forums

Newly proposed NCAA rule would hurt

PalyCane said:
Hopefully that's true.

However a noted sports atty seems to be saying it will affect players who have exhausted their eligibility "this year". More details will be forthcoming of course.

Click to expand...



I trust Pete Thamel over "Mit Winter".
 
Bad day for Aussie punters. A ton of HS kids who were held back have one or two years less of eligibility however coaches are so year to year I’m not sure this will affect how they recruit.

If this sticks, it’ll be the most significant youth/adolescent sporting shift since the NCAA allowed freshmen to compete on Varsity. NCAA will effectively be uniformly 23U in a few years.
 
Get these old ***** the **** out of college athletics. Giving a “Covid” year was a joke. Now you got ***gots suing saying JUCO doesn’t count towards your 5 to play 4. 5 years to play 4 was never a problem until the 2020 plandemic happened. High school kids are getting overlooked for 24 year olds. FOH
 
PalyCane said:
It's being reported that the NCAA is preparing to implement a new rule that would eliminate eligibility for all players who are more than 5 years past their HS graduation. The rule would take effect immediately with no grand fathering for 2026per reports.

This would impact Mo Toure, Ryan Rodriguez, Chase Smith and Cooper Barkate. Yikes

Click to expand...

Rule only works if you grandfather. Can't change the rules of engagement on someone years later. Another show of NCAA incompetence. Something that would easily be dismissed in court if challenged.
 
Last edited:
CityboyCanes4life82 said:
I don’t understand this rule as it makes no sense. We are not seeing 30 and 35 year old players take scholarships away from kids. We are also not seeing 27 to 35 year olds dominate college football.

99% of kids that are over 25 had a history of severe injuries.
Click to expand...
The concept of regular redshirting compared to medical redshirting had created a litany of Chandler Morris cases within the post pandemic landscape.

5 years to play 4 versus 5 years to play 5; the NCAA is ending its fight on the latter.

They are partially conceding that Diego Pavia’s antitrust lawsuit had merit; however, they are adjusting as well to avoid other Chandler Morris cases and the flooding of older int pros.

In college basketball & elsewhere, former international professionals were allowed to enroll & compete. Many of these players never attended college in Europe or elsewhere, giving them the possibility to be in their early to mid 20s with 4 years of eligibility remaining. James Nnaji is an example of this; as was Timo on our basketball team.

This led to a situation where a select few of American born players who left early wanted to return to college. The NCAA had let European pros in, however, they were denying or trying to deny players who were drafted or played nba minutes. They lost the former battle and won the latter; conceding players who only played g league minutes, whether drafted or not, could play in the NCAA. There was a chance that down the line, at a higher court, the NCAA could lose since they had allowed so many European pros in already. Basically discriminating against young Americans. Realistically, the NCAA could’ve lost in court when you compare Amari Bailey to Noam Dovrat; why can one — whose two years older — still participate and not the other?

The age limit, of 23 and under, solves so many problems at once for the NCAA and moreover youth sports with parents holding kids back to game the system. The extra year of eligibility to play then provides a cushion to players who are injured while eliminating redshirts of all kinds. Thereby, eliminating the possibility of courts determining the NCAA’s enforcement practices.
 
cookies said:
The concept of regular redshirting compared to medical redshirting had created a litany of Chandler Morris cases within the post pandemic landscape.

5 years to play 4 versus 5 years to play 5; the NCAA is ending its fight on the latter.

They are partially conceding that Diego Pavia’s antitrust lawsuit had merit; however, they are adjusting as well to avoid other Chandler Morris cases and the flooding of older int pros.

In college basketball & elsewhere, former international professionals were allowed to enroll & compete. Many of these players never attended college in Europe or elsewhere, giving them the possibility to be in their early to mid 20s with 4 years of eligibility remaining. James Nnaji is an example of this; as was Timo on our basketball team.

This led to a situation where a select few of American born players who left early wanted to return to college. The NCAA had let European pros in, however, they were denying or trying to deny players who were drafted or played nba minutes. They lost the former battle and won the latter; conceding players who only played g league minutes, whether drafted or not, could play in the NCAA. There was a chance that down the line, at a higher court, the NCAA could lose since they had allowed so many European pros in already. Basically discriminating against young Americans.

The age limit, of 23 and under, solves so many problems at once for the NCAA and moreover youth sports with parents holding kids back to game the system. The extra year of eligibility to play then provides a cushion to players who are injured while eliminating redshirts of all kinds. Thereby, eliminating the possibility of courts determining the NCAA’s enforcement practices.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree that under 23 has merit in the grand scheme of being a college athlete. But without collective bargaining, this will get cut into pieces by the multitude of courts which will address this issue year after year.

Why the NC2A (in honor of Tark the Shark), won’t push for a union of student athletes and a CBA is completely beyond me.
 
DubCaliCane said:
All players that are actively competing on rosters with eligibility aren’t going to be affected.

The “no grandfathering” is not in reference to players that are currently on teams, its in reference to players who’s eligibility ran out at the end of the 2026. Those players aren’t getting an extra year.

All of those canes will be eligible regardless of whether or not this passes. They are essentially competing under the “old model” of eligibility. They are specifically saying it’s not retroactive, which is fine for guys like Toure who still have legitimate eligibility, but a bad thing for a guy like, say, Diego Pavia.
Click to expand...

I got everyone stirred up for nothing. Apologies.

DubCaliCane is correct. Our older guys, Toure, CSmith and RRodriguez can play in 2026.
 
AtlAtty said:
I don’t disagree that under 23 has merit in the grand scheme of being a college athlete. But without collective bargain aging, this will get cut into pieces by the multitude of courts which will address this issue year after year.

Why the NC2A (in honor of Tark the Shark), won’t push for a union of student athletes and a CBA is completely beyond me.
Click to expand...
What does that NC2A reference mean or is getting at? I know who Tark is and the back & forths UNLV had with the NCAA.

i do think this is likely to end up back in the courts. However, I’m not sure the result is predetermined. With congress unlikely to pass an equivalent bill of this regulation, i could see this making it to the Supreme Court and them deciding in the NCAA’s favor. That is one amongst many possibilities though.

I don’t think the NCAA wants a union to deal with; and i question how effective, as well its legitimacy perceptually, a union would be that is initiated by the powers that be (that’s a bar).

Putting that big elephant to the corner of the room, i see an even larger problem at play. One union, or many unions? The answer will inevitably be the latter given the many sports and athletes with competing or contrasting interests under the collegiate athletic purview.

Then, afterwards, how do these institutions hold up? Will be they be conference specific? Will graduated players be allowed to maintain leadership positions? How would, if possible, non-conference transfers and incoming HS recruits have their interests properly addressed? How are leaders picked and meetings organized and dialogue deliberated on with so many needs and so much youth? These are just some of the beginning questions I’d (and they themselves) wonder about.

The power of unions and antitrust law are some of my favorite happenings of American history. Still, in this scenario, I find myself skeptical that a union can even be formed, yet alone endured. I was keeping my eye on the Dartmouth hoopers however they dropped their effort to unionize after Trump won. Maybe things pickup after ‘28 however we don’t really know how the universities’ administrative side would’ve responded to that.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
They are not, hence the confusion.

Pete Thamel is more clear. Please focus on the word "graduates" in Thamel's post, and the lack thereof in Winter's post.

Dope.
Click to expand...
It says “/exhausted eligibility”

So you’re very clearly misreading things get again
 
Back
Top