5 in 5 with no injury exceptions is fine. Getting injured is part of playing sports. I was fine with 4 in 5 with no injury exceptions.
But passing this in April/May and making it effective for the upcoming school year is insane implementation. At least itâs only a 1 year disruption, but itâs a big disruption.
When did Covid + year end? Wasnât it last year that those first year players were out of eligibility- if so itâs of like kind and a continuation of that disruption.
If you entered school in 2020, then 20-21 was the free year, regular redshirt 21-22, then play 4 years in 22-23, 23-24, 24-25 and 25-26.
But if you entered school in 2021, then you have the same last 5 years without the free 20-21 season.
If you entered in 2022 and redshirted, you have 1 more year of eligibility. If you didnât redshirt and played immediately, youâre out of eligibility unless this proposal passes. That kinda penalizes the people who redshirted.
Same with anyone who entered in 2023, 2024 and 2025 and redshirted. You already lost 1 year of your 5.
Oh, that was fast. Didnât he just announce the final five a couple days ago?
I hate the 5 year stuff even more than the god awful mess that is âNILâ. Couldnât wait for covid years to finally end but damn if it didnât set a precedent I guess.
I will die on the hill that the transfer portal is such a bigger problem than NIL. Itâs a shame that NIL gets the brunt of fan complaints and has become the catch all term for CBBâs current issues.
Iâm thrilled players are getting paid. They put in more time and generate more revenue than almost any other university-affiliated people and deserve a share of those returns. Yeah the market needs regulation and is NOT economically competitive (shoutout GOAT uva prof Jay Shimshack), but those problems are solvable and will be fixed eventually when it gets too unsustainable.
The transfer portal is a much more directly frustrating issue. Yeah you can say players transfer for NIL but at the end of the day if you restricted transfers they wouldnât be able to. That ruling fucked so much of the NCAA model and seems tougher to fix now that Pandoraâs box has been opened.
Honestly 5 years of eligibility makes sense given most reports track 6 year graduation rates. Schools like UVA where almost everyone makes it in 4 years are the exception
I prefer â4 in 5â but I understand them wanting to get entirely out of the business of deciding whether a player âplayedâ their 4 years.
I love the age cutoff.
I worry about the impact on academics. Seems like schools will now arrange for a 5-year undergraduate plan.
I know itâs a mess to grandfather in seniors but it would suck for that class if they get shortchanged in between covid and this, especially now that life-changing earnings are on the line.
Iâm not worried about kids who redshirted recently because they wouldnât have played meaningful minutes anyway.
I have spoken.
Iâm of the opinion if guys are genuinely continuing their degree let them stay eligible. Who cares if a guy is in year 7 if heâs actually earning a doctorate? Thatâs kind of what college sports should be about IMO
Understand it would be tough to enforce. But Iâd still back it.
Iâm all for players being paid, at least the way it was originally intendedâŚcapitalizing on their names. But that was never going to last, very few have much legitimate earning potential. I disagree with the take that schools make all this money on the back of athletes, at least to the point of guys getting paid directly in amounts that exceed real pros. And the reason is college sports and fandom are about the name on the front of the jersey. You could replace every ACC athlete with D3 guys and revenue would hardly drop.
Iâm completely fine with players transferring, should have always been allowed. Should there be a mandatory sit out for a 2nd transfer? It would probably help, especially with the NIL mess mixed in, but athletes shouldnât be glued to one school anymore than regular students.
Yeah I disagree with that take as well, but Iâm happy that these guysâ lives are being changed in a generational way during this period of NIL. If the universities can afford to pay these guys this much, there shouldnât be a moral dilemma. Iâm sure the market will do what most markets do (maybe all) and correct itself naturallyâŚif it needs correcting.
I feel for the HS playersâŚ. Dudes are losing so many opportunities with the current landscape
Either itâs a student athlete model or a business model. If the former, limit nil and enforce stricter academic requirements. If the latter, optimize for the customer and figure out distribution of surplus from there - like any business.
To me, we have crossed the rubicon - college sports should act like a business (similar to other pro sports). Which means optimizing for the customer:
All that means limited transfers, uniform salary caps, and rich rev share (negotiated via a collective bargaining agreement). And probably a break down of conferences to a national league model, with strong regional divisions to reinforce rivalries that fans care about
Yes let me go to a D3 school for my PhD so I can play again please
Devin Smith, that you?
FWIW, I started following UVa basketball when 1st yearmen werenât eligible so the notion of 5 in 5 is just another step in an evolving sport. (And, the big downside of frosh eligibility was the demise of the freshmen games. On Wednesdays and Saturdays, the frosh played at 6:00 PM and the varsity at 8:00 PM. You knew who the real fans were because they showed up at 6.) There have been lots of developments in basketball which I have found unappealing, however if the 5 in 5 puts an end to waivers, and their arbitrary nature, then I think it wonât be so bad.
I also hate the 5 year 5 or whatever itâs called unless we benefit from it and hang a banner.