Open Coaches: Should NCAA athletes be granted a fifth year of college eligibility if they choose not to transfer?

CBS Sports college basketball insiders Gary Parrish and Matt Norlander spent a month interviewing over 100 Division I basketball coaches for our annual Candid Coaches series. They surveyed the entire sports landscape: some of the biggest names in college basketball, but also assistants at small schools in lower-tier leagues. The coaches agreed to share their opinions unfiltered in exchange for anonymity. We asked 10 questions and will publish the results over a three-week period.

The 2024–25 NCAA calendar year will be the final year in which college athletes who played during the COVID-affected 2020–21 season can benefit from special additional eligibility.

Before COVID, NCAA athletes, with rare exceptions, had five years to complete four seasons. The COVID bonus year has given athletes five years of eligibility as the 2020-21 season was filled with coronavirus-related pauses, game cancellations and more. High-profile college basketball players taking advantage of a fifth year in 2024-25 include All-American candidates Mark Sears (Alabama), Johni Broome (Auburn), Hunter Dickinson (Kansas), RJ Davis (UNC) and Ryan Kalkbrenner (Creighton).

In recent years, two aftereffects of this COVID rule have significantly impacted college basketball. The good: The sport has been older on average over the past four seasons than it had been in decades prior. Generally speaking, the older the players, the better the basketball. The perhaps not so good: Hypertransfer activity has become a staple of college basketball, making it harder than ever for the average fan to get comfortable with the sport.

The portal will of course continue to exist in the future. It is safe to assume that over a thousand players will visit it every year and explore their options. But what if there was a way to increase player retention a little? There is a way, you know.

With this in mind, we asked…

Should players be granted a fifth year of eligibility if they stay at a school?

Quotes that stood out

Those who voted yes

• “This is the first time I've heard of this concept and I think it's a good idea. Most people who are interested in college basketball feel that the high number of players who transfer each year is a net loss. So I would welcome anything that reduces the number of players who transfer each year.”
• “Yes, they should, and I want mine. The market incentivizes transfers, that's why they're so common. Our game needs help in that area.”
• “Yes, but it is contingent on the player graduating from that institution within four years. We need to incentivize staying in one place and encourage families to see the benefits of researching their options in advance. A fifth year for Baylor Scheierman and Kevin McCullar has actually improved their draft potential. Additionally, fifth-year talent like Max Abmas and Hunter Dickinson adds to the marketability of the game.”
• “I think this is the only and easiest place where we can stay connected to education and encourage academic achievement. My proposal would be this simple: If a child graduates at the end of their eighth semester, they get an extra year of eligibility. So 'no' to having to stay in a school specifically to reach the fifth year, but 'yes' to reaching the fifth year if he/she graduated in four years.”
• “Promoting loyalty and consistency will help student-athletes graduate more easily, could improve NIL funding – at least at the mid- and lower-level levels – and enable better networking with alumni, which will help them after their basketball playing days.”
• “My immediate reaction was to say no because we're all glad to have these COVID years behind us. But I think the 'fifth year with the same program' idea might help mid-majors retain their people better. Paying for their masters might be more enticing than getting $50-75k in zero.”
• “I like the idea, I think it's a great incentive for a player. Would it change anything? Probably not much, so I don't think it will work. And does the kid have to spend the fifth year at the school he graduated from? I like that more in theory than in practice.”
• “I think that's a very good incentive for stability on both the player and team side. I would say they can spend the fifth year at any school they want after they've done their four years at one school. They're contributing, and it gives lower/mid-league players an opportunity to make the jump to big-time basketball and big money, and it gives a big-league player a chance to find a better situation or get a fresh start if they want that.”

Those who voted no

• “A player should be able to move and still play as much as someone who hasn't. I don't think there should be a penalty for moving or an incentive for not moving.”
• “No. Finish your degree and move on with your life.”
• “Players should be given the opportunity to play four games in five years to maintain a balance between high school athletes and their opportunities.”
• “I don't understand why we're talking about giving it a fifth year. As soon as we get through this COVID madness, we need to go back to the five-on-four system.”
• “I'm an old school believer in playing four years unless you get injured or suspended. I think if you do that, you hurt the youth of the game because scholarships are limited.”
• “Players should not be penalized for transferring, as there are many legitimate reasons for doing so. I believe players should have the choice of where they want to go. Contract years on NIL contracts are a different issue.”
• “That sounds good in theory, but it would just be another way for the schools with the most NIL money to reap the benefits of the rules. I just think big schools could offer enough money to motivate players to stay a fifth year. Don't forget that those guys would be required to attend classes and maintain their academic eligibility.”
• “I think the days when children were forced to stay in one school are over. If we offer fifth grade, then we should offer it to everyone.”

The conclusion

Before I get into why this is such a hot topic of discussion in college sports right now, let's address the fact that this poll question has two interpretations.

Option A) The fifth year is ONLY eligible if a player stays at ONE institution his entire career. You only get the fifth year if you never transfer.

Option B) A fifth year of attendance is allowed at ANY school, however the player may ONLY use this bonus year if he or she graduated after attending only one school for up to four years.

The coaches I interviewed voted based on their own interpretation. After all, the question is whether a fifth year of eligibility is only allowed after attending an undergraduate school. After speaking with various sources, Option B is much more likely to gain traction should it ever be seriously considered. (Which it should. More on that in a moment.)

Many coaches I've asked who had never heard of the concept were as intrigued by the question as anyone else on our list this year. In fact, it's a topic that's been pushed behind the scenes for the past few months by none other than John Calipari. And while Calipari isn't the only one promoting the idea, he's the most high-profile coach to champion the possibility of allowing a fifth year of eligibility – but only if a player stays at a school and graduates.

The concept has also been discussed several times by the National Association of Basketball Coaches and will be further examined over the course of this year.

This was our closest vote of any Candid Coaches question this year. I agree with the 53% who voted yes. There's nothing wrong with players trying to better their situation (and having to deal with the potential consequences of multiple transfers as a student), but there's no denying that college basketball's marketability is negatively impacted by so many players transferring schools, many of them multiple times, while most of the super talents only stay one season before pursuing their NBA dreams.

This proposal encourages roster retention and allows the odd player to take advantage of an extra year. It helps keep college basketball a little older, which is a good thing, especially when it comes to helping the mid-major programs that, by and large, suffer more from the portal than their counterparts from the major conferences. Many players – the overwhelming majority, to be exact – would not take advantage of this if it were offered. But I feel like there would be just enough who would, especially at the level of mid-major teams.

If this rule were in place, the transfer cycle would produce an intriguing “free agent” class of 21 and 22 year olds each year who would gain even more value under Option B. After all, they would be the only transfer players on the market with four years of college experience. Additionally, the NCAA recently passed a law allowing college basketball programs to award scholarships to up to 15 players. Most schools won't do this for a variety of reasons, but by increasing the number from 13 to 15, you create a buffer to grow the sport by rewarding players who want to stay loyal, graduate on time, and continue their college experience to the fullest. You can do this without hurting the incoming population of high school recruits who will fill more than a thousand scholarship spots in DI basketball.

Coming out of the COVID era, this is a fresh idea that prioritizes education, advocates for student-athletes, and most importantly, improves college basketball. By allowing a fifth year for those who meet the criteria, the sport can get a little older, which means it can get a little better.