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.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

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.

No.

 

[iubhounds]

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?

Due to injuries Miami of Florida has a TE just completing his 8th year. IU's QB is finishing his 6th year .... don't forget that a covid year was included but that ends after this season. There are a LOT of 6-8 year players in college. I think Oregon's QB is finishing his 6th year, injured in 2021 plus a covid year.

I guess the old 4 years and a scholarship could be a "club sport" for universities .... sad what college sports are turning into, yet it only takes one lawsuit to change everything in any sport.

 

[Akerphin]

If John Blutarsky can stay in school forever.....

 

[TC4THREE]

If it's a job then end all of the BS requirements. Don't make them attend the school and let them play as long as they want to.

 

[qazplm]

Due to injuries Miami of Florida has a TE just completing his 8th year. IU's QB is finishing his 6th year .... don't forget that a covid year was included but that ends after this season. There are a LOT of 6-8 year players in college. I think Oregon's QB is finishing his 6th year, injured in 2021 plus a covid year.

I guess the old 4 years and a scholarship could be a "club sport" for universities .... sad what college sports are turning into, yet it only takes one lawsuit to change everything in any sport.

My point would be you'd just tie eligibility to attendance. You don't want someone just taking one class and getting six figures NIL because they are great at the college level but not quite good enough for the pros. However, if they are taking a more or less full load towards a degree then if it takes six years so what? Injury or no injury.

 

[TC4THREE]

My point would be you'd just tie eligibility to attendance. You don't want someone just taking one class and getting six figures NIL because they are great at the college level but not quite good enough for the pros. However, if they are taking a more or less full load towards a degree then if it takes six years so what? Injury or no injury.

Why not? Why are you trying to limit their ability to provide for themselves and their family? Very hypocritical for someone who has always preached the free market and letting the players earn what they can get.

If Braden Smith wants to play another ten years at Purdue, why shouldn't he? Seems very discriminatory.

 

[awthomps]

No.

I see your point, but many “student” athletes making >$300,000 aren’t going to be attending class - they’ll have the cash to simply pay others to do it. It’s happened far too often to suggest otherwise.

 

[awthomps]

Why not? Why are you trying to limit their ability to provide for themselves and their family? Very hypocritical for someone who has always preached the free market and letting the players earn what they can get.

If Braden Smith wants to play another ten years at Purdue, why shouldn't he? Seems very discriminatory.

If they’re professional athletes, then how is playing at Purdue any different than playing in Latvia - probably better money in nil than in European League. At some point talent or age pushes people out … and another 4+ years of Braden sounds alright to me.

 

[KentuckyBoiler]

Are we going to have players playing in their 30s?

I guess then we could literally say that the 2 teams were like men playing against boys.

 

[iubhounds]

Are we going to have players playing in their 30s?

I guess then we could literally say that the 2 teams were like men playing against boys.

A 30 year old going up against a 5-star PG that is 18 years old.

 

[ImRonBurgandy?]

Mid 20s guys going up against 18-19 year olds on a regular basis (I understand there may be a few here and there now) Doesn't seem fair or safe.

 

[TC4THREE]

Are we going to have players playing in their 30s?

I guess then we could literally say that the 2 teams were like men playing against boys.

Eventually that would be the majority of players. Let the top ones go pro. For those not good enough to go pro, let them play as long as they want. Eventually that would be mostly upper 20s to 30s.

 

[FireRyanWalters]

I don't see the need to end years after enrollment restrictions. What next we will be having washout from nfl and nba coming back to the ncaa. You will have 30 year old dudes against teenagers?

It would probably benefit painter though, since he is great at utilizing non-NBA guys by focusing less on athleticism and more on high IQ plays.

 

[TC4THREE]

I don't see the need to end years after enrollment restrictions. What next we will be having washout from nfl and nba coming back to the ncaa. You will have 30 year old dudes against teenagers?

It would probably benefit painter though, since he is great at utilizing non-NBA guys by focusing less on athleticism and more on high IQ plays.

Why do we care if it's 18 or 30 year olds? Whatever is best for the product on the field/court.

And who cares if they are even enrolled? Makes the talent pool that much deeper. If Duke can go outbid the Celtics for their best player, why not?

 

[galoot]

Then why have High School eligibility requirements? There's already been talk of a version of NIL for High School, how does eligibility extend in that direction? Why have any classroom/progress toward degree requirements?

I have zero problem with the STUDENT athletes being able to make cash to support themselves to go along with the full-ride scholarship, tutoring, status, life-long network that they gain. But, if the line between amateurism and pro/semi-pro is being completely removed, I'm fairly certain that this will ultimately be the downfall of major collegiate sports. This will be a long-tail effect, but how everything has become so watered down in our society because everything is available all the time...college sports just becomes one more thing and nothing very special.

 

[cubuffsdoug]

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?

You actually get 5 years to play 4. Players who earned an extra (6) year due to injuries typically excel (graduated) in the classroom, so the decision to extend is easy. The Covid year has thrown every roster into chaos, and even as it ends, rosters continue to be a mess.

 

[TC4THREE]

Then why have High School eligibility requirements? There's already been talk of a version of NIL for High School, how does eligibility extend in that direction? Why have any classroom/progress toward degree requirements?

I have zero problem with the STUDENT athletes being able to make cash to support themselves to go along with the full-ride scholarship, tutoring, status, life-long network that they gain. But, if the line between amateurism and pro/semi-pro is being completely removed, I'm fairly certain that this will ultimately be the downfall of major collegiate sports. This will be a long-tail effect, but how everything has become so watered down in our society because everything is available all the time...college sports just becomes one more thing and nothing very special.

Agree. No requirements needed. If someone thinks it's worth their money to accumulate the best high school football team money can buy, why should we limit the opportunities for those athletes?

There should no longer be a line between amateurism and pro. Let the chips fall where they may.

 

[wferrel]

Braden Smith probably doesn’t have a future in the pros, so I wouldn’t mind him being Purdue’s starting point guard for about 15 years.

 

[FireRyanWalters]

Why do we care if it's 18 or 30 year olds? Whatever is best for the product on the field/court.

And who cares if they are even enrolled? Makes the talent pool that much deeper. If Duke can go outbid the Celtics for their best player, why not?

Same reason no one watches the g league.

 

[qazplm]

You actually get 5 years to play 4. Players who earned an extra (6) year due to injuries typically excel (graduated) in the classroom, so the decision to extend is easy. The Covid year has thrown every roster into chaos, and even as it ends, rosters continue to be a mess.

Changes my point how?

 

[TC4THREE]

Same reason no one watches the g league.

You mean because the value of these players are due to the name on the front of the jersey and not the name on the back?

 

[boilermaker75]

If it's a job then end all of the BS requirements. Don't make them attend the school and let them play as long as they want to.

And spin Athletics off from the university. It has become more of a pro sport than the NFL and NBA.