"Beleaguered" is a word that can be used to describe the NCAA over the past several years. Through a flurry of lawsuits and, in many ways its own failure to adapt to changing times, the NCAA has had to throw out and completely revise its model whether it wanted to or not. Many of those lawsuits have involved eligibility questions, usually from players seeking an extra year for whatever reason. Those situations have now, hopefully, been addressed with the passage of a new five-for-five model. Which I'm sure will still be challenged, but at least makes things more clear.
Under the old system, student-athletes had five years to play their four seasons of competition. If they played a certain number of games or past a certain point in the season, that year counted as one of their four. If you wanted to get an additional year, you had to apply for a waiver, which may or may not be accepted. Needless to say, there was much confusion regarding those waivers, particularly regarding how Player A got one and Player B didn't despite their circumstances being similar. And, more often than not, those declined waivers would wind up in the courts.
It also led to far too many situations of student-athletes (especially in certain sports) trying to take advantage of or game the system. You'd have players deciding to sit out the rest of the season after a handful of games with a minor injury just so they could preserve their redshirt year (that they'd use somewhere else). Or those who argued that their injury prevented them from playing for multiple seasons, so they deserved a sixth (or seventh...or eighth) year.
Frankly, the number of waivers that players were getting had become a joke. These are 26-year-olds who graduated high school seven years ago still playing college football. Meanwhile, people they graduated from high school with had already played in AND retired from the NFL in that span. Whether their reasons for getting redshirt and after redshirt were legitimate or not, it was making a complete mockery of the system. (While saying nothing and everything at the same time about why these Van Wilder wannabes still want to play in college instead of actually getting jobs and moving on with their lives.)
With this new legislation, the NCAA is hoping to stop (or at least limit) that insanity. Redshirts and waivers are a thing of the past. Everybody still has a five-year clock, but now you're eligible to compete in all five of those years. If you miss a season due to injury, it doesn't extend your clock. And you don't need to worry about how many games you can play in while still preserving your redshirt year.
There's one big catch, though. Your five-year clock starts either when you first enroll in college full-time or the academic year after you turn 19, whichever comes first. The only exceptions to this age-based model are for pregnancy, active-duty military service or religious missions (many student-athletes at BYU and Utah either start their eligibility late or have it interrupted in the middle for this reason). That's it, though. If you turn 24 and you've only played three seasons, you're not getting an extra year. This closes the ridiculous loophole being exploited by people in their mid-20s, who were taking roster spots from people who were 10 when they started college.
Also of note is how this new age-based eligibility rule isn't being applied retroactively. If you exhausted your eligibility during the 2025-26 season, you don't get another year. Almost immediately after the new eligibility rules were announced, Class of 2026 graduates sued for the ability to compete in 2026-27. I'm curious to see where this one goes. Because they do have a point. (Personally, I'd be fine with them being granted the extra year, as long as they're still enrolled in school. But that would only extend to the Class of 2026.)
The Class of 2026 really is getting the short end of the stick here. For multiple reasons. Not only are they not eligible for the fifth year of competition, they also didn't get the COVID waiver on the front end. Meanwhile, for most of their college careers, they were competing against student-athletes who did receive the COVID exemptions in 2020 (Spring) and/or 2020-21 (all sports) and were in their fifth (or sixth) season of college sports. So, they only got the traditional four years while the classes that graduated immediately before and after them got five. (Another reason why I'm in favor of those who just graduated this Spring being given the option to play an extra year this season.)
And, while the legislation has passed, it won't go completely into effect until the 2027-28 school year. Those currently on rosters and incoming freshmen can either apply the new model or continue under the old one, whichever is in the best interest of the athlete (although, I'm not sure how many athletes will choose the old model if they're now guaranteed a fifth year). Starting in the Fall of 2027, only the age-based model will be applied. (Which will obviously have a big impact both on roster sizes and recruiting cycles for the next two years.)
This is a fundamental change, but it's also a necessary one. And it's also being met with almost universal praise. Perhaps the most important element of it is that the language is very clear. It makes the rules easier to understand and administer. In addition to eliminating the need for waivers, it also limits grounds for challenging eligibility rules (since injuries no longer qualify you for exemptions). Pretty much everyone agrees that it's all within reason.
Most of the challenges regarding eligibility have come in the past few years, which isn't a coincidence. They've come since players were given the opportunity to transfer without having to sit out a season at their new school (which led to the chaos that is "the Portal") and the opportunity to cash in on NIL deals. Not to sound completely cynical, but NIL and transferring (sometimes both) seem to be the motivating factors for a majority of those lawsuits in recent years. And it caused an untenable situation where rosters were constantly in flux.
Hopefully, moving to the age-based eligibility model moving forward will create more roster stability, especially in football and men's basketball. Coaches will have a better idea of their numbers for the upcoming season. They won't need to manage playing time and have to figure out who is or isn't available based on redshirt considerations. Likewise, with everybody getting five years and only five years, it may curtail the overabundance of transfers (although, transfers will certainly still happen, which everyone understands) and prevent those 26-year-olds who are looking just to extend their potential NIL earnings.
Will there still be challenges? Almost certainly. But the whole point of going to the age-based model was to give everyone--NCAA institutions, coaches, and student-athletes--what they wanted. That's why this change has almost universal support. Beyond that, the 5-for-5 model makes sense. It also, as the NCAA pointed out in its release, aligns college athletic careers with the normal amount of time someone spends in college. What a concept!
A lot of the NCAA's recent rules changes have been reactive, and only after being forced upon them. This one is different. It's proactive. And it's designed to make things easier for everyone. You can only play college sports between the ages of 18-23 or 19-24. No waivers. No exceptions. It was the right move. Which is why it's the rare NCAA rule change that has very little disagreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment