of Division I eligibility.”
In short, as far as reclassifying or repeating a grade level, at this point it only becomes an issue if a player makes that decision and later gets a Division I offer. It seems unlikely that a Division I program would turn down or decommit a player who has four years of eligibility remaining instead of five if the coaches think that player can help them win.
At the Division III level where there is no athletic-based financial aid, the extra year afforded student-athletes who were enrolled during the COVID years often was not pursued for financial reasons. Likewise, if the “five-for-five” rule is implemented at that level, many players likely would decline the fifth year if they already have graduated.
Thus, it also wouldn’t make sense for Division III coaches to turn their backs on good players who only have four years of remaining eligibility. In addition, any rule change for Division II and Division III student-athletes likely would be eased in over a two-year period if the Division I timeline is followed to limit the impact on older players already playing junior hockey.
“I think time will tell how all this looks in the next one or two years as far as how coaches recruit and what matriculation looks like,” said Connor Gorman, head coach at New Hampton School in New Hampshire. “Regarding reclassing, I think the decision will be up to the players and families as it always has been. Some high-end kids will not reclass so they can have more time playing junior hockey. That’s always happened, but some kids will need to reclass because their development path calls for it. I still don’t think most postgraduate players will go straight to college, because college coaches want junior experience. Some college programs already have a history of taking players right from prep school, but college is so expensive now that I don’t see most families paying for another year of school when their child can play four years.”
From the junior perspective, North American Hockey League coaches have yet to see much negative impact from the NCAA rulings the past two years. While the number of Division I opportunities available to their players has decreased, the level of play has not suffered, and the league continues to send hundreds of players on to play some level of NCAA hockey annually.
“Every day it’s something new,” Corpus Christi IceRays Head Coach Nick Skerlick said. “We knew this was happening. Nothing has changed for us; our kids just need to get excited about playing higher-end Division III hockey. I feel like the NAHL is actually getting better and more popular as well.”
Janesville Jets General Manager and Head Coach Lennie Childs also has not noticed any change in player interest or the level of the players he’s able to recruit in the wake of the most recent NCAA ruling.
“Nothing has changed for us as of now,” he said. “We’ve not been impacted at all thus far.”
For those of us in the hockey world who are familiar with the inner workings of junior hockey, have had kids progress to play at that level or have known families of players who have pursued the junior pathway, it’s been clear for many years that changes to the system were necessary. While none of us wants any individual players or specific age groups to be impacted negatively or not have the same opportunities as those who came before them, the NCAA’s new eligibility rules ultimately should be a step in the right direction and not something to be angry about.
“Assuming that Division III adopts this model,” Gorman said, “I like the timeline because the kids don’t have to age out anymore. Although I understood it, I didn’t really love that the new hockey model created a system where players had to age out even to play Division III.”
As with any type of change, the new rules will take a bit of getting used to and are likely to present some unforeseen challenges and repercussions. But as long as the folks who govern and advocate for the sport continue to stand guard and work together to ensure the transition is as equitable as possible for the players and families who have committed countless hours and thousands of dollars to the pursuit of a dream, everything should turn out just fine.
At this point, there’s nothing to panic about. The ability of the major North American hockey stakeholders to unify for the good of the sport during the past three months – and their ability to influence positive changes at the NCAA level – is an encouraging sign for those of us who care about the game and have a stake in its future.
