Major college football coaches recently voted to recommend a big change in the redshirt rule for their players. They want players to be able to play in up to nine games before losing their chance to redshirt for one season, up from the current limit of four games.

But why?

Advertisement

The unanimous recommendation came at the annual convention of American Football Coaches Association in Charlotte on Jan. 13. AFCA executive director Craig Bohl explained it in a statement to USA TODAY Sports below.

It’s not a rule change yet and will first need to be considered by NCAA committees. But as NCAA eligibility rules are being challenged in court, the recommendation potentially could lead to compromise after a federal judge in Nashville on Thursday, Jan. 15, rejected a request by five football players to give them a fifth season of eligibility. Those players are part of a class-action lawsuit that sought to give players five seasons of playing eligibility in five years.

Currently, football players are limited to playing four seasons in a five-year window but can play up to four games in one season and not lose a season of eligibility, making it a so-called redshirt year.

Why college football coaches want a nine-game redshirt threshold

Bohl, the former head coach of Wyoming, cited the changing sea of college sports with an expanded postseason and roster caps under the terms of the House vs. NCAA legal settlement. For example, Miami will play its fourth postseason playoff game Jan. 19 when it plays for the national championship against Indiana. Players also are allowed to play in postseason games and not have them count against the redshirt threshold of four games after a 12-game regular season, according to a rule change made last year.

Advertisement

“College athletics is at an inflection point,” Bohl stated. “The House settlement introduces roster caps and a multi-year period of grandfathering that will materially shrink active rosters and compress depth charts. At the same time, the competitive calendar has expanded through College Football Playoff structures.

“The current redshirt rule — four games plus championship participation which could be as many as five additional games — was built for a different era: one with larger rosters, fewer total games, and less cumulative physical and mental load. Codifying today’s realities into a modernized redshirt standard with nine games is both a student-athlete well-being issue and a competitive sustainability issue. This also aligns with the nine-game conference schedule.”

Bohl said it’s “not about creating loopholes.”

“It is about aligning policy with today’s environment in a way that prioritizes health, development, and opportunity — while preserving the fundamental purpose of the redshirt year,” Bohl stated.

Advertisement

What a new redshirt rule change could mean

A redshirt year doesn’t count toward the four-season limit of playing time within five years. For example, Colorado freshman Julian Lewis will be a redshirt freshman in 2026 with four seasons of college eligibility remaining after playing in only four games in 2025 and taking a redshirt season. If he had played in five games in 2025, he would have lost his redshirt year and would have been considered a sophomore in 2026 with only three seasons of eligibility left.

If the rule is changed to a nine-game redshirt threshold, football players 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

A federal judge in Nashville on Jan. 15 denied a request for a preliminary injunction that would have granted five football players a fifth year of eligibility in 2026 after they already played the NCAA maximum of four seasons.

Advertisement

The ruling by Judge William Campbell grants the NCAA a win in court as their rules have come under attack in various antitrust lawsuits. In this case, the NCAA was sued by athletes in multiple sports who are challenging NCAA rules that limit them to playing four seasons within five years. The athletes said this restriction amounts to an unreasonable restraint on trade after athletes finally were allowed to earn money from schools for the first time last year for their name, image and likeness.

The NCAA fought back and said it wasn’t an unreasonable rule.

The judge found “the plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their antitrust claim.” If the judge had ruled in favor of the players, the preliminary injunction would have given a fifth season of eligibility only to five football players, for now, as the larger case moved forward in court. After the judge ruled against the players, their underlying lawsuit still can continue moving forward. But the judge’s ruling doesn’t bode well for the larger case unless the plaintiffs can lay out a stronger basis for a rule change.

“Small changes in the eligibility rules have consequences that likely cannot be fully appreciated without further development of the record,” the judge ruled. “The Court is mindful of its limitations in assessing the consequences of invalidating long-standing eligibility rules.”

Advertisement

This case was separate from the Diego Pavia case

The same judge previously granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia, who had challenged other NCAA eligibility rules pertaining to junior college transfers. The injunction gave Pavia, a former player at New Mexico Military Institute, another season of eligibility this year while his underlying case remains pending.

The NCAA said the Pavia case is different than this one because Pavia did not challenge the restriction of four seasons in 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