In most cases, no. It does not reliably improve an athlete's recruiting chances and it can now cost an athlete college eligibility. Holding an athlete back a year in grade school or middle school, or reclassing in high school, is a bet on development that is difficult to project at the age of 13 or 14. With the new NCAA age-based eligibility model, that bet now carries a real price: an athlete may lose a year or more of college eligibility. We have been tracking this shift closely in our NCAA 5-in-5 breakdown and our coverage of the NCAA eligibility changes. This applies whether your athlete plays basketball, football, soccer, baseball, lacrosse, hockey, volleyball or another sport.

New Jersey lawmakers are now taking aim at the practice. State Senator Anthony Bucco introduced S4545, which would limit athletes who are held back in grades 6 through 8 solely for athletic advantage to six semesters of high school eligibility, effectively ending their senior season. Students held back for academic, medical or developmental reasons would not be affected. New Jersey has been here before. State Senator Richard Codey pushed a similar "redshirting" bill back in 2015, saying "Right now, it's not cheating, but we know it is." Pennsylvania has already acted. In 2023 the PIAA adopted a rule that uses up a year of high school eligibility for athletes who repeat eighth grade without being required to. I will leave the politics to others. My concern is the athlete's best interests. As former college coaches with real recruiting expertise and direct access to coaching networks, we know how these decisions affect recruiting, and what they can cost an athlete academically and in their development, quality of life and future.

Why Are Families Reclassing or Holding Athletes Back?

The logic sounds reasonable on a surface level. An extra year means increased growth, strength and skill development versus younger competition, leading to a higher career and recruiting arc. Some families may also be seduced by the prospect of NIL and revenue share money at the college level, which can make a long-shot bet feel worth taking.

In the current landscape, families are also pressured to make impactful decisions with a short term view in the absence of certainty regarding how their athlete will develop. The conjecture is that the athlete will be better positioned to be recruited, with more maturity and more time to develop skills and athleticism and get physically stronger than their peers. The same pressure is behind the transfer trends we covered in The Surge in Athlete Transfers: A Growing Challenge for High Schools and the retention strategies in Your Athletes Are Transferring: Here's Your Strategy for Retention and Recruiting. Fear drives early decisions. Early decisions are usually the wrong ones.

How Does the NCAA 5-in-5 Rule Change the Math?

The NCAA 5-in-5 rule has significantly changed the paradigm for reclassing and holding athletes back. Divisions I and II have both adopted an age-based eligibility model, and it is in effect: five seasons of competition in a five-year window. According to the rule, athletes who are held back or reclass must still enroll no later than the academic year after their 19th birthday to utilize the full five years. We have been following this shift closely and broke down the rule in NCAA 5-in-5 Eligibility Rule: Impact on High School Recruiting and Reclassing and the broader changes in NCAA Eligibility Rule Changes: Impact on High School Recruiting.

Here is an example of how this can play out. An athlete turns 19 in October 2027. If he or she is held back once and graduates in June 2028, enrolling that fall still works. If that athlete is held back and also does a postgraduate year, enrollment slips to fall 2029, a year after the window, resulting in the loss of one of his or her five seasons.

Stack more than one move and it gets worse. Held back in middle school, reclassed in high school and a postgrad year on top can cost an athlete two years of eligibility.

This is a new paradigm. Under their age-based rule, each extra year beyond the first that an athlete spends before enrolling in college can cost one of the five seasons of eligibility. That is why I wrote that the NCAA quietly left out the most important fix. Much of the advice families hear today was built based on the old rules, not the new ones.

Is It Too Early to Know How an Athlete Will Develop?

Almost always. As I often say relative to recruiting, "Hope is not a strategy" and it certainly applies here. At 13 or 14, growth, strength and skill are all moving targets. Some athletes do not begin their upward trajectory until junior or senior year. Some never reach the level they hoped for. Some never grow or develop physically as projected, through no fault of their own. Many athletes also get bypassed by their peers while they level off physically and in their skills. It happens in basketball, football, soccer, baseball, lacrosse, hockey, volleyball and other sports. Holding back at 13 assumes you can predict the future, which is a big bet.

Waiting gives you a much more accurate and relevant perspective, backed by real data:

• A real baseline. By senior year you have real, current performance to assess, plus measurables and coach feedback.
• A better postgrad decision (without losing a year by opting for it). If another year makes sense, you can make that call with maturity and facts.
• A commitment check. You learn whether the athlete truly wants it.

Relatively elite athletes often achieve recruiting opportunities by staying on a normal track. Others may not be recruitable at the level the family hopes for, and an extra year will not necessarily change that. Either way, holding off on pulling the trigger to facilitate an extra year costs nothing. Deciding to do so prematurely may cost a year of eligibility, and it may also cost significant dollars in private school or sports academy tuition to make it happen.

What Are the Real Odds of Being Recruited?

Small, and that is why a costly early bet is risky. According to the NCAA's 2024-25 data, about 7 percent of high school athletes go on to compete in NCAA sports across all divisions. Division I is even more elusive:

• Football: 8.1 percent compete in the NCAA and 3.4 percent at Division I.
• Men's basketball: 3.6 percent compete in the NCAA and 1.1 percent at Division I.
• Baseball: 8.8 percent compete in the NCAA and 2.7 percent at Division I.

Those percentages are for all high school athletes, not just those who reclass. They show how thin the margin is and how much one lost year or one wrong move can matter. NIL money is also a bit of a longshot. The bulk of it typically goes to athletes in revenue sports at the Division I level, primarily football and basketball. One report on 2025-26 revenue sharing payments at top FBS conferences found about 64 percent went to football and about 29 percent to men's and women's basketball combined, leaving roughly 7 percent for every other sport.

Do not be seduced by the hope of NIL or revenue share money into rolling the dice without relevant results and a plan in accordance with these. If you are weighing an offer, read our breakdowns of NIL contract red flags and what to look for before signing a college NIL or revenue share contract, and see how college sports reform is changing the risks. Our NIL and contract advising page explains how we help.

What Does the Research Say About Being the Oldest in the Class?

Researchers call it the relative age effect: kids who are older in their grade often get an early athletic edge. But that edge appears to fade around age 17 as peers catch up. Studies on holding children back before kindergarten are mixed at best, and some link it to worse academic outcomes.

My takeaway: the athletic edge is not necessarily sustainable, and being older may give a temporary academic advantage that fades as classmates catch up. Neither is strong enough to bet a child's development, college opportunities or quality of life on. It is a huge bet, and that is why you should be patient, assess how your athlete develops and rely on experts, not force a decision at 13. Our Athletes and Families page explains how we help.

What Does Reclassing Do to Academics?

This is the part that gets ignored. The athlete is often moved to a sports academy or a school chosen for its athletic focus, not its educational strengths. Prep schools and sports academies often recruit athletes aggressively and encourage them to reclass, so make sure the decision serves your athlete's recruiting and academic future, not a sales pitch that ends up in a reduced role and less exposure.

Before any move, confirm the school's core courses are NCAA-approved, because unapproved courses can block Division I and II eligibility. Verify it yourself with the NCAA Eligibility Center.

A weak academic setting can also hurt grades, test preparation and admissions options. A great athletic opportunity does not help if the transcript does not clear.

Can Reclassing Lead to Burnout and Injury?

It can. A reclass mindset means more training, more games and more pressure, earlier.

Research from the University of Wisconsin found that highly specialized high school athletes had roughly a 50 percent greater risk of injury. More is not always better, especially when an athlete's body is still growing.

The NBA and USA Basketball set out to answer how much activity is healthy. Their youth basketball guidelines, built on research from a health and wellness working group, recommend a maximum of 10 hours a week of organized basketball for ages 12 to 14 and 14 hours a week for grades 9 through 12, with at least one day of rest a week. They also advise delaying single-sport specialization until at least age 14. Reclassing and academy schedules can push well past those numbers.

Burnout is harder to measure and just as real. It can come from fatigue after years of constant practices and games, and from the pressure of being told since age 12 that everything depends on sports. Many athletes are also pushed to play a single sport year round, with no downtime or break, and they miss out on just being a kid socially. Whatever the cause, the athlete can lose the love of the game by the time recruiting actually starts. This mentality and pressure are exacerbated by the drive to reclass.

What Does It Cost Athletes Socially?

More than most families expect. A transfer or change of schools disrupts the relationships an athlete has built over years. It often means leaving the classmates and teammates an athlete grew up with. Holding an athlete back puts him or her in a different class from friends, and leaving for an academy removes them from home, family and community.

Those relationships can last a lifetime. High school is also where athletes learn to be part of a team, a class and a community, not just a roster spot. I have coached young people at several levels. The ones who hold up best have a life beyond the sport.

When Does a Postgraduate Year Actually Make Sense?

At the end of high school, not the beginning. A postgrad year can be a smart move for an athlete who needs physical development, academic repair or more exposure. By senior year you can judge that realistically based on tangible results.

It is also the point where the 5-in-5 math and your options can be rationally determined. Wait, assess, then decide. Reclass or hold back earlier and the age-based clock may already be running, leaving you without the year you could have opted for later.

The right answer depends on the sport, the athlete and the level being targeted. Our recruiting advisory services are built to help with exactly that. I also address this on the PREP Athletics Podcast: read the recap or listen to the full conversation.

FAQ

Does reclassing help an athlete get recruited?
Sometimes, but not reliably. Coaches recruit on current ability and projected growth, and an older athlete may be viewed as less of a projection. It can also cost eligibility under the new NCAA age-based model.

What is the NCAA 5-in-5 rule?
It gives Division I and Division II athletes five seasons of competition within five years. The clock is tied to age 19 and initial enrollment, so being held back, reclassing or a postgrad year can cost an athlete a year or more of eligibility.

Is it better to wait on a postgraduate year?
In most cases, yes. Waiting until the end of high school lets you judge development, academics and commitment with real information, and avoids using up eligibility early.

Does repeating a grade in middle school affect recruiting?
It can. Beyond the age question, states are starting to act. Pennsylvania's PIAA adopted a rule in 2023 so repeating eighth grade without being required to uses up high school eligibility, and New Jersey is considering S4545. Check your state association rules.

Does holding a child back a year give an athletic advantage?
Early on, possibly. Research on the relative age effect shows older kids get selected more, but the edge appears to fade around age 17. Studies on academic redshirting are mixed and some link it to worse academic outcomes.

How do I know if a prep school or academy is NCAA approved?
Ask for its NCAA school code and approved core course list, then confirm it with the NCAA Eligibility Center. Do not rely on the school's marketing.

This article is general information, not legal advice. Have any NIL or revenue share agreement reviewed by a qualified expert before signing.

Not sure whether reclassing or a postgrad year is right for your athlete? Contact RecruitU to get started with Expertise Plus Access, from former college coaches with real recruiting expertise and direct access to coaching networks.

A note before we get into it: we have held off publishing a breakdown of this bill because it has suffered numerous revisions and delays which will likely continue. Treat what follows as a snapshot of where things stand today, not a final word.

The Protect College Sports Act passed the Senate 77-22 on September 28 but it has not passed the House and is not law yet. Its path forward is uncertain: the House is not scheduled to return until after the November 3 midterm elections and Speaker Mike Johnson has indicated he does not expect the bill to be taken up before the lame-duck session, if it is taken up at all this Congress. It's worth knowing, however, how it may increase recruiting opportunities for high school recruits and their families. The elements worth paying attention to now are the ones that impact the number of recruiting slots: a new limit on repeat transfers, a longer eligibility window for current college athletes and a handful of provisions aimed at professional athletes, Olympic and women's sports and international recruits. Here is what actually shifts the playing field and what does not.

Does the "One Free Transfer" Rule Help High School Recruits?

Yes, over time. The Act permits every college athlete one transfer without losing eligibility, with additional transfers allowed only for specific reasons: a coach leaving, a sport getting cut, graduate study, or sexual assault or harassment. This trend has been driven by coaches prioritizing athletes in the transfer portal over high school athletes. Fewer repeat transfers means shrinking the pool and increasing the number of open spots for incoming high school recruits.

With only one free transfer to work with, when you use it matters as much as whether you use it. One option which we implement in our recruiting strategies with our athletes and families: save that transfer for your fifth year, when the graduate-study exception applies, and use it to enroll in a funded master's program at a new school while you play out your final season of eligibility. Done right, that is a tuition-free graduate degree rather than a transfer spent early chasing more playing time. However, that also increases the importance of committing to the best fit school for you on the front end, which is where our Athletes and Families resources come in.

Does the Five-Year Eligibility Framework Help or Hurt High School Recruits?

In the short term it works against you. The Act establishes a five-year eligibility transition beginning at age 19 or high school graduation, building on the eligibility changes we broke down in NCAA Eligibility Rule Changes: Impact on High School Recruiting, NIL, and Transfers. As a result, it grants current college athletes an additional year of eligibility, which means more upperclassmen stay on rosters longer, competing for the scholarship slots that would otherwise open up for the next class of recruits. Expect this to be a temporary headwind for near-term recruiting cycles as the transition phases in.

Do New Limits on Professional Athletes Open Roster Spots?

They should, and this one favors recruits directly. The Act sets eligibility rules that exclude certain professional-level participation across sports: one exception ties the start of basketball eligibility to a player's 19th birthday or first full-time enrollment (whichever occurs first) and a separate exception covers athletes in other sports who earn prize money from a source that is not their school, collective or an associated entity. Basketball is the sport most likely to feel this. Fewer older players with pro experience competing for a limited number of scholarships means more room for high school recruits coming in.

Does the Act Protect Women's and Olympic Sports Roster Spots?

Yes, and this is a clear win for recruits. FBS programs must maintain a minimum of 16 sports, and schools with $80 million or more in annual athletic revenue must preserve their 2024-25 roster levels in non-revenue sports such as track and field, swimming and diving, wrestling, gymnastics, rowing, fencing and water polo. While this provision does not necessarily create additional roster spots, it does preserve the opportunities that already exist. However, with football spending consuming an outsized share of athletic department budgets, protecting existing roster spots in these Olympic and women's sports from being cut is impactful, especially for future high schoolers. One caveat worth knowing: these protections are written with an expiration date while the bill's antitrust protection for schools and conferences is permanent. That imbalance is worth watching as the bill moves forward.

Does the Act Limit International Recruits?

Not yet, but it's fluid, as there are three separate pieces of legislation that are easy to confuse. Section 128 of the Act itself reads:

"It is the policy of the United States that any institution of higher education participating in intercollegiate athletics should prioritize domestic students in the selection of student athletes and the awarding of athletic opportunities, including grant-in-aid and roster positions, on the varsity sports teams of that institution."

That is a statement of policy, not a rule. It sets no percentage, no threshold, and no enforcement mechanism. Nothing in the Act as passed by the Senate actually requires a school to do anything differently.

House Republicans are reportedly pushing to add real teeth to this provision before they will move the bill forward, which tells you Section 128 is understood as symbolic even by the people who wrote it. Two other proposals show what a real limit could look like: the TEAM USA Act would cap international athletes at 20 percent of a roster, or one player on teams with fewer than 10, enforced through the school's eligibility for federal student loan programs. A Texas state bill, S.B. 1319, would cap foreign nationals at 25 percent of athletic scholarships per program at Texas public universities starting in the 2026-27 academic year, though it has no specific enforcement mechanism written into it yet.

If any version of a real cap becomes law at the federal or state level, it would open meaningful roster space for domestic recruits in sports with heavy international representation such as tennis. Today, none of that is in force. Keep an eye out for further developments regarding this issue, particularly if your sport trends to include a high level of international recruits at the college level.

What About NIL and Revenue Share?

Briefly: the Act confirms athletes can earn NIL money and use agents without losing eligibility, requires disclosure of NIL deals over $600 a year and increases the revenue-sharing cap at the center of the reforms we covered in College Sports Reform Is Creating More Risk — Not Less indefinitely, with inflation adjustments going forward. It does not create standardized contract terms between schools and athletes. It does, however, call for medical coverage and agent certification, two gaps we have flagged in actual NIL and revenue-share negotiations and contracts. I will cover areas of athlete exposure in detail in a separate article because they deserve more than a paragraph here. If you are evaluating an NIL or revenue-share offer right now, read our breakdown of NIL contract red flags and what to look for before signing, and have any agreement reviewed by a qualified expert before you sign.

Should Recruits and Families Take This Seriously Yet?

Here is my honest read, as someone who has spent my career inside college athletics as a player, a Division I assistant and a head coach at both the Division II and III levels. This bill has already been watered down from its original form through committee and floor horse-trading and it still needs to pass the House, where Republicans want changes including a real international-athlete cap and an outright ban on classifying athletes as employees. Other ambitious sports-reform bills have stalled at exactly this stage. If your own recruiting process has stalled out for reasons that have nothing to do with any of this, our breakdown of what to do when recruiting goes quiet is worth a read.

The deeper issue is one this bill does not touch. The NCAA wants Congress to hand it antitrust protection to enforce transfer and eligibility rules, and compensation caps unilaterally, while giving athletes no seat at the table to negotiate any of it. The one structural fix that would resolve compensation, eligibility and transfer disputes in a single stroke (and save a lot of time, money and angst) is collective bargaining between athletes and the institutions that profit from them. Every professional league does this. The NCAA will not, because it does everything in its power to avoid athletes being classified as employees and this bill facilitates that position. Until that changes, expect Congress to keep getting yanked back in periodically to save the day (and likely to no avail as history has shown).

For now, build your recruiting plan around the fit and opportunity in front of you, not around what this bill might eventually become. Our recruiting advisory services are built to help athletes and families do exactly that, with former college coaches who have real recruiting expertise, intimate knowledge of the landscape and direct access to coaching networks.

FAQ

Is the Protect College Sports Act law yet?
No. It passed the Senate on September 28, 2026, but has not yet passed the House or been signed into law. Treat everything in this article as analysis of the Senate-passed version, not final law.

Will the new eligibility rules reduce roster spots for incoming freshmen?
In the short term, yes, since current athletes gain an extra year of eligibility under the five-year framework. Longer term, the one-free-transfer rule, five-year eligibility settling in and professional-athlete eligibility limits should work to create more opportunities for high school recruits.

Does the Act actually limit international student-athletes?
Not yet. Its own Section 128 is a non-binding policy statement with no enforcement mechanism. Real caps exist only in separate proposals: the federal TEAM USA Act and a Texas state bill, S.B. 1319, neither of which is currently law.

Does the Act limit how much athletes can earn from NIL deals?
It actually increases the revenue-sharing cap, which can grow from roughly $21.3 million to as much as $48.8 million annually per institution through revenue sharing plus a retention fund. It also adds a separate fund of up to $5 million annually specifically for compensating athletes in non-revenue, women's and Olympic sports such as track and field, swimming and diving, wrestling, gymnastics and rowing. Schools are not required to spend up to any of these caps or funds; they are ceilings, not mandates, though accessing the larger retention fund requires meeting graduation-rate and academic-progress benchmarks. The Act also requires disclosure of NIL deals over $600 a year, but does not create standardized contract terms. This is general information, not legal advice, so have any NIL agreement reviewed by a qualified attorney before signing.

Does the Act apply to all NCAA divisions?
No, not evenly. Several of its biggest protections are written for Division I only, including the 10-year scholarship guarantee, post-eligibility medical coverage and NIL data reporting. The roster-protection rules for non-revenue, women's and Olympic sports are narrower still, applying specifically to FBS programs. The transfer and eligibility rules use broader language without an explicit Division I limit, but in practice, most of what this bill addresses is aimed at Power 4 and FBS-level athletics.

Ready to build a recruiting plan that accounts for where the rules actually stand today, not where they might end up? Contact RecruitU to get started with Expertise Plus Access.

Most esports and flag football athletes should not count on a full athletic scholarship, and you need to plan around that reality now, not after signing day. Scholarship money in both sports is real, but it is limited, and it is concentrated at schools below the Power Conference level. Our updated RecruitU analysis indicates what it means for how you should approach recruiting in either sport.

How Much College Esports and Flag Football Scholarship Money Is Actually Out There?

Both sports have grown fast. The scholarship dollars have not kept up.

• Esports scholarships typically run $1,000 to $6,000 a year, mostly at NAIA, Division II and Division III schools, with only a handful of programs offering more.
• Flag football scholarships follow the same pattern. NAIA offers the most support, Division III bars athletic scholarships by rule, and Division I scholarship norms are brand new and still forming.
• A February 2026 count found roughly 13 Division I varsity flag football programs nationally, compared to 93 in Division III alone.

If you are building a college list based on scholarship dollars in either sport, it is important to recognize the reality: that list is short, and it is not made up of the schools you have heard of on Saturday afternoons.

Flag football today looks a lot like esports did about a decade ago. Both sports' growth and adoption at today's college level have been partially driven by similar enrollment pressures, with schools leveraging their growing popularity to attract students (currently during a period of declining college-age population). Esports started with a handful of scrappy varsity programs at smaller schools around 2014 and has grown into hundreds of programs with real, if relatively modest, scholarship money behind it. Flag football is following the same early path right now, which means today's scholarship landscape is likely to expand over time, the way esports did. However, it's not there yet, and you should not plan your recruiting around where it might be in ten years. Even as flag football grows, expect full athletic scholarships to stay rare, the same way they have in esports.

Are Power Conference Schools Actually Investing in Esports and Flag Football?

Here is where you need to be realistic, despite the hype.

The University of Nebraska, a Big Ten school, is the only Power Four program that has actually committed to varsity flag football with real scholarships behind it. The Big 12 has said it is "exploring" conference-wide sponsorship, also aiming at 2028, but not one Big 12 member school has committed to fielding a team. Nebraska's single commitment represents the only one of the roughly 67 schools across the SEC, Big Ten, ACC and Big 12 combined. The SEC and ACC have not indicated a flag football initiative at all.

I have spent my career inside college athletics, as a player, a Division I assistant and a head coach at both the Division II and III levels, and I will tell you plainly: that gap is not closing soon. Power Conference athletic departments are absorbing outsized spending on football and basketball at programs running $40 million to $60 million a year once outside NIL collective money is layered on top of the athletes' own revenue-sharing pool, on top of a record $228 million in coach buyouts across the Power 4 in 2025 alone. When a department under that kind of pressure has to choose between football and a brand-new varsity program with limited associated revenue, esports and flag football will lose that fight almost every time.

Should You Pick a College Based on Athletic Scholarship Money?

No. Chasing a scholarship offer in either sport can lead you to a poor fit school.

• A partial esports or flag football offer at a school that is a poor academic or social fit is a worse outcome than a smaller offer, or no athletic offer at all, at a school where you will actually thrive.
• You may still be able to find an affordable match by piecing together academic scholarships, need-based aid and a partial athletic award rather than relying on athletics alone.
• Academic fit, campus culture and career preparation should carry as much or more weight as the roster spot, especially while both sports are still this early in their development.

Should Esports and Flag Football Athletes Expect NIL Money?

Most should not, and you need to know why before you build a plan around it.

NIL and revenue-share dollars at college level are overwhelmingly prioritized toward football and basketball, the sports that generate TV, ticket and other revenue that supports whole programs. Esports and flag football athletes are largely left out of that pool unless they bring something schools and brands can monetize on their own, which typically means a significant social media following or content presence. An athlete with real reach on Instagram, TikTok or a streaming platform can attract NIL deals independent of what their sport pays, but that is a personal-brand opportunity, not a sport-wide one. It is not something most recruits should count on. Build your recruiting plan around scholarship and fit first, and treat any NIL opportunity in either sport as a bonus, not a budget line. If an NIL offer does come your way, review it the same way we outline in our NIL and revenue-share contract advising and our guide to NIL contract red flags before signing anything.

What Happens If You Do Not Make It as a Pro?

Neither sport offers a reliable path to a professional income, and that has to shape your plan.

Esports has professional leagues but they support a small number of players. Careers there are often short. Flag football's clearest professional path runs through the 2028 Olympics and a small national team, not a stable pro league. That means your college decision should be built first around preparing for a career you actually want or an academic major that you're interested in pursuing, with athletics as part of the experience, not the whole plan. Use whatever athletic scholarship money is available, but pair it with academic scholarships, need-based aid and merit aid. Choose a major and a suitable school that set you up for life after your sport, not just during it.

What Should You Actually Do Next?

• Build your college list around academic fit and career goals first, then identify which of those schools are actually funding esports or flag football.
• Apply for academic and need-based aid to combine with any athletic scholarship opportunity. Do not assume athletics will cover the full freight.
• Watch Power Conference programs like Nebraska's as an indicator of where athletic scholarships in your sport are trending, but do not wait on a scholarship offer from a school that has not committed to the sport yet.

This is exactly the kind of realistic, research-backed guidance RecruitU provides to the Athletes and Families we work with in both of these sports through our recruiting advisory services. Former college coaches with real recruiting expertise and direct access to coaching networks can help you separate real opportunity from wishful thinking in a fast-growing but still-developing recruiting space.

FAQ

Can I get a full athletic scholarship for esports or flag football?
Full scholarships are rare in both sports today. Most available scholarship money is partial and concentrated at NAIA and Division II schools, since Division III does not offer athletic scholarships as a policy.

Should I only consider colleges that offer esports or flag football scholarships?
No. Academic fit and career preparation should come first, with scholarship availability as one factor among several, not the deciding one.

Is there a reliable path to a professional career in esports or flag football?
Not a guaranteed one. Both paths support a small number of athletes, so your college plan should prepare you for a career beyond your sport.

Can esports or flag football athletes make NIL money?
Some can, but NIL and revenue-share dollars are prioritized toward football and basketball. Outside of those sports, NIL opportunity mostly depends on the athlete's own social media following, not the sport itself. This is general information, not legal advice, so have any NIL agreement reviewed by a qualified attorney before signing.

Ready to build a realistic recruiting plan for esports or flag football? Contact RecruitU today to get started with Expertise Plus Access.

Yes. Two lawsuits that broke this week show exactly why we tell every family to get an NIL or revenue share contract analyzed by an expert before committing and signing. One involves a morals clause used to cut off payment. The other involves a penalty clause triggered by a transfer. Both are red flags we already covered, now playing out in real courtrooms with significant financial and reputational implications.

USC and the Morals Clause With No Due Process

Former USC basketball player Chad Baker-Mazara has sued the school and head coach Eric Musselman resulting from circumstances related to his exit from the program. According to the lawsuit, after Baker-Mazara left the team, USC terminated his NIL agreement, citing a morals clause. His lawsuit calls that clause “hopelessly vague, overbroad, and unenforceable,” and alleges USC’s reliance on it was a pretext to avoid paying what he was still owed.

This mirrors Red Flag 3 from our recent breakdown of NIL contract red flags: performance or conduct clauses providing the college full discretion, with no due process mechanism before payment or participation gets pulled. A clause that lets a school decide unilaterally that a violation occurred and cut off payment accordingly is a huge oversight. It is exactly the kind of language we tell families to push back against before committing.

Ole Miss and the Transfer Penalty Clause

Ole Miss has sued two former players, Princewill Umanmielen and Devin Harper. Both signed revenue-share agreements to return to the program in January, then entered the transfer portal and signed with LSU instead. The lawsuits seek a total of $950,000, plus attorneys’ fees, citing penalty provisions in the agreements tied to leaving within 90 days of signing.

This reflects Red Flag 8 implications from our post: clawback and penalty provisions that function the same way a non-compete clause punishes an employee for quitting to join a competitor. However, here it is aimed at a college athlete choosing to play somewhere else. It also echoes the Wilson case at Georgia we wrote about previously. This is not an isolated incident. It is becoming a pattern.

Why This Matters Right Now

Both of these situations involve contracts that were executed, not contracts that were simply proposed. The athletes involved agreed to terms that, in hindsight, exposed them to exactly the kind of risk we warn families about. Neither of these cases is resolved, and we are not weighing in on how the courts will ultimately rule. What we can say clearly is that the underlying contract mechanics, discretionary morals clauses and transfer penalty provisions, are common. Real scrutiny is imperative before signing, not after careers are damaged and lawsuits are filed, resulting in significant financial and reputational consequences.

Having an Agent Is Not the Same as Being Protected

Who was watching out for these players? Cases like these typically involve athletes who had some form of agent or advisor representing them at the time they signed. That should give families pause. As we wrote in our original breakdown, there is no licensing, certification, or credentialing requirement for player agents or NIL advisors in college athletics. Anyone can put that title on a business card and charge unlimited fees. Having representation is not the same as having representation that possesses the expertise and experience to understand, and push back on, the specific terms that end up costing these athletes hundreds of thousands of dollars and irreparable career damage.

George’s Take

“I get asked whether the red flags we pinpoint will actually be triggered, or if we are just being too much of a stickler. These two cases emphatically answer that question. The clauses and issues in question here are not unique terms buried in one rare clause. They are common across all of the contracts we see. They are being leveraged by colleges more frequently in both high profile and under the radar cases right now, with big money and career impact. This is exactly why we emphatically tell families not to commit until an expert, not a pretender, has reviewed the contract line by line. You must not be passive in accepting these contracts as written.” — George White, Founder and CEO, RecruitU

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a morals clause, and why does the athlete’s lawsuit against USC matter?
A morals clause allows a school to cut off NIL payments based on its own judgment of an athlete’s conduct. The USC lawsuit alleges the clause was vague and applied without due process, which is exactly the kind of term athletes and families should scrutinize before signing.

What is a transfer penalty clause, and why does the Ole Miss lawsuit matter?
A transfer penalty clause requires an athlete to pay a predetermined amount if they leave the program in violation of typically onerous and random terms set forth. The Ole Miss lawsuit shows these provisions are being enforced with real financial consequences, not just included as boilerplate language.

Does this mean every NIL case has these problems?
Most contracts contain onerous and restrictive terms. Every contract should be carefully scrutinized by an expert, not assumed to be fair.

How can a family avoid ending up in a situation like this?
Don’t assume that an “agent” knows what they’re doing relative to contract analysis and negotiation. Have the contract reviewed and negotiated by an experienced expert who understands these documents and clauses before committing to a school, not after a dispute arises. Full details are in our earlier post covering these and other red flags to watch for.

Should you receive the NIL or revenue share contract from the college before committing verbally or signing a scholarship agreement?
Yes. Insist on seeing the actual NIL or revenue share contract before you commit verbally or sign a scholarship agreement. Once you have committed, your leverage to negotiate or walk away from unfavorable terms is greatly compromised.

Are these cases resolved?
No. Both are ongoing legal matters. This post addresses the contract terms at issue, not the outcome of either case.

Get Your Contract Reviewed Before You Sign

These are not hypothetical risks. RecruitU reviews NIL and revenue share contracts for athletes and families before they commit to anything, so situations like these are avoided, not litigated.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every NIL or revenue share contract should be reviewed by a qualified individual, in addition to any guidance you receive elsewhere, before signing. Details of the lawsuits referenced are based on public reporting and court filings, and both matters remain unresolved.

A college recruiting visit should be treated like a comprehensive research project, not a vacation, which is the typical approach taken by most recruits. In addition to their reluctance to ask hard questions or request exposure to specific aspects of the campus and program, recruits allow the coaches to control the agenda and thus the narrative, experience, and impression. We emphasize to our clients that the main purpose is to gain as much exposure as possible to what it will truly be like to be a student and an athlete day to day at that college.

Dig deep — gain exposure to as many of your personal impact priority areas of interest and issues as you can. Question other athletes and students directly about the quality of their experience and their honest opinion of the college, program and coaches. The goal for the recruited athlete is to determine whether the college and program actually meet their preferences, interests and values. That means going beyond the choreographed experience coaches will tailor for you. You cannot blame them for that — they are trying to put their best foot forward in order to get recruits to commit as soon as possible.

This Is a Business Trip, Not a Vacation

Pete Strickland, former college basketball coach and head coach of the Irish National team, once asked me how many schools Pro Football Hall of Famer Gale Sayers committed to. I guessed one or two. The real number was ten. Sayers visited ten schools and committed to each one during the visit itself, ending up at Kansas simply because it was the last school he saw.

This anecdote sticks with me because it is exactly what coaches are attempting to achieve. Visits are carefully staged. You are typically only exposed to the best version of the school, staff and players. Thus, it’s human nature to get caught up in the moment and want to commit based on this positive spin. If you accept their agenda as your basis for making a decision, it will be incomplete. Scratch beneath the surface and request to see and experience the specific things on your own checklist, not just the ones the program has planned for you. Treat the visit like an analysis of a business project because that is what it is, not a brief experience of the school’s Disneyland version of itself. For example, schedule it during the week while classes are in session, not on a weekend of games and social events. Moreover, stay in a dorm with the other players, rather than a hotel.

Assess the Culture, Not Just the Talent

Closely assess the culture of the school and the sport program itself. Does it actually match your own values and goals? A visit built entirely around a weekend of social events and watching the football game shows you the most curated version of that culture, versus a weekday when classes are in session, which will reveal insights closer to the reality of the school and program.

Evaluate the People, Not Just the Pitch

The people inside and surrounding the program matter as much as the program itself: teammates, coaches, other students, faculty and administration. Spending time with current players in the actual dorm rather than a hotel, and asking them and other students directly about their experience reveals much more than any manipulated perspective created by the coaches. Away from the coaching staff, the team will open up and tell you the truth.

Look at Academic Opportunity and Freedom

Assess whether the school gives you real academic and career opportunities and the freedom to pursue your interests, particularly in your majors of interest, not just a path designed to keep you eligible. Attend classes and talk to professors.

Check the Resources and the Support System

Does reality match the professions of support that the coaches make? Assess the resources and support available related to your level of development as both a student and an athlete, and the actual quality of the facilities and staff. Gaining this insight is also where you learn how a program treats athletes who are struggling, not just the ones who are thriving. It is also critical to assess the financial stability of the college and the athletic program itself, which we cover in detail in our full checklist.

Never Commit During the Visit

Whatever you may eventually decide, never commit on the spot while at the school or in the presence of the coaches. Note your impressions, go home, and give yourself time away from any in-the-moment intoxication before making this life decision.

George’s Take

“I tell every family the same thing before the visit: this is not a vacation, it is a business trip. Assess the culture, the people, the academics and the actual resources behind the show. Don’t buy into the pitch. Sitting in on real classes with other students and staying with the current team in an actual dorm is much more likely to give you the inside scoop on the school, the program and coaches. The programs that hold up under that kind of scrutiny are the ones worth committing to. The ones that only look good on a Saturday during a big game are not.” — George White, Founder and CEO, RecruitU

Frequently Asked Questions

What are key issues that you should actually be assessing during a college recruiting visit?
The culture of the school and the sport program, the people inside and surrounding the program, your academic and career opportunities and freedom to pursue your interests, particularly in your majors of interest, the resources and support available to help you develop as a student and an athlete, the actual quality of the facilities and staff and the financial stability of the college and the athletic program itself.

Should a college recruiting visit include a weekday, not just a weekend?
Yes. A weekday visit, sitting in on real classes with other students, gives you a truer picture of academic life and campus culture than a schedule built entirely around a game or social events.

Should athletes stay in a hotel during a recruiting visit?
No. Staying with their current team in the actual dorm is much more likely to give you the inside scoop on the school, the program and coaches than a hotel arranged by the coaching staff.

Is it okay to commit to a school during the recruiting visit itself?
No. Never commit on the spot while at the school or in the presence of the coaches. Note your impressions, go home and give yourself time away from any in-the-moment intoxication before making this life decision. Commitments made in the moment are often influenced by emotion, not a clear-eyed evaluation.

Is there a full checklist for what to cover on a recruiting visit?
Yes. This post covers the core areas to assess, but RecruitU has a full recruiting visit checklist with specific questions and to-dos for each one, including how to gauge a program’s financial stability. Reach out and we will send it to you.

Planning Your Next College Recruiting Visit?

The RecruitU team includes former college coaches with real recruiting expertise and direct access to coaching networks to help athletes and families plan visits that actually inform the decision, not distort it. Reach out and we will share our full recruiting visit checklist, covering everything from coach questions to what to look for in the locker room.

The 5-in-5 rule is now official. A lawsuit was quickly filed. And the one-time transfer limitation — the issue that most directly squeezes high school athletes out of opportunities — was dropped from the proposal entirely. Here's the breakdown and current implications for major recruiting stakeholders and their families.

By George White  |  June 25, 2026  |  Recruiting Tips

The NCAA's age-based 5-in-5 eligibility model is now officially approved — and the fallout was immediate. This piece is an update and deeper look at the rule now that the dust is starting to settle, updating my original analysis of the terms of the NCAA's initial proposal — what was approved, what the NCAA quietly dropped from its earlier proposal, the lawsuit already filed and the Congressional action that could still reshape everything. To understand the full picture — not just the headline — and what it means for high school athletes, college athletes and families navigating the recruiting process right now, read on.

What Was Approved

Earlier this week, the Division I Cabinet unanimously approved the age-based eligibility model. Five seasons of competition within a five-year window. The clock starts when a student-athlete first enrolls in college full-time, or at the beginning of the academic year following their 19th birthday — whichever comes first. Redshirts, hardship waivers, and clock extensions are essentially gone, with narrow exceptions for religious missions, pregnancy, or active-duty military service. Injured athletes will no longer qualify for extensions under this model.

One note on the clock trigger: the rule as approved is anchored to full-time college enrollment, not high school graduation as stipulated in the original proposal. A traditional post-graduate year should not, in most cases, cost a student-athlete college eligibility as long as they enroll before the age threshold is crossed. Families should verify individual situations with a compliance expert, but a PG year is not automatically off the table.

What the NCAA Left Out — And Why Nobody Is Talking About It

The earlier version of this proposal — which evolved significantly as it moved through the committee and review process — included a provision that would have limited athletes to one transfer with immediate playing eligibility, with a second transfer requiring a year in residence before being able to compete. That provision was dropped entirely from what was approved.

To understand why this is significant, you need to understand where transfer rules stand today. In 2024, the NCAA eliminated all restrictions on the number of times an athlete can transfer, granting immediate eligibility regardless of how many times they move. The result has been a transfer portal that now functions like a free agency market.

The portal has fundamentally disrupted roster continuity and, critically, consumed scholarship spots that would likely go to incoming high school recruits. Limiting transfers to one immediately eligible move was the most direct mechanism available to begin restoring that balance. The NCAA had it in its initial proposal. It removed it.

This is not a small omission. Even President Trump's April executive order on college sports specifically directed the NCAA to allow athletes to transfer only once before graduating without sitting out, with a second transfer triggering a redshirt season. The NCAA moved forward on eligibility and left transfers completely untouched.

A Lawsuit Was Filed Quickly — The NCAA Is Moving Forward Anyway

Shortly after the Cabinet vote, a group of 15 college basketball players filed suit in Ohio state court claiming the new age-based model unfairly shuts them out of further competition.

The plaintiffs are members of the high school Class of 2022 — athletes who began their college careers in fall 2022, never redshirted, and now find themselves denied a fifth year that players they competed against were granted through COVID extensions. The complaint argues that the new rule "unjustifiably restrains their ability to earn money through use of their name, image, and likeness connected to their work as Division I athletes."

Importantly, the suit doesn't challenge the 5-in-5 concept. The plaintiffs challenge the selective application — pointing out that classes of 2017–2020 and 2023–2025 received additional years of competition, and that former professional players were permitted to compete in a fifth year, while the Class of 2022 is denied the same.

Attorneys filed for a temporary restraining order, which was denied, and a hearing on a preliminary injunction has been scheduled for next Wednesday. Similar lawsuits are expected in other states. The Division I Cabinet responded that it is aware of the legal action and does not intend to change course.

Here is why this matters beyond the courtroom: if a court grants preliminary injunctive relief, next season could look like a COVID hybrid year — some athletes competing under extended eligibility while the broader system has moved on. Roster spots, playing time expectations for incoming freshmen, and recruiting timelines would all be disrupted. This is not a far-fetched outcome. We have seen it before.

The transfer portal and spending arms race aren't just a college problem — they're squeezing high school athletes out of opportunity at every level. Source: RecruitU

The Protect College Sports Act: The Transfer Rule's Last Hope — And Much More

The only remaining vehicle to address the transfer portal problem is federal legislation. The Protect College Sports Act, written after months of bipartisan negotiation between Senators Ted Cruz and Maria Cantwell and also sponsored by Senators Eric Schmitt and Chris Coons, was introduced on May 27, 2026, passed the Senate Commerce Committee and is headed to a full Senate vote.

Under the bill, NCAA athletes would only be allowed to transfer one time without penalty. A second transfer would result in sitting out one full year of competition — a return to rules that were in place before the portal era began. But the transfer provision is just one piece. This is sweeping legislation that covers a range of issues that will affect athletes, families, programs and schools:

• Antitrust exemption — Grants the NCAA and College Sports Commission legal protection to enforce eligibility, transfer, and compensation rules without constant state court challenges. This is the structural foundation that makes everything else durable.
• NIL cap enforcement — Gives the NCAA and CSC power to review and reject third-party NIL deals that lack a valid business purpose, closing loopholes schools use to pay athletes well above the revenue-sharing cap.
• Super league prevention — Prohibits the Big Ten and SEC from merging into a separate super league outside the existing FBS structure.
• The "Lane Kiffin Rule" — Prevents FBS coaches from leaving for another school before the end of the competitive season.
• Athlete protections — Establishes an independent Athlete Ombudsman, scholarship protections, and due process requirements.

One critical caveat: even as a bipartisan bill, it will still need 60 votes to clear the Senate — a threshold supporters do not currently have. The bill's predecessor, the SCORE Act, stalled and was pulled from the House floor earlier this year. The version of the Protect College Sports Act that ultimately passes — if it passes — may look different from what was introduced.

Federal legislation, if enacted, would also be far more resistant to legal challenges than any NCAA rule. The antitrust exemption is what gives Congress the ability to settle many of these issues in a way the NCAA simply cannot on its own.

The Youth Redshirting Issue Nobody Is Discussing

Here is a downstream consequence that has continued to fly under the radar.

Many parents hold their children back a year in school — commonly called "redshirting" in youth sports — to give them a physical development edge by the time the college recruiting window begins. Under the new age-based model, that decision could cost a student-athlete a year of college eligibility depending on when they turn 19 relative to their enrollment date. This will affect families who made that choice previously without the foresight of what it might mean for college eligibility down the line. It is a conversation high school counselors and coaches need to be having with parents and athletes.

The Bottom Line: This Landscape Is Constantly Shifting

The rule is approved. Litigation is already in court. Congress is still in play, and the Protect College Sports Act — which addresses far more than just transfers and eligibility — could change the picture significantly depending on what passes and what gets amended. What happens in a federal courtroom or on a Senate floor this summer could redefine the rules again before the fall season even begins.

I am tracking all of this closely and in real time. If you have questions about how any of this affects your situation as an athlete, a family, or a high school program, reach out directly. Given how much is moving at once, this is a conversation worth having sooner rather than later.

Rollout Timeline — For Reference