NCAA approves landmark age-based eligibility model
The NCAA Division I Cabinet has unanimously voted to approve the age-based eligibility model, sources tell On3.
Basketball NCAA approves landmark age-based eligibility model
- Thread starter Richie O
- Start date
Lets see if this is accepted as gospel or a court fight arises..
If an athlete enters the Military before going to college, is that military service going to keep him from playing college ball?
A lot if Mormon athletes delay entering college to go on religious missions and some interrupt their college careers by taking time off to go on a mission for their church.
I think The Church of Latter Day Saints might fight for added years for the college athletes to remain eligible past 5 for the ones that go on church missions that might just cause them to go over the 5 year set up .
If an athlete enters the Military before going to college, is that military service going to keep him from playing college ball?
A lot if Mormon athletes delay entering college to go on religious missions and some interrupt their college careers by taking time off to go on a mission for their church.
I think The Church of Latter Day Saints might fight for added years for the college athletes to remain eligible past 5 for the ones that go on church missions that might just cause them to go over the 5 year set up .
They already said pregnancy, missions, and military are going to be the lone exceptions.
Seems like a betrayal to every athlete who has a serious health issue like cancer or a serious injury that takes years to recover. Also very hard on mental health issues that frequently occur around college age, which although treatable may take several years for recovery and to get the medications to stabilize the individual. But it is a nice simplistic rule that even idiots like the NCAA can enforce without worrying about the consequences to individuals. Fortunately the courts may find otherwise.
Good start! need guardrails! But as always the Lawyers will ruin it and sue so a player can play till they are 30!
Medical RS needs to stay - maybe with some modifications like doing the medical RS right away rather than at the end. Seems absurd that a kid can get terribly injured in a game, need a year to recover and lose that year.
If a kid gets injuried in high school they can’t take a “red shirt” can they? How is it any different?
It's already being challenged. https://www.on3.com/news/filip-boro...-against-ncaa-on-age-based-eligibility-model/
It’s not “earnings lost”. There are other places after college to earn money playing sport. College is a finite experience they are defining as 5 years (call it a graduate year of education now baked in absent an injury).
And how many Medical RS years are you giving?
Presumably no restrictions so unlimited.
How can you do it right away?
Wouldn't you have to wait and see if they are actually hurt all year first?
What if they recover quicker than expected?
Having no RS actually encourages players and teams to not "milk" injuries and keep players out unnecessarily.
Did Ware really not play because he was hurt?
Was thinking of Ryan Neill - tore his ACL, MCL, PCL against Miami and missed the following season.
I know the medical RS gets abused by coaches looking to extend eligibility, but I also think it has a place. Just think there should be some kind of middle ground for injuries like the one I just mentioned. Maybe cap it at one Medical RS.
In theory, they could delay enrollment (though it seems dumb just delay school). Also see how that could be abused like grey shirting. I’m not sure I’ve got great answers on this.
Seems like it would encourage coaches to push players to play while injured. Definitely not a player friendly policy.
Athletes, particularly football and basketball players, are unlikely to have an opportunity to make money playing their sport that is now available for playing in college so taking away a person’s ability to play in college does create lost earnings. Moreover, not everyone is able to go to college straight out of high school for many reasons from physical or mental illness, family struggles, to a lack of maturity. The NCAA’s proposed rule is taking a lot away from athletes who aren’t immediately ready for college. Traditionally, college has been available for kids who take a while to get their act together, at least with sports that seems to be something that is being taken away.
A lot of these college athletes will make more money in 5 years playing football or basketball then they will in 20 years post college. Less than 1 % go pro. Female hoops players make more money in college than professional! It’s def earnings lost
It doesn’t matter. Then negotiate the injury terms of your contract going into it. College ball is tied with playing for an academic university. The eligibility timeframe is aligned with the realistic course of time it takes to complete a matriculated program with a built in one year buffer. It’s a reasonable rule with a plan to be implemented consistently to everyone across the board.
It’s simply arbitrary to cry Anti-Trust rights violation over this. Violation of what? What are would one be suing for? They will be signing a contract that explicitly states that the terms of their NIL / pay. If one is “hurt” and needs 2 years during his eligibility window to recover, how is that different from someone else simply not being good enough to make a team during their age eligibility window, then getting better and deciding to go play for a college 8 years later?
Last edited:
College ball has not been about academics for over 40 years. Nil turned it into a minor league sister and using academics is pointless. I don’t like it but it’s facts.
Think about a kid coming from a poverty stricken situation. Whether domestic or abroad. They could play college ball and make millions. Generational wealth for their families . So if they get hurt and miss out on a year the money matters.
Will agree to disagree
It’s not about academics. The rules are set forth for an athletic entity set up to regulate college sports which all participating colleges agreed to. D1 schools are 4 year schools. They are building in a one year buffer. The rules are built around the structure of the entities sourcing the teams. They make perfect sense. Exceptions because of injury or long term illness or anything else don’t make any more or less sense than restricting the number of years a player can participate in collegiate sport period. If the NCAA can’t set this standards and stick to it, there’s no reason they should be able to restrict eligibility at all. We could have the same players attending a university and playing there for 25 years. It’s be the same premise. The rule restricts what your saying (I think) is their right to earn income in this monopolistic way not available elsewhere in the US.
Actually the time frame as enacted by the NCAA for who gets paid is no longer consistent with college academics. Someone who is not able to compete prior to age 25 because of injury, sickness, life situation, or imprisonment could still go to college. They could even compete at the Division III level. What the NCAA is unilaterally ruling on is just who gets paid with no input from the players.
For years Universities and television networks have made billions on college sports while players couldn’t get paid or make money off their names, image and likeness until SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional. Not sure what the lawyers will do here, but there is a lot of money at stake and the arbitrary and capricious manner that the NCAA has acted in the past along with how it acted only in its own self interest and is now acting in a way that will give or take away the opportunity for athletes to earn millions seems ripe for litigation.
I’m not sure how you defend not allowing a Division I level athlete who comes down with cancer or another serious illness when they were about to start college from being given the opportunity to compete and get paid. Having a child who became seriously ill his freshman year and had to drop out of college until he recovered makes this more than a hypothetical to me. It happens and recoveries can take years. Getting sick or injured is bed enough, but the NCAA punishing kids for getting sick or injured is both malevolent and draconian.
College ball hasn't been about academics since The Gipper played professionally under an assumed name for cash while not going to class at Notre Dame.
Ok.
So what should the rule be then?
As you say, it could take years.
Players could have multiple differing injuries.
Do you propose unlimited redshirt years?
If a player doesn’t play, I don’t see the harm in redshirts. We could just let the players play four seasons or 5 if that is what they want to give players. It might make sense to have years an individual plays professionally count against their college eligibility.
I do see harm in the five seasons in five years from high school or age 19 with the very limited exceptions. The NCAA’s solution will likely just create more issues and be changed again in a couple of years creating even more chaos, uncertainty and unfairness.
It’s not “unfair”. It’s the fairest solution you could possibly come up with. Everyone has the same probability of getting unlucky and getting sick or hurt. Suppose you train for the Olympics for 4 years and suddenly the day to compete arrives and you are bogged down with the flu. There’s nothing you can do. It’s just bad luck.
College sports may not be about academics, but a scholastic entity is sourcing the program and athletes are required to attend school while playing. It’s every bit logical that the rules are built around the traditional timeframe when college is attended for academic purposes.
Your Olympic example is a good one. There is actually something you can do if you’re not healthy enough to compete at a certain Olympics, you can train hard and try to compete again in four years. Yet for some reason you think it’s fair to take away someone’s college dream of competing if they are sick or injured during their years immediately after high school when they could train hard and get in shape to compete after they recover.
As for tying college sports to the traditional timeframe for college, it is very common for kids who have a serious illness to take time off before completing college so that is hardly a reason to deny athletes from attending and competing after they recover from an injury. I really don’t see this new rule lasting very long.
So then - shouldn’t high school be the same thing? Why is college different? We have guys left and right milking the system and claiming injuries to preserve eligibility. If there was no age limit in a vaccum, you’d have tons more kids who aren’t “real” NBA candidates where age impacts draft stock - spending years at prep schools before going out for college teams.
If the structure is not tied to standard matriculation, what’s to say only colleges should be fielding teams? It becomes completely arbitrary. May as well have companies launching their own teams then too.
Also - your argument kind of creates a circular reference of sorts in this sense. If the traditional college matriculation structure is dismissed as irrelevant, that what is this monopolistic “dream” you speak of that those kids are missing out on? The can earn money playing for any number of professional teams abroad, play in the G-league, etc. there’s nothing unique about playing for a “college” outside of being sourced by an academic entity.
And also - while you can technically go out for the Olympics every 4 years, in many sports, the odds of qualifying decrease significantly as you get older and go up against younger competitors. If that “fair”?
Last edited:
So it's your proposal unlimited redshirt years?
Players could potentially be in rosters for 10 years if they keep getting injuries or illness?
Why does it matter how old they are if they haven’t played? Moreover, for athletes getting older doesn’t help you pretty quickly.
I can understand that.
You seem to be proposing two to three different things:
No age restriction (soon to be hardcapped at 19-24)
No limit on redshirt years (soon to be hardcapped at 0)
No limit on actual eligibility years to play (soon to be hardcapped at 5)
Basically anyone can play college atheltics for as long as they want as long as they keep racking up undergraduate and then graduate degrees.
Quite the proposal.
Also, you should look at some non-CFB/MBB sports.
They are filled with much older players who have spent years training in near-professional environments before getting to "college".
Older Runners Have Reshaped College Track and Cross Country. A New Age-Based Rule Could Change That
College athletes now have five years of NCAA eligibility that starts either when they enroll in college or after they turn 19.
www.runnersworld.com
I’m not sure you are even trying to make logical arguments to support your position.
With regards to your first point why is college different from high school, the obvious answer is high school players don’t get paid, but if a court ruled they could get NIL, I wouldn’t be upset by it. If the point is that kids don’t graduate from high school when most kids do because of illness, state governments don’t want to be on the hook for educating kids forever, but they do provide extensive support to kids with illnesses and high school can continue until age 21 or 22 depending on the state.
Your second argument applies a standard matriculation position that is different from current practices. It is standard for kids with serious illnesses to drop out of college and come back when they have recovered. It’s the NCAA’s new rule that is inconsistent with college practices. Hopefully, you are not advocating that kids with illnesses should not be able to come back and complete their degrees when they recover.
As for making money in athletics elsewhere, the other opportunities for making money do not come close to what is being offered to Division I athletes in football and basketball and the statistics clearly show that upon completing their eligibility most athletes will need to find careers outside of playing professionally. Denying athletes who couldn’t compete within the NCAA’s arbitrary timeframe for most athletes will take away their opportunity to earn money playing in their sport.
Your last argument is truly perplexing. You argue that for Olympic athletes their odds of qualifying decline with age so if you miss out on the Olympics, you likely will never qualify, yet you are concerned about allowing older athletes competing in college. Why?
On a separate note, I look forward to seeing how the NCAA will deal with claims that an individual took time off for a religious mission which is a permitted exception. Are they only going to permit certain religions or will any claim be valid. Will someone who claims to be spreading Satanism or Witchcraft be rejected. What proof will they require?
When your training for the Olympics your not earning millions for those 4 years.
Your Olympic example would be an athlete playing all season and then injure or sick for the NCAA tournament . The kid trained and competed in all the events up to the Olympics but misses the big dance.
Once again this is earnings lost for college athletes. Olympic athletes are not missing out on income in your example. A Olympic athlete can not earn when they are training or competing. So, they are missing out on there dream of the Olympic Games but no earnings lost.
Academic institutions and time frames to graduate is not why. Kids graduate in 3 years but can still play. Kids graduate in 5 or go to grad school.
Money is only relevant here because of a US Anti-Trust law designed to protect something completely unrelated to what this is. College sport have been around long before NIL and pay for play and the “livelihood” relevant to the law isn’t monopistically tied to that. Claiming that is a big joke. Universities are acedemic entities first and the academic stepping stone from high school graduation. Their goal is to promote the decision to enroll immediately post high school - not to encourage delayed enrollment. If there were no age restrictions,it wouldn’t make sense for anyone except the Dylan Harper types to go straight to college. Everyone would be better as a “frosh” if they went to prep schoolfirst for a few years and “then starting their clock”. That’s not the spirit of what college sport was ever intended to be. While a lot of rules have changed, I don’t think this one could without killing the whole spirit of what the NCAA is.
Question - does the new eligility rules mean that kids like Tariq who did not redshirt or sit out a year, now have an additional 5th year of college eligibility?