I tend to ignore the ads, but if I remember correctly, there were no specifics. Is that correct? Maybe let us know what is actually different after the act is passed.
You are correct. Just a vague, unspecific statement that the act would be better for women's sports and protect Olympic sports.
Do you think the legal eligibility challenge of the football student-athletes could just force the NCAA's hand, so they don't have to keep facing similar lawsuits? Here is where I land on 5 in 5. I think it's a good move, if done correctly (famous last words, because this is what I said about NIL too, LOL). The National Center for Education Statistics found that the average college student takes between 4 and 5 years to finish the standard undergraduate degree. Because of their time demands, pressures, stresses, injuries, expectations, etc. I would argue that student-athletes are far from "average". However, there are so many wrinkles that make it complicated. If NJCAA stops counting toward NCAA eligibility does it actually become "7 in 7"? Does the NCAA deny all waivers (as was stated when this first was presented), so that there are no longer redshirts, medical or otherwise? Does this open the NCAA up for more litigation? In my opinion, the legal teams and attorneys that are driving a lot of this litigation are going to continue to push because they keep making money.
Isn't the December 15th case considered a class action suit? An injunction would be applicable to all Division 1 Senior athletes, just not football. Also the biggest issue with this senior class and anyone after, has been a loss of playing time to the Covid kids, which in my opinion shouldn't have gotten the extra year of eligibility. As stated earlier at some point they need to pull off the band aid and establish 5-5 and remove the redshirts. I have seen coaches at fault for this as well, playing kids minimal minutes in order to burn a year of eligibility. 4-5 minutes before the end of every half really adds up quick to hit the minimum game count.
The 5in5 policy has some merit (my comments are in post #43 in this thread). IMHO, in WS, these would mostly be kids wanting graduate credits/degrees and playing another year to save some money and just enjoy playing. There would not suddenly be new money for 5th years at most schools. The limits would stay in place (except the first year of the d2 policy would have a waiver). The current very public case is cited below with a quote from counsel. It's 'class action' but the class is only those 5 FB players. Do these court cases chip away at NCAA authority over it's own rules? and are they costly and lead to more challenges? Yes. and why this issue is being addressed at least at the D2 level now. I'm not sure the NCAA loves 5in5 but it's at least slightly better that handling tons of waiver requests and litigating all these cases. To be clear- these FB cases are largely about an economic argument, being deprived of economic opportunity, and those arguments do not apply generally to non-revenue Olympic sports or any in D2/D3. AND D1 has said no changes until 2027.....for now. Five college football players seek injunction against NCAA's four-year eligibility limit. https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-injunction-vanderbilt-wisconsin/87218276007/ “The motion is narrowly focused,” plantiffs attorney JoAnna Adkisson told USA TODAY Sports. “It applies only to the five class representatives for the Division I FBS football class. If granted, the injunction would simply prevent the NCAA from enforcing its four-seasons limitation against these players, allowing them to enter the January transfer portal and participate in the 2026-27 football season. It would not automatically extend to all NCAA athletes or to other sports, though the underlying case challenges the legality of the rules more broadly.”
I've followed the 5-for-5 discussion because I report on college football and have a 2027 soccer girl, who just went through the recruiting process. When reporting, I spoke with several lawyers about whether the current suits would apply to all sports or just football. The consensus is that, for now, it would apply just to football because that's just what they're looking for. A similar rationale could undoubtedly be applied to other sports later, though, if they win, and definitely would. But it would take more legal action or the NCAA body to vote (like they're doing at the D2 level). One of the legal experts anticipated it would be at least two or three years before five-for-five would be on the table for D1 schools across all sports, given the legal wrangling still to come. Again, that's what I was told. So who knows. LOL.
Just a Follow Up - At the NCAA convention, the D2 Governance Committee referred the 5in5 proposal for further review, basically tabled it until the 2028 convention. The vote was somewhat close - about 180-120. The SAAC group (representing student-athletes) decided to oppose 5in5 for a few valid reasons and that was cited in the NCAA decision to pull it back. There was clearly not a consensus about the change. D1 folks had already announced they would not make changes earlier than 2027 so we are now back to watching the litigation to see who gets a court to grant them an exemption, or waiver of the current rules.
Saw today that the administration indicates the President (of the USA) is issuing, or is about to issue, an executive order that says college athletes are limited to 5 year of eligibiity and only 1 "free" transfer (i.e., they don't have to sit out a year), or their schools will lose their federal funding. Such an order probably would be illegal and I think the administration acknowledges that.
I believe the proper reaction is "ruh-roh" Next week, the DI Cabinet is set to review a proposal that would give student-athletes “five full years of eligibility from the time of their 19th birthday or their high school graduation, whichever is earliest. No waiver requests, redshirts or exceptions will be permitted, except for a small group of outliers (those on maternity leave, military service or religious missions).” Yahoo Sports’ Ross Dellenger adds that the proposal, which has been in the works for multiple weeks, would be phased in and an exact timeline for approval is to be determined. If approved, the proposal could be implemented as early as this fall. On the elimination of waivers, Dellenger notes: “Last academic year, the NCAA received 1,450 waiver requests for extended eligibility. The association has granted two-thirds of those. Of those not granted (around 500), more than 70 have resulted in lawsuits. https://sports.yahoo.com/college-fo...ity-rules-including-age-limits-121509806.html
So what are the ramifications for 4th year senior that was looking to continue playing due to injuries but had eligibility request denied so they signed with an agent. Are they effectively SOL if this goes thru?
Great question and there will be other examples. I don't know your answer but if it is going to happen this Fall, there will be plenty of questions. What does "phased in" mean for example?? Some folks will end up on the edge of the phased in date and will complain for sure. If and when there are any "FAQ"s published, I will share what I find...