NCAA proposal limiting eligibility - what do we think?

[flyingcement]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

It'd be easy to prove that its 11+

but I'll call your 100 cinnacoins and raise you 200 jimmybucks! 

Is anyone really willing to provide that level of transparency?  Even one person?  I haven't seen it - let alone 11.

Unless there is one program paying 11 people more than 100K each and the accountant is a member of this forum and has the numbers on hand to provide

[ionel]

9 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

Is anyone really willing to provide that level of transparency?  Even one person?  I haven't seen it - let alone 11.

Unless there is one program paying 11 people more than 100K each and the accountant is a member of this forum and has the numbers on hand to provide

Well are we talking over the course of their wrestling stay or just per year cause BD got $100 per year for 5 years.  You think the AFs aren't getting money.  Been a while but RW $100 for a year do we really think them SBs aint getting coin.  Carl had other ways of pay'n before NIL but now ... .  It'd be easy to find 11+ guys across the top 10 programs.  

Edited April 9 by ionel

[flyingcement]

Just now, ionel said:

Well are we talking over the course of their wrestling stay or just per year cause BD got $100 per year for 5 years.  You think the AFs aren't getting money.  Been a while but RW $100 for a year do we really think them Stilly Boys aint getting coin.  Carl had other ways of pay'n before NIL but now ... .  It'd be easy to find 11+ guys across the top 10 programs.  

I think the answer could very well be over 11, but i just think it's been way too cloak and dagger for it to be validated. 

It's almost like there is a gentlemens agreement to not share the numbers so they don't stir the pot of the respective communities.  keep targets off their backs so to speak.

[ionel]

6 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

I think the answer could very well be over 11, but i just think it's been way too cloak and dagger for it to be validated. 

It's almost like there is a gentlemens agreement to not share the numbers so they don't stir the pot of the respective communities.  keep targets off their backs so to speak.

The other thing is we know the SBs are monitizing their image value but there's no record of those others doing anything other than just pay to play.   

[CHROMEBIRD]

22 hours ago, alex1fly said:

I mean... they could just be better about enforcing redshirt criteria. Olympic redshirt? Only if you took every opportunity to make the Olympic team. Medical redshirt? Only if you missed a set % of the season due to a documented injury and could not compete for the remainder of the season. It doesn't seem that complex. To get crazy you could throw away the Olympic redshirt, make actual redshirts only for freshman, and/or have redshirts get assigned/applied at the time of their occurrence.

What you're saying is right, but the NCAA's impetus for the proposed rule is to simplify and standardize the eligibility process. They're trying to stop the flood of eligibility lawsuits that arise because the rules are subjective, can be interpreted in several ways, and because athletes have all sorts of one-off exceptions.

[mspart]

On 4/8/2026 at 10:27 AM, Fletcher said:

BYU needs to bring back wrestling to capitalize on the religious mission exception.

Although that really didn't do them much good in the past.   We had a guy get 4th at NCAAs when I attended there in the 80's.   

mspart

[mspart]

I generally like this.   But I don't like 5 years of active NCAA eligibility where they can win 5 championships as in the individual sports.   4 years of active competition.  You have 5 years to get that done, with the few exceptions.  

mspart

[AgaveMaria]

On 4/8/2026 at 11:47 AM, Hilton Head Joe said:

As much as I like this I would be opposed. Fair playing field no matter what. 5 years total starting at 19 with age cap at 24. You could be a 5 time champ right? Injuries are just part of it. 

No. BYU won't bring back wrestling because it is a "girly-man" school.

You are advocating cheating kids who have a religious belief and take two years for service. 

Worse, if we are drafting young men you lose a whole lot of candidates. If we see some come in from other Nations with firm military/government service commitments we are not playing fair with them. We all age and some live in nations where they can't go to college until they fulfill Government required service. 

The exceptions make sense. Only a small group will actually use them but if you don't allow it you are going to make a group of Attorneys rich when they challenge this in court. 

Then you have those few who have medical issues. A major surgery can have you out of competition as well as College for two full seasons. Why punish someone for that? Still limit them to a 5 year window of actual College competition but if not in school - why punish them? 

Olympic redshirts? Why not an exception - but with firm qualifications tied to performance and placement, maybe? Those who actually qualify are a very small group. Let them work for the spot on the team, knowing when they come back they are still limited to a fixed number of years on the college RESILITE.(in case Shane is reading this)

[LoserJucoMan]

4 hours ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

What you're saying is right, but the NCAA's impetus for the proposed rule is to simplify and standardize the eligibility process. They're trying to stop the flood of eligibility lawsuits that arise because the rules are subjective, can be interpreted in several ways, and because athletes have all sorts of one-off exceptions.

I can see someone suing their university because they're too old to participate in athletics but still have to pay the student fees towards athletics. It's a slippery slope.

[ionel]

1 minute ago, LoserJucoMan said:

I can see someone suing their university because they're too old to participate in athletics but still have to pay the student fees towards athletics. It's a slippery slope.

Wait ... academic students are paying athletic fees while athletes are getting rich on NIL ... say it ain't so bro! 

[boconnell]

5 hours ago, CHROMEBIRD said:

What you're saying is right, but the NCAA's impetus for the proposed rule is to simplify and standardize the eligibility process. They're trying to stop the flood of eligibility lawsuits that arise because the rules are subjective, can be interpreted in several ways, and because athletes have all sorts of one-off exceptions.

Yep.  Right now there are rules for the exceptions, but every time they get enforced there is a lawsuit in a hand picked court.  The Ole Miss QB got his extra year reviewed by a judge who went to Ole Miss in a Mississippi court room.  

It's much better to have a straight rule with no exceptions and everyone just gets 5 years no matter what happens.  

[LoserJucoMan]

17 minutes ago, ionel said:

Wait ... academic students are paying athletic fees while athletes are getting rich on NIL ... say it ain't so bro! 

I'm just saying if someone is paying tuition they should have the opportunity to compete for their school regardless of age and for four years with gaps in time if they choose so.  I'm not sure what you're point is exactly, but If it's about NIL I don't care. The athletes deserve to get a piece of the pie. And it's really not that much when you look at it overall. Some people say Jacori Teemer made $500k going to Iowa, at the same time Iowa athletics made 174 million in 2024. When you look at the big picture NIL barely pays anything.

[DazeofGrace]

13 minutes ago, LoserJucoMan said:

I'm just saying if someone is paying tuition they should have the opportunity to compete for their school regardless of age and for four years with gaps in time if they choose so.  I'm not sure what you're point is exactly, but If it's about NIL I don't care. The athletes deserve to get a piece of the pie. And it's really not that much when you look at it overall. Some people say Jacori Teemer made $500k going to Iowa, at the same time Iowa athletics made 174 million in 2024. When you look at the big picture NIL barely pays anything.

Yes he was implying that athletes are undeserving and riding on the coattails of “regular” more qualified students or at their expense. Don’t waste your time debating because he is convinced he understands the economics of college and college athletics and admissions.

Edited April 10 by DazeofGrace

[MPhillips]

35 minutes ago, ionel said:

Wait ... academic students are paying athletic fees while athletes are getting rich on NIL ... say it ain't so bro! 

Muckraker... 

[ionel]

2 hours ago, LoserJucoMan said:

 at the same time Iowa athletics made 174 million in 2024. 

$174M ... very few universities make money on athletics but Iowa ... please tell us more.  

[ionel]

1 hour ago, MPhillips said:

Muckraker... 

 

[AgaveMaria]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

$174M ... very few universities make money on athletics but Iowa ... please tell us more.  

Bringing in money and "making money" are not the same thing.

You bring in so much but overhead, salaries for workers, coaches, trainers and such eats at the sum. Upkeep of facilities as well as the cost for new eats at the sum.

Wrestling costs more than the dollars coming in pay. True for most sports. Football at some Universities can actually show a profit after all costs are figured. Not all schools make back the actual cost to run a program. Basketball, the same if not worse. 

Sports programs are providing many students an opportunity to continue their sport while giving the school another venue for students, alumni & the public to attend. But actually "making money" from mot of the sports is not happening. Figure it as a cost toward running a school that provides opportunities for many beyond the classroom. Part of the Life Lessons ans opportunities a good school should provide as they work to turn out well rounded, educated graduates.

Allowing for breaks for reasons that we know come up is only helping the athletes as well as the schools. 

[ionel]

1 minute ago, AgaveMaria said:

Bringing in money and "making money" are not the same thing.

You bring in so much but overhead, salaries for workers, coaches, trainers and such eats at the sum. Upkeep of facilities as well as the cost for new eats at the sum.

Wrestling costs more than the dollars coming in pay. True for most sports. Football at some Universities can actually show a profit after all costs are figured. Not all schools make back the actual cost to run a program. Basketball, the same if not worse. 

Sports programs are providing many students an opportunity to continue their sport while giving the school another venue for students, alumni & the public to attend. But actually "making money" from mot of the sports is not happening. Figure it as a cost toward running a school that provides opportunities for many beyond the classroom. Part of the Life Lessons ans opportunities a good school should provide as they work to turn out well rounded, educated graduates.

Allowing for breaks for reasons that we know come up is only helping the athletes as well as the schools. 

Yeah but loser said they "made money" that implies covered all costs and an extra $174M in the bank.  Let's see if loser can show us the money.  

[LoserJucoMan]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

Yeah but loser said they "made money" that implies covered all costs and an extra $174M in the bank.  Let's see if loser can show us the money.  

First of all "Made Money" is not the same as "Made Profit". The University of Iowa is a state school, it's a nonprofit so anything extra gets reinvested into the school. They don't usually track profitability they track revenue and compare it to the budget, but since you're too lazy to do the research I did the research.

According to the U.S. Department of Education's Equity in Athletics Data Analysis (EADA):

University of Iowa Athletics Grand Total Revenues: $173,213,951 so slightly off with my previous statement of 174. Don't know why my other source rounded it.

University of Iowa Athletics Grand Total Expenses: $150,493,777

So that leaves a surplus of:$22,720,174  oh no! talk about burning money!

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

There's the link for you. Feel free to look for yourself. All you have to do is search for University of Iowa

Maybe I need to make a new account and name it "WinnerJucoMan" 

As an extra here are the total operating expenses of the top five placing NCAA wrestling teams

Penn State: $834,890

Oklahoma State: $616,317

Nebraska: $248,394

Iowa: $978,835

Ohio State: $455,395

[SocraTease]

On 4/8/2026 at 10:27 AM, Fletcher said:

BYU needs to bring back wrestling to capitalize on the religious mission exception.

The religious mission exception should absolutely be eliminated.  One should not discriminate against people for their personal religious views (or lack thereof), but this is giving preference to (or for) such views and practices.

These religious missions are engaged in proselytizing and converting non-Christians and non-Mormons.  They are not designed or carried out to help others.  If the goal is to support humanitarian work, wonderful.  But these are decidedly not humanitarian missions.   It would be better to make an exception for college-aged athletes engaged in, for example, practical scientific efforts or working on organic farms (WOOF-ing) in foreign countries to feed hungry people, or building houses for the homeless, or undertaking work to slow the loss of biodiversity,  and the like. 

Religions gets so many (too many!) undeserved "passes"  ranging from tax benefits to churches to the claim that one shouldn't challenge the absolute nonsense that is espoused by many religious believers and zealots in schools, public forums, political elections, and many other places.   

The same folks who want more reasonable solutions in sports, medicine, the economy, and social life surrender their faculties and courage when it comes to religion.  They give it a pass it doesn't merit.  And the NCAA shouldn't either.  

 

 

[1032004]

On 4/8/2026 at 1:20 PM, CHROMEBIRD said:

You're absolutely right. The gap year now comes at the expense of an athlete's eligibility, rather than stacking shirts & waivers and preserving eligibility as is the case today. Ivy League kids are probably laughing, since they've been living with 4 for 4.

Yeah in wrestling I think this will help create more parity and give more incentive for guys to leave PSU.  Right now they’ve been able to use various redshirts so that a lot of their backups don’t even lose much eligibility.  If Connor Mirasola for example gets a medical redshirt for this year then something needs to be done about medical redshirts.

[ionel]

6 hours ago, LoserJucoMan said:

First of all "Made Money" is not the same as "Made Profit". The University of Iowa is a state school, it's a nonprofit so anything extra gets reinvested into the school. They don't usually track profitability they track revenue and compare it to the budget, but since you're too lazy to do the research I did the research.

According to the U.S. Department of Education's Equity in Athletics Data Analysis (EADA):

University of Iowa Athletics Grand Total Revenues: $173,213,951 so slightly off with my previous statement of 174. Don't know why my other source rounded it.

University of Iowa Athletics Grand Total Expenses: $150,493,777

So that leaves a surplus of:$22,720,174  oh no! talk about burning money!

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

There's the link for you. Feel free to look for yourself. All you have to do is search for University of Iowa

Maybe I need to make a new account and name it "WinnerJucoMan" 

As an extra here are the total operating expenses of the top five placing NCAA wrestling teams

Penn State: $834,890

Oklahoma State: $616,317

Nebraska: $248,394

Iowa: $978,835

Ohio State: $455,395

So in summary you could've just said "revenue." 

[JWC]

[MPhillips]

Third most revenue at 1.7 mil loss...

[ionel]

5 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

Third most revenue at 1.7 mil loss...

... and who pays the loss?