It wasn’t their problem to fix, still, the 8th grade / post-HS reclassification proliferation is going nowhere because of how they changed the implementation of when a prospect’s eligibility clock begins to acquiesce to hockey/basketball/etc coaches.
No; it’s about whichever comes first: your HS graduation or when you turn 19.
The new rule eliminates HS graduation dates from factoring into eligibility. Now, the clock starts ticking whichever comes first: when one enrolls in college OR the “start of the academic year,” AFTER one turns 19. The subtle change gives leeway to all players who reclassify.
There is still a ton of uncertainties regarding how the NCAA will actually enforce “start of academic year after an athlete’s 19th birthday.”
For example, Peter Bourque turns 19 next month, I’d imagine EE Jan ‘27, and will be twenty years old before VT’s first game. This should lead him to have only 4 years to play. He’d turn 24 before a potential RS SR fifth year he would have had in the old system.
Tai Bell is currently a junior. Presuming he doesn’t reclassify, he will turn 19 in September of his senior year of high school. Since the academic year will have already started when he turns 19, is he immune from the loss of eligibility?
How the latter example is legislated is the difference between whether or not NCAA athletics will be U23 versus U24. IMO it would be silly to punish the former and not the latter; and both should face the same penalty.
This rule makes the NCAA universally U23/U24 except for religious exceptions, service academies or new mothers. Altogether, this was a really good move to a post-pandemic problem.
sports.yahoo.com
