College football is once again standing at the intersection of tradition, money, and player leverage. On Tuesday, FBS head coaches voted unanimously to recommend a major adjustment to the redshirt rule, one that would allow players to participate in up to nine games while still preserving a full year of eligibility. It is quite the seismic proposal, even by post-NIL standards in the ever-evolving landscape of the new era of CFB.
The vote came during the annual American Football Coaches Association convention and followed extensive debate over eligibility loopholes that have quietly reshaped roster management across the sport. Under the current NCAA rule, players can appear in up to four regular-season games, including postseason games, and still redshirt. This effectively gives players four full seasons plus a partial fifth within a five-year window.
The newly proposed nine-game model doesn’t quite go as far as some coaches wanted. Several pushed for a full five years of participation in a five-year window, but there were concerns over potential litigation. Fallout from controversial eligibility rulings like Ole Miss quarterback Trinidad Chambliss pushed the group toward a compromise.
Now, the proposal will head to the NCAA Division I committee for final approval.
Why Coaches Want This and Why It Matters
Since the four-game redshirt rule was implemented back in 2017, it has gradually morphed from a player-development safeguard into a strategic pressure point. What was once a quiet administrative rule has become a midseason chess move, for both players and coaches.
With the rise of NIL money, revenue sharing, and the transfer portal, college football has been fundamentally altered by incentives. Players are increasingly opting out midseason to preserve eligibility, not just for development, but to maximize future earnings.
Michigan wide receiver Donoven McCulley is a textbook case. After posting 48 catches for 644 yards and six touchdowns at Indiana, McCulley opted out after four games in 2024 to preserve a redshirt year, a year he later used to play at Michigan in 2025.
From a business standpoint, the logic seems to be airtight. But from a team-building perspective, it can be total chaos.
Where South Carolina Fits into This
For programs like South Carolina Football, this rule change could be quietly transformative. Head coach Shane Beamer has continuously built his roster on depth, development, and retention. It is a philosophy that becomes exponentially more valuable under a nine-game redshirt model. Instead of shelving young players after September games, the Gamecocks could meaningfully deploy freshmen and developmental pieces deep into the season without forcing an eligibility decision that follows them for years.
For South Carolina, this opens the door to:
- More rotational freedom late in the season
- Fewer incentive-driven opt-outs
- Better alignment between development and game-day contribution
- Stronger retention leverage in the transfer portal era
In short, it rewards college football programs that develop instead of have turnover.
The Legal and Structural Reality
Of course, none of this exists without legal implications. The NCAA is currently navigating a minefield of pending and potential lawsuits, and any eligibility adjustment carries risk. Every rule change sets precedent, and every precedent impacts thousands of athletes across multiple sports.
That’s why the nine-game proposal matters. It expands flexibility without fully opening the door to unlimited participation.
The Bottom Line
The new era of college football is not slowing down. If the NCAA approves this change, and all signs suggest that it will, the rile effect will be immediate. Because in this version of college football, leverage is everything.