You’re right, I was 18. For some reason I thought I was 19 when I graduated high school lol, but born 1996 and graduated 2014 haha. not sure why I thought I was 19
can they JuCo for a year and then still get 5, or does JuCo count?
Five in Five - What Might That Look Like?
- Thread starter Wrestleknownothing
- Start date
can they JuCo for a year and then still get 5, or does JuCo count?
Really? I was 17 when I graduated High School. Unbelievable people think being 19 is somehow "normal". It isn't, it's complete ********.
I graduated at 17 as well I have an October birthday.
This varies state by state but your situation is very rare. In Iowa you would have had to skip a grade as you must be 5 by September 15th to enter kindergarten.
We didn't have kindergarten in the school in Iowa that I went to. I graduated in May at 17 and didn't turn 18 until November, after I had started college.
Under 5 for 5, is an elite wrestler who graduates HS at 17 (like Jayden James), somehow more valuable to a NCAA program than one who graduates at 18? Why?
Was it any different under the prior rules?
Why?
What about graduating HS at 19 under the prior rules?
I am trying to understand the importance of this particular hair-splitting.
Are we just talking about the ability to take a post HS greyshirt under 5 for 5?
Was it any different under the prior rules?
Why?
What about graduating HS at 19 under the prior rules?
I am trying to understand the importance of this particular hair-splitting.
Are we just talking about the ability to take a post HS greyshirt under 5 for 5?
Last edited:
I suppose from a roster flexibility standpoint there’s some additional value in that you could delay enrollment by a year or 2 but that’s all I can see. Everything still has to fit together roster wise to get 5 years of competition so I think the additional value is minimal.
I'm
May be more blue chippers with recruits cause they should be wrestling day one wherever and obviously no shirts to sit and wait on.
Perhaps. But schools that optimized under the old rule are likely to optimize under the new rule. It isn't the rule that makes the team.
Estimated Percentage Breakdown of High School Graduates
How This Reflects Overall
- 18 Years Old (~65% – 70%): The vast majority of graduates. These students started kindergarten on time based on local age cut-offs and completed exactly 13 years of schooling (K-12). [1, 2]
- 17 Years Old (~20% – 25%): A significant portion of the graduating class. These are typically students born in the summer or early fall who were among the youngest in their grade, as well as students who skipped a grade or completed accelerated online tracks. [1]
- 19 Years Old (~5% – 8%): Students who graduate slightly older. This group primarily consists of students who were "redshirted" (held back from starting kindergarten by a year), students who repeated a grade, or those who took a medical leave of absence.
- 20+ Years Old (Less than 2%): A very small percentage. This includes adult learners finishing high school diplomas later in life or students with severe cognitive disabilities who are legally entitled to receive public education services through age 21 or 22 depending on the state. [1]
How This Reflects Overall
I'm pretty sure that's off slightly. I'll try to find the link to it. The age based is just part of the equation. Unless it changed between the time I saw the final proposal and the time they actually voted on it, there was a high school graduation requirement as well. It was an either/or trigger. The clock would start the academic calendar after your high school graduation OR the academic calendar after you turn 19 with the clock automatically starting if you are competing.
Some examples that I had explained to me:
-If an 18-year-old graduates in December, he could attend college but not practice/compete with the team and the clock would not start until the fall.
-If an 18-year-old graduates in December and competes (something like Forest did this year), the clock starts.
-If an 18-year-old graduates in the spring his clock would start in the fall, independent of whether he is enrolled full time or competing.
-If an 18-year-old turns 19 before their senior year, the clock will start even though they are still enrolled in high school.
Unless something has drastically changed, I think we are going to see guys greyshirt this year just to take advantage of the either/or rule set for this specific class but after that, probably not so much. I think you may see some non-19-year-old December grads show up on campus and work with RTC's in the spring but that would be about it.
Not sure what took so long but we finally have a federal class action suit challenging the decision to not allow athletes who used their last year of eligibilty this past season without ever taking a redshirt to gain a fifth year.
Group of 11 athletes challenge new NCAA eligibility rules in suit
Eleven Division I athletes -- all who depleted their eligibility in the 2025-26 season, have filed a federal class action lawsuit alleging that the NCAA's new eligibility rules adversely affected their ability to extend their college careers.Not sure what took so long but we finally have a federal class action suit challenging the decision to not allow athletes who used their last year of eligibilty this past season without ever taking a redshirt to gain a fifth year.
Group of 11 athletes challenge new NCAA eligibility rules in suit
Eleven Division I athletes -- all who depleted their eligibility in the 2025-26 season, have filed a federal class action lawsuit alleging that the NCAA's new eligibility rules adversely affected their ability to extend their college careers.
I don't get the NCAA standing on this one. I would bet it gets overturned. and it should.
How so? Under the old rule these guys have exhausted their eligibility and under the new rule they have exhausted their eligibility. I am not sure I see where they are harmed.
Because under the new rules, they would have eligibility.
And since the courts have been overly supportive in the rights of the students being able to make money. Same way I don't think this age based model will hold up in court.
NCAA is going to need legislation to get this under control.
But they were done before the rule was implemented, so they wouldn't. There was no rug pull. They got the four years they were promised and expected when they went to college. Not saying that is what will happen, just that I see the NCAA's point on this one.
That said, the NCAA has won more than they have lost in federal courts on eligibility issues. It has been state courts where they tend to lose.
True. But they lost the big one - rules that hinder athletes ability to make money. And i'd say this falls under this purview.
Going to be interesting, and the courts will move fast on this one, considering school starts soon. Going to be fun to follow.
Yeah, I chuckled when listing the harms the lawyers had educational opportunities first and NIL third. Come on, you can say it - we all know its about the money. To quote a convertible bond salesman I once knew, "It's not about the money. It's about the f'n money."
Pretty successful broker that i know said this to me.
"First rule of business? Get the money."
I had a successful businessman once tell me:
First rule of business - Don't lose money
Second rule of business - If tempted refer to rule 1
I think the rule will hold up long term, especially since they put an either/or rule in place for incoming freshmen. I do think there is a possibility that there could be a very specific, narrowly scoped injunction in place for the 2026-27 academic calendar year though. If it were to happen, my guess is that it would only apply to NCAA athletes that exhausted their eligibility at the end of the 2025-26 academic calendar but had never taken any kind of redshirt (medical or otherwise). That will only impact a small, small subset of personnel...probably less than 300 across all NCAA sports and divisions.
Correct. and that's who's suing.
We don't have a challenge to the age-based eligibility yet. But, like Thanos, it's inevitable.
It is inevitable. Somewhere there is a kid in middle school or early high school who started school late and/or got held back at some point to make him more physically mature. He will start his senior year of high school as a 19 year old and the clock will have started on his NCAA eligibility. He will likely sue when he discovers that he only has 4 years of eligibility at the college level. That one will happen, but it will be a while.
I think the one that is going to happen first is the class of 2027 kid that loses his first two years due to an injury and is upset that the NCAA no longer offers medical hardships.
If I was a talented kid in school with age issues, I/parents should be exploring what they need to do with school credit loads to grad sooner at this point.
I think the parents that are sharp enough to read/interpret the rules or those that have the foresight to look ahead probably will. It's the others that won't and they will be the ones that will make the big stink.
Do you think it will be on a individual basis. Or do you think the NCAA would just hike the age requirement up for all?
Iowa passed legislation in 1953 that all districts must offer a full K-12 program. Kindergarten is not compulsory but students have to enroll in school by age 6 and if they do not attend kindergarten they must test into the first grade level.
I fully believe that the NCAA fully intends to get completely out of the waiver game. Waivers were a way that they could manage exceptions...but it's hard to create uniform standards when the entire process exists to manage things that are by definition unique. Even with guidance, no two cases are ever the exact same so it makes it incredibly challenging to give the appearance of consistency. If we are being honest with ourselves, the way that the NCAA handled waivers is a big part of what led to the new transfer rules and has contributed to multiple lawsuits that they've had to fight over the last 7-10 years.
So I don't believe that the NCAA will adjust things on an individual basis and I don't see the NCAA willingly adjusting the requirements up at all. Nor do I think they should. The average age of first time college entrants is like 18.4 years of age. This rule already allows for student athletes slightly older than the average. Even with the new rule in place, there will be 24 year olds playing college football, wrestling, and running track. The last thing they want to do is create an opening that allows parents to hold their kids back another year and have 20 year old freshmen consistently.
The only way that there are waivers to any of this after the 2026-27 academic calendar is if they are forced by a court. Without judges being able to leverage the way that the NCAA has handled waivers and stuff in the past, it will be hard to push those waivers through. It's one thing to call out an organization for inconsistently adhering to its bylaws...or the appearance of inconsistency...it's something else entirely if the court is telling them that their bylaws don't matter. That's got far sweeping implications that extend well outside of college athletics, and I don't know many judges that want to open up that pandora's box.
This is the best I have found yet to explain it. Waivers of all kinds are done . ADA lawsuits for injuries that last a year will definitely happen
NCAA Division I Age-Based Eligibility Rules: Eligibility 101 - NCAA.org - The Official Website of the NCAA https://share.google/0fuxTmTuuWsaYMx5f
Already some rumblings of how an injury that keeps an athlete out a year could be considered an ADA violation. Do I agree with that no but lawyers will use it .
Transitory or temporary disabilities are not covered by the ADA. The likelihood that an injury that heals sufficiently to play D1 sports is not considered transitory or tempprary is vanishingly small.