Resolving College Eligibility Issues

[Class of '66 Old Fart]

With the news below, thought it might be worthwhile to start a thread solely for this rat's nest that has developed with regard to college eligibility.

Federal government is entering the fray.

https://www.on3.com/news/senators-introduce-bipartisan-college-sports-bill-with-transfer-coaching-movement-enforcement/

 

[jermhoosierfan]

17 minutes ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

With the news below, thought it might be worthwhile to start a thread solely for this rat's nest that has developed with regard to college eligibility.

Federal government is entering the fray.

https://www.on3.com/news/senators-introduce-bipartisan-college-sports-bill-with-transfer-coaching-movement-enforcement/

 

The Feds are about the only thing that can actually calm down the changing environment, but I can see all kinds of lawsuits going against the one time transfer rule to test the law if it does come about.  The pooling of rights will be interesting seeing the B1G and SEC have their own, and everyone else can collectively pool their rights.  

[RaceToTheTop]

Just my opinion -- the federal government isn't going to come up with anything that sticks.  We're just exchanging the grumpy grey hairs of the NCAA with the grumpy gray hairs in Congress.

 

[RaceToTheTop]

Re: on the one time transfer rule.

The motivation for this is that 'it's good for the game'.  The problem IMO is 'what's good for the game' does not equal what 'should be legal'.  We've talked about the fact that as a student you are allowed to transfer as many times as you like, and students do this if they think it is to their advantage.  IMO, any rule that should be applied to a general student is one that should be applied to a student-athlete.

 

[Hoosierfan2017]

As messy as the current landscape is, it’s hard to imagine the federal government of all entities making it any better. But we’ll see. 

[jermhoosierfan]

I listened to this yesterday afternoon going from Boonville into Evansville for work, and it was a good conversation.  I don't care for Ted Cruz much, but you can tell that he seems to care about trying to do something to stabilize college sports.  He is probably right that the increase of the money could cause a lot of schools to cut a lot of programs including football. It is good conversation, and I think it is something that is really needed.  

[Stuhoo]

On 5/27/2026 at 6:42 PM, Hoosierfan2017 said:

As messy as the current landscape is, it’s hard to imagine the federal government of all entities making it any better. But we’ll see. 

Agree, but on the other hand, as pervasively messy as college sports have gotten, Congressional action seems like it may be the only path to improvement. 

Generally, this is the kind of issue that Congress can effectively act on because of its non-partisan nature. I could see a bill introdcued with sponsors from both parties. The problem will be if a non-partisan stand-alone bill gets pork projects snuck attached to it, and then gets nuked because of that.

[Brass Cannon]

Here’s the thing the reason the SEC wants rules again is because they will just break them and go back to dominating. 

The SEC will break long before college football breaks. At least the old sec teams that is. 
 

Big Ten teams not being the ones to completely abandon their university systems hampered themselves for decades and now it’s proving to be a benefit for football and basketball.  
 

And anything to potentially fix the problem like some sort of cap on team spending but not individual spending. Is something that the SEC would still fight tooth and nail. 
 

The SEC only wants regulations so they can cheat.  Which isn’t a fix.  Regulations aren’t the way to go here. Maybe these SEC schools just need to focus on building an educated alumni base so they have money to spend 30 years from now 

[Hoosierfan2017]

9 hours ago, Stuhoo said:

Agree, but on the other hand, as pervasively messy as college sports have gotten, Congressional action seems like it may be the only path to improvement. 

Generally, this is the kind of issue that Congress can effectively act on because of its non-partisan nature. I could see a bill introdcued with sponsors from both parties. The problem will be if a non-partisan stand-alone bill gets pork projects snuck attached to it, and then gets nuked because of that.

Definitely. To be honest, my only concern is how it affects IU, lol. If it helps (or at least doesn’t hurt), I’m all for it. If it hurts IU, no bueno. 

Putting that aside, something has to be done at some point. The current path can’t proceed indefinitely. And like you said, Congress is probably the only entity that could (potentially) improve things. Just gotta hope that the sponsors are ball knowers! 

[Stuhoo]

11 minutes ago, Hoosierfan2017 said:

Definitely. To be honest, my only concern is how it affects IU, lol. If it helps (or at least doesn’t hurt), I’m all for it. If it hurts IU, no bueno. 

Putting that aside, something has to be done at some point. The current path can’t proceed indefinitely. And like you said, Congress is probably the only entity that could (potentially) improve things. Just gotta hope that the sponsors are ball knowers! 

Someday when President Fernando Mendoza takes office it will all be better.

btw: save this post because a President Mendoza is entirely possible 

[Demo]

On 5/29/2026 at 8:50 AM, Stuhoo said:

Agree, but on the other hand, as pervasively messy as college sports have gotten, Congressional action seems like it may be the only path to improvement. 

Generally, this is the kind of issue that Congress can effectively act on because of its non-partisan nature. I could see a bill introdcued with sponsors from both parties. The problem will be if a non-partisan stand-alone bill gets pork projects snuck attached to it, and then gets nuked because of that.

Oh c’mon, the pork is the fun part. Dying to see some bill called something like  “The College Sports Restoration to Greatness Act” that includes tax breaks for a data center outside Missoula. 

[Stuhoo]

Just now, Demo said:

Oh c’mon, the pork is the fun part. Dying to see some bill called something like  “The College Sports Restoration to Greatness Act” that includes tax breaks for a data center outside Missoula. 

I was thinking a multi-billion dollar grant to the Qatari government, but yes.

[jermhoosierfan]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/48953156/sec-big-ten-withhold-support-landmark-college-sports-bill

Surprise, the B1G and the SEC doesn't support the legislation because the "bill leaves critical issues unresolved,". I have a feeling they don't care for the pooling of resources the others can do.  I personally always thought that if the NCAA were to handle the TV rights instead of the conferences, they would make a ton more money specially for the smaller conferences.  Of course, the big boys don't want to give up any money at all and don't want to publicly admit it.

[Class of '66 Old Fart]

Pete Thamel -

The NCAA Division 1 Cabinet voted in support of a substantive change in the age-base eligibility rules, which are expected to be approved later this month.

The new wrinkle is that an athlete’s NCAA five-year eligibility clock would start either upon initial enrollment at any college or at the start of the academic year immediately following their 19th birthday. Whatever happens first.

This is change from the initially proposed model, which started the clock at high school graduation. This was lobbied by stakeholders in hockey, basketball and the service academies. This is now going to be part of the proposal to be voted on later this month.

[Demo]

1 hour ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

Pete Thamel -

The NCAA Division 1 Cabinet voted in support of a substantive change in the age-base eligibility rules, which are expected to be approved later this month.

The new wrinkle is that an athlete’s NCAA five-year eligibility clock would start either upon initial enrollment at any college or at the start of the academic year immediately following their 19th birthday. Whatever happens first.

This is change from the initially proposed model, which started the clock at high school graduation. This was lobbied by stakeholders in hockey, basketball and the service academies. This is now going to be part of the proposal to be voted on later this month.

In other words, if a kid turns 19 in July his 5 year clock starts in August and they’d play their freshman year as a 19yo but if he turns 19 in September it starts the following year and they’d play their freshman year as a 20yo? Do I have that right? 
It never ends. They had it right the 1st time. 

[Hoosierfan2017]

3 hours ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

Pete Thamel -

The NCAA Division 1 Cabinet voted in support of a substantive change in the age-base eligibility rules, which are expected to be approved later this month.

The new wrinkle is that an athlete’s NCAA five-year eligibility clock would start either upon initial enrollment at any college or at the start of the academic year immediately following their 19th birthday. Whatever happens first.

This is change from the initially proposed model, which started the clock at high school graduation. This was lobbied by stakeholders in hockey, basketball and the service academies. This is now going to be part of the proposal to be voted on later this month.

Does this mean you have 5 years to play 5, or 5 years to play 4?

[8bucks]

5 hours ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

Pete Thamel -

The NCAA Division 1 Cabinet voted in support of a substantive change in the age-base eligibility rules, which are expected to be approved later this month.

The new wrinkle is that an athlete’s NCAA five-year eligibility clock would start either upon initial enrollment at any college or at the start of the academic year immediately following their 19th birthday. Whatever happens first.

This is change from the initially proposed model, which started the clock at high school graduation. This was lobbied by stakeholders in hockey, basketball and the service academies. This is now going to be part of the proposal to be voted on later this month.

Any idea if a kid who has played 4 years at the NAIA level would be able to benefit from this at the D1 level?  Granted that would be a step up but there are some NAIA/D2 programs in soccer at least that can compete with lower level D1 programs. Just curious as my daughter has been a 4 year starter at the lower level but wants to go on to grad school and we wondered if this might be a path for her.