True?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
It’s not from the “government.” I referenced this in other threads. The decision is based on a lawsuit filed against the NCAA by the QB at Vanderbilt. The NCAA now has an order restraining it from charging 2 years of JC athletics against 4 years of NCAA eligibility for that player only.
As I posted in a different thread, this ruling has far more implications in baseball than football. If upheld, and applied generally, this ruling states that a player has 4 years of NCAA eligibility even if that player completed 2 years at a JC.
This decision will be appealed by the NCAA!
At present, the order applies only in the case of the QB. It does not apply to any other situation. However, the ruling of the Court suggests the NCAA cannot justify its current JC eligibility rules if they are challenged…which seems likely.
If this ends up applying generally through NCAA changes (unlikely) or another similar lawsuit, adbono could be back on the field at A&M with 2 years of eligibility!
The hits keep on comming.
Reclass in 8th grade, take a gap year after HS, red shirt freshman year of Juco, then 2 years juco and 4 years d1...
is that a 27 year old senior in college?
you forgot to include the reclass after kindergarten; very popular for the summer born boys in my area 😂
I realize this is a one-off NCAA situation with the Vanderbilt QB, and unlikely to apply to the general sports population in the future. However, I can't help to wonder out loud if these eligibility issues, and issues like them are part of women's college sports? Honestly, I don't hear or read anything about NCAA college eligibility issues in women's college sports, and they are subject to the same rules. My family tree is almost all male, so I don't get much of a female perspective about college sports these days. Thoughts?
@fenwaysouth posted:I realize this is a one-off NCAA situation with the Vanderbilt QB, and unlikely to apply to the general sports population in the future. However, I can't help to wonder out loud if these eligibility issues, and issues like them are part of women's college sports? Honestly, I don't hear or read anything about NCAA college eligibility issues in women's college sports, and they are subject to the same rules. My family tree is almost all male, so I don't get much of a female perspective about college sports these days. Thoughts?
I don't know from personal experience, but I would say it is a part of women's sports too. I do think it's sports dependent, but some women's sports aren't nearly as competitive to get a roster spot.
@infielddad posted:It’s not from the “government.” I referenced this in other threads. The decision is based on a lawsuit filed against the NCAA by the QB at Vanderbilt. The NCAA now has an order restraining it from charging 2 years of JC athletics against 4 years of NCAA eligibility for that player only.
As I posted in a different thread, this ruling has far more implications in baseball than football. If upheld, and applied generally, this ruling states that a player has 4 years of NCAA eligibility even if that player completed 2 years at a JC.
This decision will be appealed by the NCAA!At present, the order applies only in the case of the QB. It does not apply to any other situation. However, the ruling of the Court suggests the NCAA cannot justify its current JC eligibility rules if they are challenged…which seems likely.
If this ends up applying generally through NCAA changes (unlikely) or another similar lawsuit, adbono could be back on the field at A&M with 2 years of eligibility!
Appreciate your perspective. Sure wish you would post this on Twitter.
I have two years left now!!! Going to go watch The Rookie and get some inspiration at making that comeback at 46. I knew all the BP throwing would pay off sometime.
I imagine the counter to this would be to put an academic credit cap on 2 to 4 athletes.
If not and this is the way of the future - which is insane IMO - as far as baseball goes there really wouldn't be a good reason not to start at a juco.
Not that they don't exist already but I would imagine schools would have to throw some bogus masters programs together to accommodate the academic side of this equation
@fenwaysouth posted:I realize this is a one-off NCAA situation with the Vanderbilt QB, and unlikely to apply to the general sports population in the future. However, I can't help to wonder out loud if these eligibility issues, and issues like them are part of women's college sports? Honestly, I don't hear or read anything about NCAA college eligibility issues in women's college sports, and they are subject to the same rules. My family tree is almost all male, so I don't get much of a female perspective about college sports these days. Thoughts?
Women start puberty earlier and their growth plates fuse earlier. It's a lot less common to see physical differences between 18-year-old and 22-year-old women as it is for men. Also the pro sports opportunities for women are obviously much less lucrative so there's not the same incentive to delay entering the workforce for a shot at playing pro sports.
@fenwaysouth posted:I realize this is a one-off NCAA situation with the Vanderbilt QB, and unlikely to apply to the general sports population in the future. However, I can't help to wonder out loud if these eligibility issues, and issues like them are part of women's college sports? Honestly, I don't hear or read anything about NCAA college eligibility issues in women's college sports, and they are subject to the same rules. My family tree is almost all male, so I don't get much of a female perspective about college sports these days. Thoughts?
It does happen in women’s sports but without much publicity. A softball pitcher from Stanford entered the portal last Summer. She ended up with a NIL package reported to be $1.5M per year for her final 2 seasons at Texas Tech.
The visibility Caitlin Clark brought to women’s college basketball coupled with the Title IX implications of the House settlement still to be addressed leads me to believe women’s sports is still to evolve.
@fenwaysouth posted:I realize this is a one-off NCAA situation with the Vanderbilt QB, and unlikely to apply to the general sports population in the future. However, I can't help to wonder out loud if these eligibility issues, and issues like them are part of women's college sports? Honestly, I don't hear or read anything about NCAA college eligibility issues in women's college sports, and they are subject to the same rules. My family tree is almost all male, so I don't get much of a female perspective about college sports these days. Thoughts?
Women's sports in the larger programs is pretty competitive, just not as viewed as the men's sports. Women's gymnastics, softball, soccer, basketball, I find awesome to watch. I have never heard about eligibility issues but more than likely Title 9 prevents that from happening?
Many in women's sports make a lot of their $$ through personal endorsements and a huge presence on social media. Example Olivia Dunn.
If this ends up being a blanket ruling, my soon to be 23 year old will be a Freshman this year.
Great point dMac, could he go back and play?
If not, why not. They just opened a huge can of worms
@Dadof3 posted:Great point dMac, could he go back and play?
He's playing this year. He’s had two years of JUCO and then two years of injuries. Redshirt, med redshirt. I guess he could get his PH.D and another masters or two. This whole thing is nuts.
The following Twitter post from the HC at Lackawanna College is very timely IMO. I don’t know this guy (I met him once) but he runs a respected program and usually has a good take on things. I agree with him that everyone should tap the brakes….
Attachments
Images (1)
It was an interesting conversation I had last night with a player I work with. He is one of the top 2027 players in the state. We were talking about this ruling yesterday. The kid is smart and has a great head on him. He knows if this thing goes forward to become the actual policy, that he is no longer looking at 4 year schools and that his path is definitely through JuCo. He even said that it would be dumb not to go to juco if this was rule. We even started talking about all the other dominos that would fall if this goes into effect. Two things that I found interesting in our conversation. First was, do four years schools continue to recruit high school kids, but now their commitment is that you come to the four year school after their two years of juco? If so, there will be more flip flopping than there is in college football. The second thing that came up is, if you have a RS freshman, freshman, or sophomore in the program who has no years of juco under them, do you tell them to go down to juco and play their time there first and then come back and then the coaches fill out their roster with juco transfers and portal transfers?
What a mess.
This truly is a hot freaking mess. It used to be you could learn about college baseball recruiting after a few months of reading HSBBWeb posts and doing some reading on your own. Typically folks would ask a few pointed questions on the board related to their son's specific situation, goals and then figure it out on their own with some checkpoints along the way with folks that had been there, done that. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
Today, it is an entirely different matter navigating the college recruiting landscape due to actions taken by MLB, NCAA and the US legal system. Hot mess, indeed. I feel very confident in saying that my son's recruiting experience would be significantly different today if we were going through this college baseball recruiting process based on where he started and where he ended up. Nothing about my son changed, but everything around him has changed in just 10+ years. I have many concerns for the (future) people like my son who want to play a game they love in college while getting a quality education. Education seems to be the one word that is never mentioned in restructuring today's college athletics, and that really bothers me.
As always, JMO.
Kendall Rogers from D1Baseball.com weighs in on the topic:
@Prepster posted:Kendall Rogers from D1Baseball.com weighs in on the topic:
As soon as people realize that applying the Pavia decision (assuming that it stands up) across all college sports will have a tremendous negative economic impact on revenue this discussion will be over in a NY minute. Everyone has really jumped the gun on this issue.
Are there even enough jucos to handle all the hs kids.
And, as mentioned earlier, these “men”, need to get on with their lives.
I honestly believe we may be witnessing the beginning of the end.
Rob Manfred probably loves this. Would give him more cover to eliminate another level from MiLB if players could get two more years of development in college on someone else's dime.