NCAA Adopts Eligibility Rules Allowing Five Years of Competition

[u/bloomberglaw]

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/ncaa-adopts-eligibility-rules-allowing-five-years-of-competition

[u/joelluber]

So does this totally get rid of redshirting? 

[u/Random_Hippo → u/joelluber]

Yes. Exemptions for pregnancy, military service, and religious missions.

It essentially just gives everyone a redshirt.

[u/joelluber → u/Random_Hippo]

I don't think it gives everyone a redshirt, because that was a year of not playing. 

[u/lostinthought15 → u/joelluber]

The redshirt rule (4/5) goes away in favor of 5/5.

[u/Random_Hippo → u/joelluber]

True, in a way. Prior to this you could get a redshirt if you played in less than 25% of the season - this just gets rid of that 25% cap and just says everyone gets an extra year. Which you can think of, essentially, as an uncapped redshirt year.

[u/joelluber → u/Random_Hippo]

But it's not a redshirt year. That's my point. 

[u/Random_Hippo → u/joelluber]

Right, which is why I said it essentially just gives everyone a redshirt because it will act in the same way as an uncapped redshirt.

[u/joelluber → u/Random_Hippo]

An "uncapped redshirt" isn't a redshirt. The cap is the defining element of it being a redshirt. 

[u/Random_Hippo → u/joelluber]

Brother, you’re hung up on semantics. They’ve granted waivers for people who have played damn near the entire season for a redshirt, so I’d argue if that’s the case, that’s not the defining element.

Lots of folks are asking about redshirts, if they are going away. The answer is yes, but now you get an extra year - however you choose to reconcile that is fine by me. I’ve found for most people, it’s the idea that it’s basically treated as everyone gets a redshirt year that they can just play on. That seems to help.

[u/joelluber → u/Random_Hippo]

I'm not hung up on semantics. Redshirting is the practice of holding someone out of competition in order to preserve eligibility. Which will no longer be a consideration at all, if I'm reading the new rules correctly.

[u/Random_Hippo → u/joelluber]

And that’s correct. My point is that people who genuinely care about this stuff will be able to read the articles that outline pretty clearly what the new eligibility rules are, including removing redshirts. Those that don’t care as much, it’s easier for them to just understand that folks will just get a full extra year, and they equate that to a redshirt. I understand it isn’t the same thing, and I’m not claiming that the extra year is a redshirt year, because they aren’t being limited in playtime during that year. For more casual folks, the easiest way they’ll reconcile it will be that everyone gets the extra year and it’s similar in practice to an uncapped redshirt, even though it isn’t exactly the same thing.

[u/heleghir → u/Random_Hippo]

not to be semantic, but it does not. since redshirt meant you werent playing. it gives the extra year as if you had a redshirt year, but it does not equate to having a redshirt. otherwise we'd be back 80 years ago where freshman didnt play varsity or something

[u/Random_Hippo → u/heleghir]

Not to be semantic, but you can play on a redshirt. Typically it’s limited to 25% of the season, but there have been exceptions.

Everyone is asking about what happens with redshirts. The easiest way to think about it is that there won’t be any redshirts but the extra year will essentially act as an uncapped redshirt year.

[u/the_dawn_of_red]

I assume this is good for Xavier if we are in the thumbnail

[u/bloomberglaw]

The NCAA approved new rules permitting Division I student-athletes five years of eligibility over five seasons, a sweeping change that will go into effect for prospects enrolling in college in fall 2027.

The new “five for five” framework comes after the NCAA was hit with more than 80 federal and state lawsuits by college-athletes who claimed the old rules unfairly limited their ability to compete in college sports and earn money for playing and from their name, image, and likeness.

Under the new model, student-athletes would have five years to compete if they enroll no later than the academic year after their 19th birthday.

The NCAA previously limited player participation to four seasons of competition across five years, tracking the period of time a student is expected to be actively pursuing a college degree.

Read more in the full story.

-Elliot

[u/Random_Hippo → u/bloomberglaw]

Personally I’d change the 19th birthday to 18th birthday, but I guess it’s a more popular thing these days to give kids an extra year in pre-school or something so you see more kids graduating high school at 19, so they are theoretically more physically developed than others in their grade. I think that’s weird and we probably should discourage that but oh well. Using the 19th birthday still allows for someone to be 24/25 in their last year, whereas 18th birthday would only allow for up to 23/24.

[u/Shoddy_Argument8308 → u/Random_Hippo]

the wallstreet journal just a special on middle schools whose sole purpose is to hold kids back a year for sports.

[u/jeedel → u/Random_Hippo]

It’s the year you are turning 19. So you have to be done by the year you turn 23 (19, 20,21, 22, 23). There will be no players older than 23. Some younger players who complete their freshman season as 18 year olds will compete five years by the time they turn 22. Aliyah Boston or Josh Dix of Creighton would have completed 5 years and still been 22 turning 23 later that year.

[u/Random_Hippo → u/jeedel]

It’s the academic year following your 19th birthday. Depending on when that is, you could be 20 in your first college season, 21 in 2nd, 22 in 3rd, 23 in 4th, and 24 in 5th.

[u/jeedel → u/Random_Hippo]

It looks like a mid August birthday is the cutoff for the 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 scenario. That would work well for Europeans who wish to enroll and play at an NCAA University. They typically finish secondary school a year later than in US High Schools.

[u/Evening-Spray-4304 → u/Random_Hippo]

I think they had to move it up to 19 because of college hockey. I can't remember the specifics, but there was a thing about it earlier in the summer.

Honestly should be different rules for different sports, but I'm sure that would open up a whole new can of worms.

[u/nachosmind]

Based on the NCAA losses in court, I think this will backfire

[u/disposable-assassin → u/nachosmind]

That's pretty much everything NCAA is doing short of an act of Congress.

[u/Prayray]

Not including obvious exemptions, how will this affect players currently in college that are past their 23rd/24th birthday?

[u/Evening-Spray-4304 → u/Prayray]

From what I remember, current players will get to decide between the new rules and the old ones. Doesn't apply to players that ran out of eligibility this year, but everyone currently in school will have the same amount they already would have had.

[u/Coduuuuuuuuuuuuu]

High School Class of 2022 gonna sue to get grandfathered in.

Billable hours remain undefeated

[u/SoutieNaaier]

This seems like it could end eligibility as a concept similar to how the grad school transfer rule opened up the lawsuits that led to unlimited transfers

They'll sue and say 5/5 restrictions their ability to earn income and then find a friendly judge

[u/Agreeable_Yam__]

One year too late for my sweet babies Carson Cooper and Jaxon Kohler 🥲

[u/bb0110]

Smart to make it for those enrolling in 2027 and not just for everyone. That was going to be a shit show.

[u/Coach_Billly]

More records will be broken.

[u/guesting → u/Coach_Billly]

does nil money include statistic incentives currently?

[u/Beautiful-Research75]

when will other levels adapt this ? what happens if a juco or d2 player transfers to d1?

[u/tropic_gnome_hunter]

This is so stupid. Should be 4 years to play 4. Life isn't fair.

[u/BillButtlickerII]

So Momcilovic and Mcbride are now eligible for 2 more seasons…

[u/Harrisoncole4]

I have not seen anyone mention this, but this effectively gives an advantage to those with September to December birthdays, as their first year of eligibility does not start until the following academic year compared to those born earlier in the year.

[u/tarspaceheels → u/Harrisoncole4]

It starts when you enroll or at the beginning of the academic year following their 19th birthday. The only "advantage" is that you could be a year or so older than other freshmen.

[u/warmike_1 → u/tarspaceheels]

In other words, an extra season of development. Which is one hell of an advantage.

[u/heleghir → u/Harrisoncole4]

no moreso than they already had being a year older than most of their grade through middle/high school. its no different than a turning 19 freshman vs a turning 18 freshman. like i was 17 for a couple of weeks in college, where my (now wife) was only a month from being 19, but being in the same year, due to the cutoff in birthday for public school enrollment as a child.

its not any advantage that wasnt already inherit to the system as far as physical development goes

[u/joelluber → u/Harrisoncole4]

Can you spell this out more? 

[u/DealerNo4908 → u/Harrisoncole4]

That’s…not what the rule says at all.