Toggle sidebar

NCAA adopts age-based five year eligibility

Tidewater

Tidewater

FB|NS|NSNP Moderator
Staff member
Mar 15, 2003
26,243
22,539
537
Hooterville, Vir.
The NCAA is going about adopting some kind of rules so we do not have eighth-year seniors.

NCAA Division I adopts age-based, 5-year eligibility model that eliminates redshirts, waivers​

I get it, I think. Finish high school, you get five years, between certain ages to play college football.
Yahoo Sports focuses on the transitional period from the current system (bordering on chaos) and the new system. Yahoo Sports did not bother to to specify what the ages will be (17-22? 18-23? 17-23?), because ... journalism. That little detail is not exactly irrelevant to the story.

Anyway, is this new policy a step in the right direction?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Con
Tidewater said:
The NCAA is going about adopting some kind of rules so we do not have eighth-year seniors.

NCAA Division I adopts age-based, 5-year eligibility model that eliminates redshirts, waivers​

I get it, I think. Finish high school, you get five years, between certain ages to play college football.
Yahoo Sports focuses on the transitional period from the current system (bordering on chaos) and the new system. Yahoo Sports did not bother to to specify what the ages will be (17-22? 18-23? 17-23?), because ... journalism. That little detail is not exactly irrelevant to the story.

Anyway, is this new policy a step in the right direction?
Click to expand...
what about 27 year old freshmen from Europe?
 
  • Like
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: AlexanderFan, Krymsonman and dtgreg
Krymsonman said:
I really don't understand how the "Five Years to Play Four" was so complicated, but I'm old school and nobody was paying me to keep playing college ball. So, how long before we see a lawsuit challenging the new eligibility rules?
Click to expand...

That's the old math stuff that thinks 2+2 must always equal 4.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Krymsonman
Krymsonman said:
I really don't understand how the "Five Years to Play Four" was so complicated, but I'm old school and nobody was paying me to keep playing college ball. So, how long before we see a lawsuit challenging the new eligibility rules?
Click to expand...
I think (and here I'm on thin ice speaking for the NCAA) the issue was no more waivers. No more 26 year old seniors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Krymsonman, bamadwain and AlexanderFan
Again - fixing a problem that doesn't exist.

The NCAA - again trying to make itself relevant.

Arguably one of the most corrupt institutions in this country over the years. And only when schools and athletes learned to take them to court did they start running hollering "HELP!" to Congress.

All those years where they ignored the guilty and punished the smaller schools for what all the other ones were doing. And the punished schools were told to say, "Thank you, sir. Can I have another?"

I always loved the analogy: The NCAA was so mad at Kentucky that they put Cleveland State on 3 yrs probation.

Honestly, I hope the Big 10 and SEC just decide to leave the NCAA entirely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ole Man Dan
Tidewater said:
The NCAA is going about adopting some kind of rules so we do not have eighth-year seniors.

NCAA Division I adopts age-based, 5-year eligibility model that eliminates redshirts, waivers​

I get it, I think. Finish high school, you get five years, between certain ages to play college football.
Yahoo Sports focuses on the transitional period from the current system (bordering on chaos) and the new system. Yahoo Sports did not bother to to specify what the ages will be (17-22? 18-23? 17-23?), because ... journalism. That little detail is not exactly irrelevant to the story.

Anyway, is this new policy a step in the right direction?
Click to expand...
I've listened today to some podcasts from people already discussing the "Pro's and Con's" of it. It seems, as with anything, it depends on the athletes individual situation whether it is good or bad. It definitely has some good to it.

Pro's
*We're no longer going to see 26 year old football players who've been granted their eighth year of eligibility.

*It is going to eliminate the red shirt rules. Now, coaches can get the player meaningful playing time (rather than it being capped by games played) coupled with practice time, and he still can play four years. Player development should expedite by being able to do this.

Con's
*Going to hurt high school recruits. Players who aren't going pro will be eligible to play one more year and earn a fifth year of NIL $$$ before entering the "real world".

*It is going to encourage parents with kids in grade school to hold back their kid to essentially give the kid an extra year of physical and mental development and growth before entering college athletics. Granted, this has been going on anyway for years, but it is going to be more of an incentive now that the average college roster is going to have more players who are one year "older" and more experienced than it would have been under the old rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg
Bamabuzzard said:
*It is going to encourage parents with kids in grade school to hold back their kid to essentially give the kid an extra year of physical and mental development and growth before entering college athletics. Granted, this has been going on anyway for years, but it is going to be more of an incentive now that the average college roster is going to have more players who are one year "older" and more experienced than it would have been under the old rules.
Click to expand...
I think that's a bit of a stretch to consider that a con. First of all, parents who genuinely think that far ahead that their 5 year old child will be a college athlete have been doing this for quite some time, as you indicated, so I don't think this will have much of an impact on parents. What I think is more likely is that less players will stop graduating early and entering college a year early, which I think is a positive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoNC4Tubs
Power Eye said:
I think that's a bit of a stretch to consider that a con. First of all, parents who genuinely think that far ahead that their 5 year old child will be a college athlete have been doing this for quite some time, as you indicated, so I don't think this will have much of an impact on parents. What I think is more likely is that less players will stop graduating early and entering college a year early, which I think is a positive.
Click to expand...
I don't know of hardly anyone (who plays sports) that "graduates early" anymore. When travel sports sanctions changed the rules and implemented a loophole where kids could essentially "play down" in age, the number of "hold backs" among athletes started to skyrocket across the board. When it comes to parents of athletes, they're more shallow than you give them credit for. I've been in the youth travel sports circle for over a decade. If you want to see the true character of a person, see how they act within their children's youth sports circles. Otherwise very level headed adults lose their minds when it comes to their kids sports. They'll do dang near anything if they think it means giving their kids even the slightest edge. It doesn't change when they get to high school. I'm in that circle right now with one of my sons.
 
  • Like
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: dtgreg and BhamToTexas
Who even cares anymore except maybe BYU? As others have said, was a corrupt system from the beginning (like everything in life it seems). I continue to lose interest in all these shenanigans frankly.
 
Power Eye said:
I think that's a bit of a stretch to consider that a con. First of all, parents who genuinely think that far ahead that their 5 year old child will be a college athlete have been doing this for quite some time, as you indicated, so I don't think this will have much of an impact on parents. What I think is more likely is that less players will stop graduating early and entering college a year early, which I think is a positive.
Click to expand...
There are other reasons for holding a child back besides athletics. If you have a son, they don't develop as quickly emotionally and physically as daughters. I have never seen a negative instance in holding a child back especially in prek or elementary school.
 
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: NoNC4Tubs
Bamabuzzard said:
I don't know of hardly anyone (who plays sports) that "graduates early" anymore. When travel sports sanctions changed the rules and implemented a loophole where kids could essentially "play down" in age, the number of "hold backs" among athletes started to skyrocket across the board. When it comes to parents of athletes, they're more shallow than you give them credit for. I've been in the youth travel sports circle for over a decade. If you want to see the true character of a person, see how they act within their children's youth sports circles. Otherwise very level headed adults lose their minds when it comes to their kids sports. They'll do dang near anything if they think it means giving their kids even the slightest edge. It doesn't change when they get to high school. I'm in that circle right now with one of my sons.
Click to expand...
We have a point guard trying to reclassify as we speak.
 
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: Bamabuzzard
Bamabuzzard said:
I don't know of hardly anyone (who plays sports) that "graduates early" anymore. When travel sports sanctions changed the rules and implemented a loophole where kids could essentially "play down" in age, the number of "hold backs" among athletes started to skyrocket across the board. When it comes to parents of athletes, they're more shallow than you give them credit for. I've been in the youth travel sports circle for over a decade. If you want to see the true character of a person, see how they act within their children's youth sports circles. Otherwise very level headed adults lose their minds when it comes to their kids sports. They'll do dang near anything if they think it means giving their kids even the slightest edge. It doesn't change when they get to high school. I'm in that circle right now with one of my sons.
Click to expand...
I believe Ryan Williams reclassified as did a big recruit we have coming in this year whose name I can't recall.

I agree about youth sports parents, but my point is that it's already being done now so I don't see how much of an impact that will have. In other words, I don't see parents that aren't hyper-focused on their children's athletic development all of a sudden becoming so as a result of this potential rule change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg
JDCrimson said:
There are other reasons for holding a child back besides athletics. If you have a son, they don't develop as quickly emotionally and physically as daughters. I have never seen a negative instance in holding a child back especially in prek or elementary school.
Click to expand...
100% there are. My son's birthday is August 10th, which means he can technically start kindergarten in three years, but he won't even by 5 yet when school actually starts since our school system goes back the first week of August. My wife and I have already decided that we will wait a year for him to start and sports has never come into the conversation. My sister made my nephew repeat kindergarten because he just wasn't developing at the rate he needed to and it has done wonders for him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg, JDCrimson and Con
Power Eye said:
I believe Ryan Williams reclassified as did a big recruit we have coming in this year whose name I can't recall.

I agree about youth sports parents, but my point is that it's already being done now so I don't see how much of an impact that will have. In other words, I don't see parents that aren't hyper-focused on their children's athletic development all of a sudden becoming so as a result of this potential rule change.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying and I agree. I'm just saying that however many kids are being held back now, which is too many in my opinion, there's going to be more now. How much that "more" is, who knows. But the point was, there's just going to be "more".
 
  • Like
Reactions: BhamToTexas and Power Eye
I'm not at all surprised at the quick lawsuit. I would have been surprised if there wasn't one. When it announced the rule, even the NCAA said it expected suits.

The rule makes all the sense in the world. But there's no way it'll stand up. At least one judge in one state somewhere (looking at you, Texas and California) will rule that the NCAA has no jurisdiction on the matter.

We've already had a judge rule that it's OK to play a guy who not only admitted to heavy gambling, but also admitted to betting dozens of times on his own team.

Think somebody won't rule that the NCAA can't prohibit a player simply because of their birthday?

So we're one injunction from being back to square one -- even though in this instance the NCAA is trying to do the right thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg and DzynKingRTR
Power Eye said:
100% there are. My son's birthday is August 10th, which means he can technically start kindergarten in three years, but he won't even by 5 yet when school actually starts since our school system goes back the first week of August. My wife and I have already decided that we will wait a year for him to start and sports has never come into the conversation. My sister made my nephew repeat kindergarten because he just wasn't developing at the rate he needed to and it has done wonders for him.
Click to expand...
My birthday is August 13th. I had been 18 years old for exactly 7 days before I attended my first class at UNA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BhamToTexas and Con
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back