NCAA proposal limiting eligibility - what do we think?

[1032004]

8 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

Third most revenue at 1.7 mil loss...

What in the world could they be spending nearly $8 million dollars on?

[Crossfire]

On 4/8/2026 at 12:39 PM, Hilton Head Joe said:

Got to cap age at 24. Noone shall compete in a collegiate event having reached their 24th Bday. I like 23rd honestly. Other than PED testing the age cheaters need to be dealt with first. I like the 5 years total with an age cap. I mean think about it 26 year old Yonger on or off PEDs vs true freshman that is a TRUE freshman at 18 years old. Legalized cheating. Sorry hold back guys but you are cheaters.  

Great idea. 

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

What in the world could they be spending nearly $8 million dollars on?

fun!

[OMW]

10 hours ago, SocraTease said:

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.  

 

 

I won't be pissing on you when you're burning in hell for the sake of pissing on you, only to help to try and put out the flames 

[alex1fly]

21 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.

Makes sense. I don't mind 5 for 5. Would prefer to let the clock start when they enter college though, not at a certain age.

[Hoyt Matthews]

18 minutes ago, alex1fly said:

Makes sense. I don't mind 5 for 5. Would prefer to let the clock start when they enter college though, not at a certain age.

I agree here. NFHS rules allow a kid to be a Sr and turn 19 after 9/1 their Senior Year. No need to reinvent the wheel there….would have to cause a domino effect for sure. 
 

You have kids being actively held back now, and it’s within the rules even though many don’t like it. This rule would have to grandfather a bunch of classes in, within the future, or risk a ton of lawsuits about it limiting ability to compete etc etc. If a kid repeats 6th grade this year before this is passed and the day it’s passed, that creates a huge opening to file suit, which in today’s world is happening. 

 

I mean I get  the age cheating argument, understand all sides of it. But this would not button up the issue overnight by any means and could cause more issues. Would be way easier to say 5 yrs after HS graduation. Not sure if the timing and age thing was mean to kill greyshirts or not. 
 

Also, just to be clear any NCAA rule has almost nothing to do with wrestling specifically bc it doesn’t really move the needle at all, I guess my point is it’s not specific to wrestling, which is a little different bc Olympic sports are inherently different and maybe that warrants it being looked at differently. 

[Nak21]

I’m fine with most of that 5 for 5 proposal. I’d like to see all the different “shirts” be done away with. Only issue I have is the start date. Start it when they enroll and you have 5 yrs, only way to pause the clock is the usual exceptions - military, pregnancy, religious. Some kid enlists and serves his country for 5 yrs, takes his GI Bill he earned to get an education, shows up at State U as a 22-23yo freshman, I don’t think it’s right to tell him or her they can’t now play a sport. Same goes with a young lady who gets pregnant in college or a kid who makes a religious commitment. Those I’ll allow. 
All the Dr shopping for medicals, red shirts, Olympic shirts, I’d like to see those go.

[Smsu150]

I like this proposal with one exception, keep the redshirt rule as it currently stands.  5 years to complete 4 years of full-eligibility.  

[flyingcement]

 

[manatree]

On 4/11/2026 at 9:54 AM, Smsu150 said:

I like this proposal with one exception, keep the redshirt rule as it currently stands.  5 years to complete 4 years of full-eligibility.  

I agree. I have yet to hear what problem the 5 for 5 is fixing.

[SocraTease]

On 4/10/2026 at 9:45 AM, OMW said:

I won't be pissing on you when you're burning in hell for the sake of pissing on you, only to help to try and put out the flames 

As Sartre said, "Hell is other people".  And I would add, especially people who believe there is some religiously-based place called hell that is different from a metaphorical hell on earth

[SocraTease]

Addendum:  After some additional research, it may be the case that Endene's initial extended eligibility (to date) was made possible by a specific NCAA ruling (often cited alongside the "Diego Pavia" case) that allowed former junior college athletes an additional year if their eligibility was expiring. However, was his 2025–26 season at Iowa cut short by injury or was it really some difference with the coaching staff or something more personal.  I'm guessing it was the latter rather than the former.  Anyone know for certain? It seems at times that some athletes are trying to get medical redshirts for hanged toenails, bad haircuts, or bruised egos.   Maybe the NCAA should initiate a "Snowflake" Rule in this regard.  

Edited April 24 by SocraTease

[boconnell]

8 hours ago, manatree said:

I agree. I have yet to hear what problem the 5 for 5 is fixing.

Really?

It's trying to make objective what has become subjective.  No more evaluations for whether a year counted.  They all count.  Honestly with how many people are playing 6-7 years I don't know how you could question what 5 for 5 is fixing.

[manatree]

4 hours ago, boconnell said:

Really?

It's trying to make objective what has become subjective.  No more evaluations for whether a year counted.  They all count.  Honestly with how many people are playing 6-7 years I don't know how you could question what 5 for 5 is fixing.

Then why not make it even simpler? Four years to wrestle four seasons. The problem isn’t five for four, it’s the fact that they give multiple redshirts. Just change the rules so you only get one redshirt no matter what the reason is. 

Edited April 24 by manatree

[Gene Mills Fan]

5 hours ago, boconnell said:

Really?

It's trying to make objective what has become subjective.  No more evaluations for whether a year counted.  They all count.  Honestly with how many people are playing 6-7 years I don't know how you could question what 5 for 5 is fixing.

So no Med RS?   Guys are still going to be old.

[Simpleman424]

[alex1fly]

5 for 5 fixes the problem kinda how AI fixes internet slop. “We give out too many redshirts so let’s get rid of them all”

”we incentivized garbage content so let’s build a tool that summarizes said garbage content”

Changing the rules because you don’t want to enforce your rules feels like a cop out.

[boconnell]

1 hour ago, alex1fly said:

5 for 5 fixes the problem kinda how AI fixes internet slop. “We give out too many redshirts so let’s get rid of them all”

”we incentivized garbage content so let’s build a tool that summarizes said garbage content”

Changing the rules because you don’t want to enforce your rules feels like a cop out.

That's a terrible analogy.  It's hilarious that you wanted to whine about AI so bad that you forced it into an analogy that doesn't work.

It has nothing to do with wanting to enforce the rules.  The NCAA loves to enforce rules.  It has to do with they lost their ability to do so because they lose every legal challenge because the rules have no clarity.

[alex1fly]

1 hour ago, boconnell said:

That's a terrible analogy.  It's hilarious that you wanted to whine about AI so bad that you forced it into an analogy that doesn't work.

It has nothing to do with wanting to enforce the rules.  The NCAA loves to enforce rules.  It has to do with they lost their ability to do so because they lose every legal challenge because the rules have no clarity.

AI is a top zeitgeist topic right now and the analogy makes sense to me. It's not that serious lol

 

My understanding of the situation is that the NCAA inconsistently applies its own rules. Sometimes aggressively, sometimes not at all. That is why they are getting sued and losing. I've been around college athletics my entire life, I'm all for reform within the org, and I'm glad to see them finally getting held accountable for some of this stuff. I guess I would rather see them go "okay, we'll do better at enforcing our own rules and change a few things to make it more consistent across sports and situations" than just reimagine the entire redshirt system. Redshirts play an important role and removing them does a disservice to the student athlete. They can always reimagine it later on. "Well of course the NCAA doesn't care about students" is the obvious retort but I think they SHOULD. Ditching the redshirt reads to me like a knee jerk reaction to remove liability, reduce litigation, and justify their Covid 5 year decision. 5 for 5 may be a good decision ultimately, I'm just not seeing the thoughtfulness I want to see when we're talking about thousands of kids' lives here.

[boconnell]

35 minutes ago, alex1fly said:

AI is a top zeitgeist topic right now and the analogy makes sense to me. It's not that serious lol

 

My understanding of the situation is that the NCAA inconsistently applies its own rules. Sometimes aggressively, sometimes not at all. That is why they are getting sued and losing. I've been around college athletics my entire life, I'm all for reform within the org, and I'm glad to see them finally getting held accountable for some of this stuff. I guess I would rather see them go "okay, we'll do better at enforcing our own rules and change a few things to make it more consistent across sports and situations" than just reimagine the entire redshirt system. Redshirts play an important role and removing them does a disservice to the student athlete. They can always reimagine it later on. "Well of course the NCAA doesn't care about students" is the obvious retort but I think they SHOULD. Ditching the redshirt reads to me like a knee jerk reaction to remove liability, reduce litigation, and justify their Covid 5 year decision. 5 for 5 may be a good decision ultimately, I'm just not seeing the thoughtfulness I want to see when we're talking about thousands of kids' lives here.

5 for 5 instead of 4 for 5 does zero disservice to the student athlete.  

None of it has anything to do with the covid year.  That year was easy to enforce and apply.  It's medical RSs and juco and to the pros and back that can't be enforced because any enforcement brings a lawsuit because it's all inherently subjective.  Subjectivity gets challenged.  Objectivity doesn't. 

It's reasonable to not like the change.  It's unreasonable to claim it's not thoughtful or it doesn't address anything.

[CHROMEBIRD]

12 hours ago, boconnell said:

Really?

It's trying to make objective what has become subjective.  No more evaluations for whether a year counted.  They all count.  Honestly with how many people are playing 6-7 years I don't know how you could question what 5 for 5 is fixing.

Exactly. Meanwhile, we have dopey mfs like this trying to return to college to compete

 

[alex1fly]

3 hours ago, boconnell said:

5 for 5 instead of 4 for 5 does zero disservice to the student athlete.  

None of it has anything to do with the covid year.  That year was easy to enforce and apply.  It's medical RSs and juco and to the pros and back that can't be enforced because any enforcement brings a lawsuit because it's all inherently subjective.  Subjectivity gets challenged.  Objectivity doesn't. 

It's reasonable to not like the change.  It's unreasonable to claim it's not thoughtful or it doesn't address anything.

All I'm saying is I think they should simplify the policies before eliminating them and going to 5 for 5. It's not that deep.

 

[The Kid]

On 4/23/2026 at 6:04 PM, manatree said:

I agree. I have yet to hear what problem the 5 for 5 is fixing.

I guess their trying to fix the weird redshirt rules that are currently in use. 

It also eliminates or hampers the grey shirt, redshirt, 3rd year freshman situation.

 

Edited April 25 by The Kid