NIL lawsuit - is it time to end restrictions on number of years of eligibility?

[awthomps]

Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia suing NCAA over NIL, eligibility

Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia filed a lawsuit Friday against the NCAA, citing how NIL earnings were impacted because of his juco career.

www.on3.com

Interesting antitrust test balloon for ncaa eligibility restrictions, in this instance arguing that JUCO years should not count against players because of negative impact on NIL opportunities.

It does raise the question for me, in an era of paid athletes wearing gold and black, is it time to drop the years of eligibility from college sports? It would certainly increase parity to allow players to stay as long as they can make the team, similar to all other forms of pro sports. There are a lot of guys who aren’t going to make the nfl cut who could play for extra years in college earning that nil check. It would have a negative impact on high school recruiting, but maybe that’s a good thing.

Anyway, curious what other think.

 

[Indy_Rider]

If we are going to remove eligibility restrictions, then start with them having to attend class and just call it what it is, professional football.

And then also let's remove school funding and connection to the school all together.

And then I have a really great idea, we can start up a program where kids can earn scholarships to pay for schooling to play football for the school. The scholarship is essentially their pay if you want to watch college sports where people are playing for the love of the game and not to for the money.

 

[wferrel]

Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia suing NCAA over NIL, eligibility

Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia filed a lawsuit Friday against the NCAA, citing how NIL earnings were impacted because of his juco career.

www.on3.com

Interesting antitrust test balloon for ncaa eligibility restrictions, in this instance arguing that JUCO years should not count against players because of negative impact on NIL opportunities.

It does raise the question for me, in an era of paid athletes wearing gold and black, is it time to drop the years of eligibility from college sports? It would certainly increase parity to allow players to stay as long as they can make the team, similar to all other forms of pro sports. There are a lot of guys who aren’t going to make the nfl cut who could play for extra years in college earning that nil check. It would have a negative impact on high school recruiting, but maybe that’s a good thing.

Anyway, curious what other think.

How did the eligibility rule happen in the first place? I can see a lawsuit where anybody can play in college as long as they are a full time student. Which could mean a very good college player that isn’t good enough for the pros could just stay in college getting multiple degrees and getting paid to play as long as he’s capable and a full time student.

 

[qazplm]

Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia suing NCAA over NIL, eligibility

Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia filed a lawsuit Friday against the NCAA, citing how NIL earnings were impacted because of his juco career.

www.on3.com

Interesting antitrust test balloon for ncaa eligibility restrictions, in this instance arguing that JUCO years should not count against players because of negative impact on NIL opportunities.

It does raise the question for me, in an era of paid athletes wearing gold and black, is it time to drop the years of eligibility from college sports? It would certainly increase parity to allow players to stay as long as they can make the team, similar to all other forms of pro sports. There are a lot of guys who aren’t going to make the nfl cut who could play for extra years in college earning that nil check. It would have a negative impact on high school recruiting, but maybe that’s a good thing.

Anyway, curious what other think.

If you are attending classes (some minimum number of hours, say 9) then you should be able to play.

Four years of eligibility is tied to an old idea that it takes most 4 years to graduate which isn't really even true anymore.

Plus if you are getting a masters you are still a student.

I'm actually ok with extending out the number of years of eligibility so long as they are attending more than a token number of hours of class.

You'll get a handful of players not good enough to go pro, but good enough to help a team plus make some good NIL money. It's not like they will stay ten years. Better players will replace and you can't go to school forever. But if you occasionally get a couple of 5-6 year players so what?

 

[awthomps]

If we are going to remove eligibility restrictions, then start with them having to attend class and just call it what it is, professional football.

And then also let's remove school funding and connection to the school all together.

I hear you, and I wish the ncaa hadn’t had their heads up the ass and gotten ahead of the changes as cfb is adrift now. However, accepting that this is no longer amateur sports I don’t think athletes transferring 2-3 times during their career and taking mostly online courses to maintain eligibility are getting a high quality education. It may be time to admit that the old way is done and nothing stands in way of cfb as a professional sport anymore.

 

[qazplm]

I hear you, and I wish the ncaa hadn’t had their heads up the ass and gotten ahead of the changes as cfb is adrift now. However, accepting that this is no longer amateur sports I don’t think athletes transferring 2-3 times during their career and taking mostly online courses to maintain eligibility are getting a high quality education. It may be time to admit that the old way is done and nothing stands in way of cfb as a professional sport anymore.

From a money perspective, college football has been a professional sport for awhile now.

 

[awthomps]

How did the eligibility rule happen in the first place? I can see a lawsuit where anybody can play in college as long as they are a full time student. Which could mean a very good college player that isn’t good enough for the pros could just stay in college getting multiple degrees and getting paid to play as long as he’s capable and a full time student.

No idea … but AI says -
The NCAA's years of eligibility rule has evolved over time, with roots in concerns about academics, athlete well-being, and competitive fairness. Here's a breakdown of key moments:


Early Days & Freshman Ineligibility:

• 1906: The NCAA is formed, initially focused on athlete safety.
  
  
  
• 1950s-60s: Freshman were ineligible in most sports. This stemmed from the idea that they needed time to adjust to college academics and the higher level of competition. This was also a cost-saving measure for schools.

Shift Towards Eligibility Standards:

• 1968: Freshman become eligible in all sports except football and basketball.
• 1972: Freshman become eligible in football and basketball, largely influenced by the rise of star players like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Bill Walton who had to sit out their freshman years.
  
  
  
• 1983: The NCAA adopts Proposal No. 48, strengthening academic requirements for athletes. This marked a shift towards ensuring athletes were students first.
  
  
  

The Current 5-Year Clock:

• Evolution: The current rule, where athletes have 5 calendar years to play 4 seasons of competition, emerged over time with various adjustments. This clock starts when an athlete enrolls full-time in college.
• Rationale: This rule aims to balance academic pursuits with athletic opportunities, preventing athletes from extending their college careers indefinitely while also allowing for flexibility (e.g., redshirting due to injury).

Recent Developments:

• COVID-19 Impact: The pandemic led to the NCAA granting an extra year of eligibility for athletes impacted by season cancellations, highlighting the rule's adaptability in extraordinary circumstances.
  
  

In essence, the NCAA's years of eligibility rule is a product of ongoing discussions about:

• Academics: Ensuring student-athletes prioritize education.
• Competitive Equity: Maintaining fair play and preventing older, more experienced athletes from dominating.
• Athlete Well-being: Allowing time for development and recovery.

It's important to note that these rules continue to be debated and refined, reflecting the evolving landscape of college athletics.

 

[wferrel]

I’m not saying unlimited eligibility is a good thing, but the lawsuit that caused NIL and player pay opened a can of lawsuit worms that can easily happen. The pro leagues have much better structure and rules than the ncaa, which in my view is collapsing.

 

[Rodeopepper]

Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia suing NCAA over NIL, eligibility

Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia filed a lawsuit Friday against the NCAA, citing how NIL earnings were impacted because of his juco career.

www.on3.com

Interesting antitrust test balloon for ncaa eligibility restrictions, in this instance arguing that JUCO years should not count against players because of negative impact on NIL opportunities.

It does raise the question for me, in an era of paid athletes wearing gold and black, is it time to drop the years of eligibility from college sports? It would certainly increase parity to allow players to stay as long as they can make the team, similar to all other forms of pro sports. There are a lot of guys who aren’t going to make the nfl cut who could play for extra years in college earning that nil check. It would have a negative impact on high school recruiting, but maybe that’s a good thing.

Anyway, curious what other think.

This will end college football for a lot of the fan base. It’s also a great example of what’s wrong with America these days.

 

[awthomps]

This will end college football for a lot of the fan base. It’s also a great example of what’s wrong with America these days.

Agree … but I don’t see the trajectory changing anytime soon, the ncaa has lost every major court battle due to hiding behind a straw-student athlete argument

 

[Wolegib]

You need to start paying them as if they were an 80 piece performance act that has 5-6 performances much like the Harlem globetrotters or the PMO Christmas show. Take a % of the profits and let them worry about how they divie out their money.

After doing that, stop giving them scholarships and start charging them for the facilities and other free services like medical care and insurance that the university provides.

Afterall, all they are is a performance act that provides entertainment for 5-6 Saturdays. What’s the difference between going to the PMO Christmas show and a Purdue. Football game? My guess is your date would prefer going to one of the 6 PMO Christmas shows! And yes their tickets can cost just as much. And yes all 6 performances are sold out. PMO rivals the JPC for BOTH alumni and donations.

 

[TC4THREE]

Get rid of all eligibility rules. It is now a job.