Perhaps offer additional playing year to everyone but for those wishing to play for a "5th year" there are no scholarships?

Done this way, it gives the eligibility for everyone impacted but athe players financial responsibility for those wanting to play a 5th year (reducing numbers as a result of cost). This still provides a full 4 year playing opportunity and most important reduces the downstream trickle down effect. That would be fair with less long term impact and these seniors never planned on being able to play or receiving money anyway.

There is no great answer as all classes current and future are tied to one another but something has to give. I believe this to be fair and equitable as you can be without penalizing anybody (the seniors weren't planning on scholarship money or even playing so it would be found money and eligibility anyway at their cost).

Thoughts?