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.
@adbono posted: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.
the only thing worries me is that the NCAA seems to lose every case.
@d-mac posted:
the only thing worries me is that the NCAA seems to lose every case.
I get that, but I don’t think there is any way that this one particular ruling ends up being a rule changing precedent. It would throw all college sports into a state of chaos. It would also destroy the revenue producing capabilities of D1 baseball. For that reason alone I don’t see this going anywhere.
The courts have been pretty unequivocal and unanimous that the NCAA is not entitled to a waiver of antitrust, labor, or any other law. The NCAA seems to have gotten the message by now, which is why their immediate response to this was to ask again for Congress to change the law. Charlie Baker, a politician with no background in college administration or sports, was made NCAA president specifically for the task of getting an NCAA-friendly college sports bill through Congress. Ted Cruz, who will chair the Commerce Committee, says it's a top priority.
https://apnews.com/article/nca...87817f64802216109792
So juco eligibility rules probably don't get a clear resolution until Congress does something.
@Dadof3 posted:And, as mentioned earlier, these “men”, need to get on with their lives.
It's a hard thing. I've lost count on how many kids we know who are on their 5th year because of redshirt or did 6 years because of red shirt and COVID. Is playing baseball worth all that extra college debt?
We know another kid. He went to one college Freshman and Sophomore year. A different college Junior year. And, then another different college senior year. ( All D1.) Every change in search of better opportunity and playing time. And, now, he's been playing in an independent league the last 4 years. He's 27. (I'm guessing his parents have money?)
I get it. Baseball is a wonderful game and it's impossible to get it out of your blood. But, at some point, is it worth a severe adverse financial impact?
My son is entering his second year of Juco. If he has a season like last season, there's no question he would have some D1 or D2 opportunities to keep playing. But, he's 75% sure he's taking his associates and getting a civil service job. Why? He's tired of being broke. (And, he knows a desk job is not for him. So, the bachelor's can wait.)
I'm amazed that he's at this point considering how much he's put into baseball. But, I see the impact of not having a decent income. (And, yes, we help him out now...a lot.)
they are missing out on compound interest. According to Einstein, “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it … he who doesn't … pays it.”
The players who play 6 or 7 years get the publicity. My youngest son heard the announcers in the CFP talking about some football player who was in his 7th year, and asked "how is he still playing college football?" I reminded him that his brother graduated HS in 2019. He is not costing us much, I wouldn't pay (or go into debt) at this point. But, I imagine that most college baseball players are taking the decision that it's time to be an adult. Of the 10 graduating players on my son's D3 team last year, only 2 are using their last year of eligibility.
Interesting discussion. @Francis7 we know a half-dozen guys that didn't want to give up the dream by playing independent baseball in the US, and a few that went over seas to continue to play "baseball" (not sure what label I would put on it). One of those guys is a year older than my 33 year old son. I'm not sure yet what his professional strategy is or his financial situation. I know he was an emancipated minor at 16, so I don't think he has family money. I get the distinct impression he is flying by the seat of his pants, and having fun in Europe.
It would seem to me that at some point the economic bells start ringing, and these young men come to a decision point in their lives. Do I continue to run into a brick wall in college or professional sports or do I turn the page and try something else that pays the bills and provides opportunity to start something new? That is every athletes decision to make. I made it in 1984-5 when I tried my hand at a few professional tennis challenger events. I realized very quickly I was the bug meeting a very fast moving windshield. Very easy decision for me.
My fear is that this lawsuit tips the scales and enables these college athletes to defer their decision and puts them in further financial risk. I've always been very critical of the NCAA, however this is one lawsuit I hope they win. I feel this eligibility issue has been stretched (over the last 30+ years) and then stretched some more, then provided exceptions (via lawsuits) for far too long. It is time for some hard oversight on this issue, and renewed focus on education. Make American Education Great Again...MAEGA...if you will! Yes, I kind of cringed when I wrote MAEGA, but I'm sticking by the thought. The question is who is going to provide the eligibility oversight. This is what the NCAA was supposed to be doing in the first place, and I'm not sure having the gov't involved is helpful. So, by default this falls on the shoulders of parents and family encouraging their athletes, but not enabling them. It's never easy.
As always, JMO.
The NCAA made a mistake with not putting a reasonable cap on the amounts of NIL money teams could award players.
And of course every athlete wants a piece of the pie. Why not? They also made a mistake allowing too many times an athlete can transfer to D1 programs.
You can't really blame the players, because scouts, lawyers and coaches will always be whispering in athlete's ear.
Besides why should a player leave school and go get a 9-5 job when the coach might award him mega bucks. Hiring an attorney and fight the system might work.
IMO, this will change soon when contracts have to be awarded and approved.
The cream of the crop in every sport who are difference makers will ALWAYS be rewarded.
The courts don't like the NCAA. They feel that they have exploited athletes for years. And in many cases they have.
Might be in the end each athlete will be awarded extra eligibility case by case.
NCAA will appeal the Pavia case but has applied a blanket waiver in the mean time to all JUCO players. Essentially whatever the final ruling is, it will apply to all players, not just Pavia.
Attachments
Images (1)
@d-mac posted:NCAA will appeal the Pavia case but has applied a blanket waiver in the mean time to all JUCO players. Essentially whatever the final ruling is, it will apply to all players, not just Pavia.
I realize this applies to this year and may change in the future. But this is also why I tend to push back on the "Do your homework" statements. Yes there are certain absolutes that stand the test of time, but there is also constant change and no one has a crystal ball.
Attachments
Images (1)
@nycdad posted:
I realize this applies to this year and may change in the future. But this is also why I tend to push back on the "Do your homework" statements. Yes there are certain absolutes that stand the test of time, but there is also constant change and no one has a crystal ball.
Change is constant and current times are challenging to say the least. But when it comes to making a recruiting decision IMO there is one overriding factor that is more important than any other and it hasn’t changed - and it never will. And that factor is the quality and character of the HC running the program. If he is a good, honest man that treats people well and hires like minded people you don’t need a crystal ball. Odds are there will be a good culture in the program and a good experience for your player. To get a good read on this you will have to talk to people - especially current and/or former players. They will let you know what the culture of the program is really like. The difference between a program with a good culture and a program with a bad one is happiness. And don’t we all want our kids to be happy more than anything else?
And now there's this