Story by
AFCA should stop trying to mess with eligibility rules | Williams
- Story by
- AFCA should stop trying to mess with eligibility rules | Williams
The dominant headline coming out of the annual American Football Coaches Association convention on Tuesday, Jan. 13, was of a kind to make a guy be wary. Remind yourself not everything you read on the internet is true. Double check you're not looking at a parody account.
But no. This proposal, strange as it sounds, is legitimate: According to multiple national media reports, AFCA members voted unanimously to allow football players to participate in up to nine games in a season while getting credit for a redshirt year. Before 2018, participation in any game voided a redshirt. Since 2018, players who haven't previously redshirted could do so while playing in no more than four games .
Advertisement
A nine-game redshirt window still must be approved by the NCAA, so it may or may not go into effect soon or at all.
More: Celebrate Texas Tech's season for the ages with our commemorative book
More: Texas Tech football transfer portal tracker — 17 newcomers committed
For several years, there's been a push among coaches to allow all players unlimited participation in five seasons over five years. It's an effort to eliminate redshirting. It's an attempt to prevent dissatisfied players from doing a self-imposed shutdown after four games to save eligibility. And it's an effort to mostly end the waiver process through which schools appeal to the NCAA on behalf of athletes to have eligibility restored for lost seasons.
Advertisement
In the aftermath of Tuesday's nine-game proposal out of the AFCA, some theorized that allowing five years to play five seasons would immediately set the stage for more lawsuits from athletes who had just exhausted their eligibility under the old rules and were thus denied a fifth season of earning power through revenue sharing and NIL.
The compromise solution: Call it, "Most of five in five."
The AFCA's moving in the wrong direction. Time was when the large majority of players redshirted their first year on campus. Gave them months to adjust to college life, set a solid foundation academically and get into the dining hall and the weight room without pressure to play right away. (I know, I know: Get with the 21st century, boomer! )
Jan 1, 2026; Miami Gardens, FL, USA; Texas Tech Red Raiders quarterback Behren Morton (2) throws down field against the Oregon Ducks during the second half of the 2025 Orange Bowl and quarterfinal game of the College Football Playoff at Hard Rock Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Nathan Ray Seebeck-Imagn Images
The four-game redshirt window made sense. Players could get a taste of the game if they'd muscled up their physique and mastered the playbook. Teams could break the window on their most game-ready freshmen if injuries depleted a position.
Advertisement
Even so, it was problematic. No consideration was given to players from previous generations who set records in four seasons (or three before freshman eligibility opened up in 1972) that are now being broken by players who get to play a lot more games.
Stretching the four-game window to nine is a solution in search of a problem. One of the reasons put forth is to prevent those unhappy players who've not previously redshirted from shutting down after a month to transfer. But you have to give me a better reason than that. The number of players opting out after a month is so infinitesimally small — a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of 1% — as to be a preposterous basis for changing the rule.
By the way, if your inclination is to rage at the NCAA on the matter, you've not been keeping up. The Division I Administrative Committee gave clear guidance in October that eligibility requirements are going to stay the same for the 2026-27 academic year. Said so in a statement: "No more than four seasons of athletics competition in a particular sport over a consecutive five-year period."
No one should be operating in the dark here.
Advertisement
More: Relive how Texas Tech put together a College Football Playoff team
More: Big 12 commish Brett Yormark gives latest on whether CFP will expand
It's muddied the issue that a Tennessee judge has yet to rule on a lawsuit from five players seeking an injunction that would allow them to play a fifth season in 2026. (Some schools have been hoping the judge will grant the injunction to those five and perhaps prompt the NCAA to issue a blanket waiver to all 2025 seniors who played four years without redshirting. In Texas Tech 's case, Reggie Virgil , Caleb Douglas and Jack Burgess could benefit, though Virgil and Douglas have said publicly they're declaring for the NFL draft.)
That's not the NCAA's fault. The governing body reiterated its position in January.
Advertisement
According to sports attorney Mitch Gilfillan, the NCAA addressed the matter in a memo sent to all schools. It said in part: "To the question about whether the Div. I Board would consider issuing a broader waiver if the court grants an injunction for the five student-athletes (Patterson case), there is no plan to do so. The NCAA's eligibility rules are legally defensible and provide opportunities for prospective student-athletes to compete at the Division I level."
The eligibility rules have operated fine for more than five decades now. The AFCA should stop trying to fix what isn't broken.
This article originally appeared on Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: AFCA should stop trying to mess with eligibility rules | Williams
