🙏 We’re Asking For Your Support. A monthly subscription for every weekday access to D3Playbook costs just $8 - or $0.44 per day. A yearly subscription costs $59. Please consider supporting our work and our advertisers today. Thank you.

A MESSAGE FROM 1440 MEDIA

You don't have to read everything — just the right thing. 1440's daily newsletter distills the day's biggest stories from 100+ sources into one quick, 5-minute read. It's the fastest way to stay sharp, sound informed, and actually understand what's happening in the world. Join 4.5 million readers who start their day the smart way.

Join for free today!

The conversation around a potential five-year eligibility model in Division III has generated strong opinions, and for good reason. For many, the issue is about protecting what makes Division III different. Having spent more than three decades in Division III, I understand and respect that perspective. I have seen firsthand the value of an athletics model that prioritizes balance, education, personal growth, and campus engagement over the commercialization that increasingly defines other levels of college sports.

At the same time, anyone who has worked in Division III athletics during periods of significant change knows that eligibility reform is rarely simple. Our experience during the COVID eligibility era highlighted both the opportunities and challenges that can accompany these decisions. While some institutions benefited from experienced rosters and extended student engagement, others struggled with roster management, competitive balance, and creating opportunities for younger athletes. Those realities should be part of this discussion as well.

My perspective on this issue is also influenced by my current role in enrollment leadership. Today's students do not always follow a traditional four-year timeline; many move through higher education in ways that reflect changing academic opportunities and personal circumstances. That is why I am not sure this issue is as simple as preserving a four-year rule.

Those opposed to a five-year model raise valid concerns. Additional years of eligibility could create roster congestion, limit opportunities for younger athletes, and provide advantages to institutions with larger graduate programs. We saw some of those dynamics during the COVID eligibility extensions, and any proposal under consideration should address those realities.

At the same time, higher education has changed in important ways since many of our current eligibility rules were established. Students have never all followed the same path through college. While many still complete their degrees in four years, others take advantage of expanded academic opportunities or face circumstances that alter their educational timeline. As institutions have adapted to serve a wider range of student experiences, it is reasonable to ask whether our eligibility model should evolve as well.

There is another reality that deserves consideration. While some are advocating for expanded athletic eligibility, higher education is experiencing growing pressure to reduce both cost and time to degree. Increasingly, colleges and policymakers are discussing three-year degree pathways as a means of lowering student debt and accelerating entry into the workforce. Against that backdrop, encouraging or enabling a fifth year of athletic participation raises legitimate questions about cost and value. For some students, an additional year may provide meaningful academic, athletic, and personal development opportunities. For others, it may mean additional tuition expense, more debt, and a delayed start to their careers.

This tension directly intersects with the current enrollment climate. Many Division III institutions are operating in one of the most challenging enrollment environments in their history, facing demographic headwinds, increasing competition for students, and significant financial pressures. As institutional leaders evaluate this proposal, they must wrestle with a difficult question: Can Division III institutions afford to make decisions based solely on tradition and philosophy if those decisions have meaningful enrollment and financial implications? Financial sustainability is a necessary part of the conversation.

A student who is enrolled, making academic progress, and pursuing an undergraduate or graduate degree is still a student. If we believe participation in athletics contributes positively to leadership development, resilience, teamwork, accountability, and connection to campus, it is worth asking why those benefits should automatically end after four years.

That does not mean every concern should be dismissed. Competitive balance matters. The undergraduate experience matters. Opportunities for younger student-athletes matter. Institutions with robust graduate offerings may have advantages that other institutions cannot replicate. If Division III moves toward a five-year model, thoughtful safeguards should accompany any change.

What gives me pause is the argument that adopting a fifth year somehow undermines Division III's identity. Division III is not simply defined by a four-year clock; it is defined by its values. It is defined by institutions that place education first, by coaches who invest in the development of young people, and by student-athletes who compete because they love their sport and their school. Those principles do not disappear if a student competes while pursuing a master's degree or completing a fifth year of study.

In my view, the real question is not whether Division III should look more like Division I or Division II. Clearly, it should not. The real question is whether our policies reflect the realities of today while staying true to the educational mission that has always distinguished Division III.

I suspect thoughtful Division III leaders will continue to disagree on this issue. Some will see a five-year model as necessary modernization, while others will view it as a departure from a philosophy that has served the division well for decades.

Whether Division III ultimately adopts or rejects a five-year model, the decision should be driven by a thoughtful assessment of its impact on students, institutions, and competitive equity. Questions of affordability, educational value, enrollment sustainability, and institutional mission all deserve a place in the discussion.

There is also a practical consideration that deserves attention. If Division III ultimately chooses to move toward a five-year model, colleges will need time to prepare. Changes of this magnitude affect compliance, financial aid, academic advising, transfer policies, graduate enrollment, and perhaps most importantly, current student-athletes trying to understand what the change means for them.

Whatever decision is ultimately made, it needs to be implemented thoughtfully. There may be value in slowing down enough to fully consider both the intended and unintended consequences before making a permanent change.

What I hope we avoid is reducing the conversation to slogans about preserving tradition or resisting change. The issue deserves a more thoughtful discussion than that.

Division III has always been at its best when it balances the needs of students, the realities facing institutions, and the educational values that define the division. As this debate continues, that balance should remain our guiding principle.

» Return to D3Playbook

Rick Willis is Vice President for Strategic Recruitment at Wartburg College. During a career spanning more than 35 years in Division III athletics and higher education, he has served in leadership roles across enrollment management, athletics administration, and coaching. He also serves as a consultant with Daugherty Search Group. The views expressed here are his own.

☕ Thanks for starting your day with us.
Please support D3Playbook with a subscription

Copyright © 2026, D3Playbook.com All rights reserved