NCAA Rule Changes

[Kuiper]

Possible 5th year of eligibility?

Jon Rothstein, a college basketball reporter for CBS Sports, is reporting that the NCAA is considering allowing 5 years of eligibility in all sports.

This isn't breaking news though.  Ross Dellinger of Yahoo Sports reported earlier this fall that this was under consideration.

Here is what was reported earlier this fall:

 

Member schools plan to seriously consider granting athletes in all sports, not just football, the ability to participate in up to a certain percentage of games in a fifth season and still use their redshirt.

    The potential changes are part of what is expected to be a year-long comprehensive review of NCAA athlete-eligibility rules to reflect and operationalize the House settlement terms, according to documents obtained by Yahoo Sports. The documents will be reviewed this coming week during a video call of the NCAA Division I Council.

    Recommendations and approval of the athlete-eligibility rules are expected to occur on a rolling basis and be presented to the DI Council for consideration at regular quarterly meetings through October 2025.

That description sounds like an adjustment to the redshirt rule, rather than a blanket 5th year, and since DIII doesn't have a redshirt rule (and has a pretty restrictive injury rule), it presumably wouldn't apply to DIII.  Nevertheless, with judicial rulings and political changes altering the landscape significantly over the last few months, it's possible that they are considering a 5th year of eligibility that is both broader (not requiring a redshirt or a modified redshirt for a limited number of games played) and applies to all divisions, similar to the Covid rule.

DIII observers are taking this seriously, with DIII college basketball podcast host Bob Quillman arguing that this would create a have and have-nots for DIII schools based on whether they offer grad programs.
   
   

This would permanently create a non-level playing field in D3 between schools with and without grad programs.  It's been one thing to have this in the 4 yrs after the pandemic...but wow.

    I really hope @NCAADIII thinks long and hard about the implications here.

I'm not so sure that University Administrators of DIII schools would look at it the way Bob does.  I think they are already looking at a shortfall in enrollment with the demographic cliff and they would seriously consider anything that keeps students around and paying tuition for 5 rather than 4 years as an opportunity.  Unlike with the Covid year, which was clearly temporary, I think in a long-term rule change schools would pursue ways to capture that extra revenue, whether by starting some grad programs, partnering with other universities on grad programs where they could take classes at the home institution during the semester in which they play their sport and at the grad institution in the other semester (or even a model like the Claremont Graduate University, which is the graduate program for all of the schools in the Claremont consortium), or creating revenue-generating, non-degree earning, study abroad, public service, or externship options that they could do for a semester or more while formally being withdrawn from school and then coming back to finish up their last semester of coursework while playing the last season of their sport (some schools already do these things in the Fall with students who are offered Spring semester starts their freshman year).  Many of those options could be structured either in a way that avoids the extra burden on campus housing and infrastructure from having more students on campus at any given time, while still providing schools some revenue (share of fees) while they are away doing other things or in a way that keeps the students on campus to fill up otherwise empty dorms and instead permits the grad work or non-degree earning work to be done remotely or nearby.

Perhaps as evidence of the financial/enrollment potential, see this post from Wooster professor Drew Pasteur on the possibility of DIII going along with a 5th year

   

Last January, the D3 membership voted to retain language about D3 athletics being primarily a four-year undergraduate experience, even after the NCAA D3 Management Council had proposed dropping it.

    However, the potential for 5th year tuition + room/board might sway the majority.

I think his last point, coming from inside the academy, underscores my point about how academic administrators might view a 5th year differently than fans

Incidentally, some of this already happened under Covid 5th year rules.  I know players at schools without grad programs who took off a semester (either during Covid or at some later point) and worked, often in internships in their expected field, so they could come back and play a 5th season.  They sometimes weren't identified as 5th years or grad students, so you wouldn't know if you didn't know the player/team or didn't look at their stats/bio on the website.

[SimpleCoach]

I think to @Kuiper's point, we can't downplay the appeal of additional revenue to a 5th year.  If you can have 30% of your student population stay for a 5th year, well, math makes it look very appealing.

That said, what are we trying to accomplish?  If it is indeed for the financial benefits, then ok.  Just say so.  If it is for some athletic purposes, then say it.  Frankly, the only real reason I see this happening is if the financial impact is significant enough to make D3 schools buy into it.

Otherwise, not sure I understand why 4 year institutions suddenly decide to allow a 5th year of eligibility.

SC.

[Kuiper]

I think to @Kuiper's point, we can't downplay the appeal of additional revenue to a 5th year.  If you can have 30% of your student population stay for a 5th year, well, math makes it look very appealing.

That said, what are we trying to accomplish?  If it is indeed for the financial benefits, then ok.  Just say so.  If it is for some athletic purposes, then say it.  Frankly, the only real reason I see this happening is if the financial impact is significant enough to make D3 schools buy into it.

Otherwise, not sure I understand why 4 year institutions suddenly decide to allow a 5th year of eligibility.

SC.

To some extent, the issue is that the notion of a 4 year institution is kind of a myth.  Students take time off, work part-time, switch majors, drop classes and fall behind etc.  That's why most official college graduation rates are measured at 6 years, rather than 4 years.  Even for those who start at private, 4 year, non-profit institutions, which accounts for most of D3 schools, and has the highest graduate rate, the 6 year percentage is only 75.5%.  Public schools have lower rates and even among private schools the 4-year rate is much lower.  This was true even before Covid.  So, at least theoretically, a 5 year period may be more accurate for some schools that still call themselves 4 year institutions.

That, of course, doesn't explain why players need 5 years of eligibility, rather than 4 seasons over 5 years or something like that.  It may be that the data shows students stay more on track when they are playing their sport, so allowing 5 years of eligibility may have a benefit in terms of academic progress.

Having said that, my sense is that this is a legal and political issue for the NCAA.  The NCAA is vulnerable to lawsuits and/or political blowback over all sorts of things that affect the ability of freshman and others to play a full college career and allowing 5 years might help mitigate some of those concerns.  That applies more to DI where there are scholarships (and NLI/"salaries") involved, but DIII is not immune to some of these issues with grad and juco transfers (who can now play a full four years after 2 years of juco, at least for now).  It might not make sense for the vast majority of students given the extra year of tuition/housing costs, but that only reduces the significance for allowing it for the few people and schools that would take advantage of it, especially if there are some financial/enrollment benefits for the schools.

[SierraFD3soccer]

IMO, as to D3 sports, a 5th year is really a false 5th year if the school does not have a grad school.  Many are starting to take spring of their senior year off to come back for "5th year" to graduate in December.

My son took the COVID fall off between his soph and jr yearsfrom classes since there were no sports in most schools. He started his spring semester so he had two years of soccer remaining and graduated in Dec. I know of several schools who have player take their senior spring off to come back and play in the fall. Technically, not a 5th year of soccer, but an opportunity to have one last go. Most schools are not making much if anything with this.

For us, we could definitely not afford our son to take a 5th year with other kids in college. It only worked out because of COVID.  I would hate parents/kids to think that taking a 5th year just for a sport is smart especially if they are middle class. The additional amount of loans is just stupid expensive.  You've just cost your kid or family more money that you probably could not afford. The extra loans could make the next 10-20-30 years much more difficult.   

[Kuiper]

This columnist asks a good question about whether the NCAA grant of a full four years of eligibility to Juco transfers (who may have already played two years of their sport) will also apply to DIII (and DII) and whether NAIA transfers will get similar treatment.

https://www.startribune.com/ncaa-eligibility-diego-pavia-junior-college-patrick-reusse/601201806

Here are a couple of large uncertainties:

Will Divisions II and III follow and also grant the extra eligibility for JUCO athletes? And, since the waiver announcement stated "non-NCAA school," does this mean athletes competing at NAIA schools would be eligible for extra eligibility as transfers to four-year NCAA schools?

That would be another way that you would get older students on DIII teams.

[stlawus]

I thought the JuCo ruling was simply a court stay that only applied to JuCo players this past season.  It was only for one specific player but the stay in theory applies to the rest of the JuCo player pool but again only for those that competed in 24-25.  I could be wrong.

[Kuiper]

I thought the JuCo ruling was simply a court stay that only applied to JuCo players this past season.  It was only for one specific player but the stay in theory applies to the rest of the JuCo player pool but again only for those that competed in 24-25.  I could be wrong.

The NCAA DI Board of Directors granted a blanket waiver for all JuCo athletes who played in 2024 for 2025-2026 while they appeal the ruling.  The question this columnist is raising is whether DII and DIII will follow suit.  If they simply matched what DI did, then it would give DIII athletes who started in JuCo (not uncommon in some schools), an extra year next year.  The reason DI gave a blanket waiver was, according to the ESPN story, because other former JuCo athletes were lined up ready to file their own lawsuits.  As with most rule issues these days, the NCAA may ultimately have no choice because the courts may force a permanent change in the rules.

[Kuiper]

The NCAA is voting on a bunch of DIII legislative changes today at the NCAA Convention.  Here are a couple that might be of interest

NCAA DIII Proposal 2025-2

Title: MULTISPORT CONFERENCE MEMBERSHIP SIZE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT

Effective Date: August 1, 2025.

Source: Coast-To-Coast Athletic Conference, North Coast Athletic Conference and
Upper Midwest Athletic Conference.

Intent: To align NCAA Division III legislative requirements for a multisport
conference to be consistent with the membership size requirements for a
single sport conference as well as to align legislative requirements for
membership size for a multisport conference with the NCAA Division III
legislation related to eligibility for Automatic Qualifiers and access to NCAA
Division III Championships.

Question No. 1: What is the current minimum size requirement for a multisport conference?

Answer: A multisport conference must have at least seven core institutions.

Question No. 2: If adopted, how would the proposal change the current minimum size
requirement?

Answer: A multisport conference would need to have at least six core institutions.

Question No. 3: What is the definition of a core institution?

Answer: A core institution is an active Division III member institution that is a
member of an NCAA Division III multisport conference and participates in
that conference in more than one conference-sponsored sport. An institution
can be a core institution in only one conference. [Note: Provisional or
reclassifying member institutions in their third year of the membership
process may be considered core for purposes of comprising a conference
provided there are at least four active member institutions in the
conference.]

Proposal No. 2 Multisport Conference
Membership Size Minimum Requirement

PASSES 406-54-2

NCAA Division III Proposal No. 2025-5 Division Membership – Change of Division Membership
Three-Year Provision – Establish a Waiver

Title: DIVISION MEMBERSHIP -- CHANGE OF DIVISION MEMBERSHIP --
THREE-YEAR PROVISION -- ESTABLISH A WAIVER

Effective Date: August 1, 2025.

Source: NCAA Division III Management Council (Membership Committee).

Intent: To establish a waiver of the reclassification three-year provision to shorten
the process from three years to two years.

Proposal No. 5 Division Membership
Change of Division Membership
Establish a Waiver to Three-Year Provision

PASSES 410-44-6

[SierraFD3soccer]

Do we know what the results are?  Thanks

[Kuiper]

Do we know what the results are?  Thanks

They all passed.  I put the votes in bold under each proposal.