1. The ruling applies only to Pavia. Could we see other lawsuits? Maybe. But to assume this applies to all JUCO is a large reach.
2. Pavia only received a temporary injunction. The case is far from settled.
That's how it starts, with one kid. If this goes through then it's a precedent for all JC kids to use moving forward. Then they have to change the rules.
the ruling to me is based on a fundamental fib. i can watch d3/naia sports online. colleges don't have some sort of "right to be on TV." nor are they banned from doing it. they decide if they will buy the tech and find some way to stream the games. njcaa isn't saying no. i have seen some juco games flipping around cable or posted on social media. so the kid isn't being denied exposure, and he knew what he was getting into when he picked low rent college on purpose. if you wanted TV, d1 is who has most of that.
likewise, it's bull to bring up NIL. juco doesn't ban NIL. the fact you picked a fairly obscure school that doesn't attract NIL sponsors doesn't mean you weren't allowed. you don't have to go NCAA to do NIL. everyone does it now, in part to avoid getting sued.
this is a similarly dishonest decision to the student loan thing last summer where MOHELA didn't sue, missouri did, and missouri hadn't gotten a dime from MOHELA in decades. no one owes missouri student loans. and yet they got to screw me out of my biden loan trim.
are we just letting court parties make things up now? this kid could get NIL and his school could have broadcasted, right where he was.
1. The ruling applies only to Pavia. Could we see other lawsuits? Maybe. But to assume this applies to all JUCO is a large reach.
2. Pavia only received a temporary injunction. The case is far from settled.
That's how it starts, with one kid. If this goes through then it's a precedent for all JC kids to use moving forward. Then they have to change the rules.
on the noncompete rule this summer, they first did an injunction which only applied to the people who sued. they then held a trial and issued an order that applied to everyone.
if they are saying this kid couldn't get things in juco that are allowed in d1, so his years don't count, i don't see how the other kids would be any different.
to me it's a garbage ruling because juco is not equivalent to prep school, which is seen as an extension of HS, it's an alternative college choice. i can go NCAA, juco, NAIA, NCCAA. i am a freshman at each. they each limit how long you can play. those have never been seen as consecutive opportunities. it's a choice where to go to spend the time.
i mean, juco only allows 2 years of play since it's a 2 year degree. is that illegal? this is going to get absurd, and it's not even going to match how they just treated noncompetes. as with most incoherent trump-era rubbish, they just have it in for colleges.
Asked a lawyer who is familiar with case if this had the potential to apply to all sports or just football.
"They challenged the bylaw which doesn’t specify sport, so if they win then it applies to all sports & student athletes. But it will be fought and appealed to sixth circuit I bet. And they aren’t always favorable so not guaranteed"
Huge court ruling today. JuCo eligibility does not affect NCAA eligibility and you will still get 4 years. Thoughts?
From I have seen reported the judge ruled only for Pavia. It was not a complete gutting of the rule, but I cannot see how does not move that way. Not sure what happens if the schools that make up the NCAA cannot have some eligibility rules. Not sure fans will be okay with a ton of 25 year old football and basketball players.
Huge court ruling today. JuCo eligibility does not affect NCAA eligibility and you will still get 4 years. Thoughts?
This is INSANE.
My conclusion - we need a hard age limit. 24 or 25. And that applies to Mormons and military members and ex minor leaguers. Period.
If you want to do a mission, you either miss out or you do it when you are 25.
Seems like that is blatant age discrimination and the NCAA does not have the same antitrust protections other sports leagues have. At the same time, I think there needs to be some limits. Congress might just have to act---which is also pretty scary.
1. The ruling applies only to Pavia. Could we see other lawsuits? Maybe. But to assume this applies to all JUCO is a large reach.
2. Pavia only received a temporary injunction. The case is far from settled.
That's how it starts, with one kid. If this goes through then it's a precedent for all JC kids to use moving forward. Then they have to change the rules.
A big question is: why limit an athlete to 4 years? Students are not restricted from being in college longer.
I actually like this ruling. 10 yrs ago I would've agreed with you, but with all of the recent rule changes this only seems logical. I think it's only insane to you because it's new and totally changes the past traditions of the NCAA. Questions to ask yourself is, besides of simple age discrimination (good luck fighting that in court), why should we have an age limit in college in the first place? Should college athletics only be exclusively for 18-23yr olds?
What's the difference of a person choosing to better his/her life by going to a JC versus going on a mission or serving in the military or so-called gap years to delay enrollment? Those are all personal decisions that anyone has the freedom to make and it shouldn't affect how many years they can compete in the NCAA. Also, JC's are not part of the NCAA and the NCAA probably shouldn't make rules about them. I suppose the only negative that I can see is that the competition will be higher for those coming right out of HS to the NCAA. But is that really a negative or will it raise the bar?
Personally, I also like that it puts Americans on a more even footing with the 21yr foreigners coming in to start their freshman year. I remember competing against a freshman Bernard Lagat when I was a 5th yr senior. We are the same age, that didn't seem fair.
Simplest thing would be to eliminate all restrictions. If taking 12 credits, eligible. I don't care if somebody does 4 years undergrad amd 2 years grad school. Covid has made things convoluted. Niw we will have guys doing 2 years juco and 4 years NCAA. Just let people compete when in college. Thst seems the most within the spirit of college athletics.
Huge court ruling today. JuCo eligibility does not affect NCAA eligibility and you will still get 4 years. Thoughts?
This is INSANE.
My conclusion - we need a hard age limit. 24 or 25. And that applies to Mormons and military members and ex minor leaguers. Period.
If you want to do a mission, you either miss out or you do it when you are 25.
Nah, I’d just add an optional age division. Either U20 or U21 Nats for XC (individual only) and track. Pick regular or the young one and do them at the same meet.
This would be an absolute game changer for the JC system. Imagine JC coaches out there recruiting "Let me get you ready to go to a better four year with a year or two with me and you will still have your four years when you get there". It's like the reclassifying age thing for kids going into HS.
That's how it starts, with one kid. If this goes through then it's a precedent for all JC kids to use moving forward. Then they have to change the rules.
A big question is: why limit an athlete to 4 years? Students are not restricted from being in college longer.
Between this and NIL, It’s basically eliminating the student part of student athlete and is effectively turning college sports into professional sports leagues. It’s a different era. Gonna be a lot of older athletes and a lot more foreigners. It actually brings up an interesting legal question: if foreign professional athletes are coming to the US (like New Mexico just signed) and are getting paid NIL deals, does that mean we can now regulate them as they are effectively working in the US and would have to go through a work Visa approval process, which is different than a student Visa process (as they are now taking work opportunities away from American athletes)?
I actually like this ruling. 10 yrs ago I would've agreed with you, but with all of the recent rule changes this only seems logical. I think it's only insane to you because it's new and totally changes the past traditions of the NCAA. Questions to ask yourself is, besides of simple age discrimination (good luck fighting that in court), why should we have an age limit in college in the first place? Should college athletics only be exclusively for 18-23yr olds?
What's the difference of a person choosing to better his/her life by going to a JC versus going on a mission or serving in the military or so-called gap years to delay enrollment? Those are all personal decisions that anyone has the freedom to make and it shouldn't affect how many years they can compete in the NCAA. Also, JC's are not part of the NCAA and the NCAA probably shouldn't make rules about them. I suppose the only negative that I can see is that the competition will be higher for those coming right out of HS to the NCAA. But is that really a negative or will it raise the bar?
Personally, I also like that it puts Americans on a more even footing with the 21yr foreigners coming in to start their freshman year. I remember competing against a freshman Bernard Lagat when I was a 5th yr senior. We are the same age, that didn't seem fair.
What should be the determining factor for how many years someone can compete in the NCAA??? Since we are talking about freedom and personal decisions and all.
My understanding is that the district court judge granted an injunction and now the NCAA can appeal. With the way NIL is rn for football/basketball I'm fully supportive of someone like Pavia getting another couple of years to cash in. He's not really a next level talent & the money he can earn the next 2 years can set him up for life.
I do think it's tough for the non-revenue generating sports where lifetime mileage plays a crucial role in development. You could go through 4 years of Juco & then 4 years at a D1 & be competing as a 26 year old. I think that becomes a problem. Just like with Covid, we'll see a lot of successful older teams. I know you can't exclude some sports & not others but being in your mid-20s as a runner & competing in college doesn't feel great but it is what it is.
I don't see what's wrong with continuing with the current 4 years to compete out of 5(redshirt) in the NCAA. I just don't think it should matter at what age you decide to do it or what you do before you enter the NCAA.
As I understand it, the essence of the lawsuit was that the NCAA is violating antitrust law by infringing on Diego's right to earn money. Regardless of where he started, they argue, he should be eligible to participate at the money-making level of the NCAA for 4 years.
By that rationale, anyone that competes at a division not "opting in" to the pay-for-play model next fall should also retain 4 years of eligibility. An athlete could compete for North Dakota State or Furman, graduate, and retain 4 years of eligibility to go to a P4 school.
As a few pointed out, the judge just issued a temporary injunction and the matter is not completely settled, but this is just another sign the world of collegiate athletics is getting completely destroyed. There needs to be a complete overhaul, starting with an enforceable collective bargaining agreement that addresses transfer rules, seasons of eligibility, age limits, outside inducements (ie, tampering), etc.
As an aside, the message earlier this week from the Alabama AD asking fans to donate more money to pay players is sickening. Could the owner of the Raiders ask fans to donate money so they can pay Patrick Mahomes outside of the salary cap to come over from the Chiefs. I'm pretty sure that would not be allowed under NFL collective bargaining.