When it comes to the NCAA these days, Bob Dylan said it best: the rules, they are a-changing.

The proliferation of NIL deals and revenue sharing, heavily shaped by the historic House v. NCAA settlement, has injected an unprecedented flow of cash into college sports. Next year’s men’s basketball landscape is expected to feature 20-25 teams with $20 million rosters. Seemingly every legacy rule about “amateur” athletics, earnings, and eligibility has been overturned in court, and the lack of subsequent Congressional action has created a wild west of an intercollegiate athletics landscape. The result in big-money sports is that the COVID-impacted seventh-year seniors era has seamlessly transitioned into the five-schools-in-five-years transfer portal era.

The consolidation of conferences into the “Power Four” has widened the gap between the haves and have-nots in some ways, but the ability to buy yourself a competitive team has evened the playing field in others. Generally speaking, the little corner of the college sports landscape occupied by track and field hasn’t actually changed nearly as much as it has for sports like basketball, in large part because we weren’t exactly a money-maker in the first place. Conference competition means very little in this highly-individualized sport and the few NIL deals that have cropped up are much closer to the spirit of “name, image, likeness” endorsements rather than simply paying a donor-supported salary to athletes.

But the next switch-up on the horizon could have much more direct impacts on our sport, and the new rules are likely to go into effect as soon as this fall. Last week, the NCAA Board of Directors directed its rulemaking body to advance a proposal that would fundamentally change how eligibility works for college athletes. The general sentiment is that this edict will not be nearly as vulnerable to endless litigation.

The new rules channel another classic musician, Dave Brubeck: when it comes to eligibility and time signatures, take five. The simple version is that Division I athletes will now be limited to five years of eligibility, regardless of medical status, and—with few exceptions—they’ll have five years to use it. For U.S.-originating athletes, the clock starts with high school graduation; international students would have five years from the time they turn 19.

Two phenomena that have dominated NCAA track and field—and cross country even moreso— would suddenly change dramatically.

There would be no more mucking around with redshirts, questionable injury waivers, and other career-extending strategies: you simply have to do your best to stay healthy for your five year window of eligibility and maximize your potential within that time.

It would also spell the end of 28-year-old freshmen arriving in the U.S. via international recruiting. (That being said, age manipulation is not exactly unprecedented in this sport, so we very well may also see an influx of “19-year-old” Millennials.)

Military service and religious missions would still be exempt from the new rules, so BYU’s cross country roster could very well still have a few 26-year-old fathers of two on it here and there. But the net result of all these changes is that cross country competition should, in theory, be levelized a bit more. Managing rosters and career development would be a much simpler task, as coaches will not have to make eligibility-related decisions based on what’s best for the team and, hopefully, will instead choose to race or not race athletes based on what’s best for them.

Generally speaking, this could be the largest and most impactful change of the last decade for our sports specifically. And generally speaking, it’ll probably move things in a positive direction. The age factor aside, it should create a system where expectations are clear and the best coaches will be operating on a series of five-year plans to get the best out of the athletes. Getting really injured for long periods of time will still be a bummer (when has that not been a bummer?) but a more defined timeline creates an incentive structure for runners to prioritize staying healthy in the time allotted over pushing the limits knowing they have the fallback of a medical redshirt.

No single rule change will “fix” NCAA track and field, and some would probably argue that track and field is a lot less broken than other college sports. But every action will have an equal and opposite reaction, and with the prospect of a brave new world of eligibility looking more likely by the day, coaches, teams, and athletes better be ready and plan accordingly.

For more of the top stories and analysis from the biggest stories in track and field from the past week, subscribe to The Lap Count newsletter for free. New edition every Wednesday morning at 6:00 a.m. ET.