The NCAA is considering allowing five years of eligibility for players in all sports moving forward, per an NCAA official.

The topic will continue to be discussed in early 2025.

— Jon Rothstein (@JonRothstein) January 3, 2025

GoodOleBaylorLine said:

---

Interesting. Wonder how long before we have a judge rule that any time limit on eligibility is an illegal restraint on NIL, which I assume is what this is trying to get ahead of.

---

This is all tire-spinning. The only way to make any enforceable rules long term is to collectively bargain with the players. Until that's done, the rules will continue to be reactively changed and massaged into some unrecognizable -- and unsustainable -- Frankenstein's monster.

That said, I'm fine doing away with traditional redshirts and giving every player five years to play five.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

Exactly what I thought was coming. If there is money to be made playing college football by players who cannot make it in the NFL, there will be lawsuits challenging the "artificial" limits restraining players from making money. They will likely win those suits. I look forward to 35 year old college quarterbacks and 9th year offensive tackles.

What that will inevitably mean is that HS recruits will have increasing competition from experienced players moving in the portal. As the pool of these older players grows, this may mean that even some really good HS recruits will have to spend time in FCS or Division 2 ball prior to moving up to FBS. The farm teams move down a level.

---

I think we'll get collective bargaining before we get perpetual eligibility. There is just no way to sustain the latter in any college athletics model.

Quote:

---

There is just no way to sustain the latter in any college athletics model.

---

This is not about sustainability or desirability by the fans or colleges, it is about what the courts are likely to do. If somebody can make could make $500k playing college ball but zero dollars playing pro ball and the rules do not let him play for more than 5 years, he and similarly situated individuals, are going to sue. The colleges and NCAA are going to have to prove how this is not in restraint of trade or something similar and I'm hard pressed to see how that is not a winning suit.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

Quote:

---

There is just no way to sustain the latter in any college athletics model.

---

This is not about sustainability or desirability by the fans or colleges, it is about what the courts are likely to do. If somebody can make could make $500k playing college ball but zero dollars playing pro ball and the rules do not let him play for more than 5 years, he and similarly situated individuals, are going to sue. The colleges and NCAA are going to have to prove how this is not in restraint of trade or something similar and I'm hard pressed to see how that is not a winning suit.

---

I don't think we disagree on what the courts would decide here. My point is that the universities/NCAA will bite the bullet and collectively bargain with the players to make enforceable eligibility rules before they adopt a court-mandated perpetual eligibility model.

They're dragging their feet currently and kicking the can as far down the road as they can. But eventually they'll have no choice but to bring the players to the negotiation table. And this would be the issue that gets them there IMO.

All these kids going to start walking away with Master's degrees now?

Also if this will exclude the JUCO years (depending on that ultimately ruling), you could see a lot more kids playing 7 to even 8-9 years.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

Exactly what I thought was coming. If there is money to be made playing college football by players who cannot make it in the NFL, there will be lawsuits challenging the "artificial" limits restraining players from making money. They will likely win those suits. I look forward to 35 year old college quarterbacks and 9th year offensive tackles.

What that will inevitably mean is that HS recruits will have increasing competition from experienced players moving in the portal. As the pool of these older players grows, this may mean that even some really good HS recruits will have to spend time in FCS or Division 2 ball prior to moving up to FBS. The farm teams move down a level.

---

This is already happening in most of the non-revenue generating sports. My son was recently at a college showcase for soccer and a few of the coaches there said they have little desire to take Freshman players, it's more convenient to take transfers or international players because the portal rules open the doors for so much movement each year. One coach basically told the parents "have your child go to a D2 or D3 then transfer out after 1 year".....glad education really matters

GoldenBear007 said:

---

All these kids going to start walking away with Master's degrees now?

Also if this will exclude the JUCO years (depending on that ultimately ruling), you could see a lot more kids playing 7 to even 8-9 years.

---

Cam Rising says hello.

BearlyBeloved said:

---

GoldenBear007 said:

---

All these kids going to start walking away with Master's degrees now?

Also if this will exclude the JUCO years (depending on that ultimately ruling), you could see a lot more kids playing 7 to even 8-9 years.

---

Cam Rising says hello.

---

Exactly and guy is trying to get another year

College football is dying.......

Quote:

---

My point is that the universities/NCAA will bite the bullet and collectively bargain with the players to make enforceable eligibility rules before they adopt a court-mandated perpetual eligibility model.

---

I can't imagine what Colleges could offer players at the negotiating table that they would consider more important than perpetual eligibility. Compensation is currently uncapped, so they can't offer them more money, why would player's negotiate on eligibility?

CorsicanaBear said:

---

Quote:

---

My point is that the universities/NCAA will bite the bullet and collectively bargain with the players to make enforceable eligibility rules before they adopt a court-mandated perpetual eligibility model.

---

I can't imagine what Colleges could offer players at the negotiating table that they would consider more important than perpetual eligibility. Compensation is currently uncapped, so they can't offer them more money, why would player's negotiate on eligibility?

---

If the long-term viability of the platform that is making those earnings possible is threatened by perpetual eligibility -- and it would be -- they'll negotiate.

Representatives for the players have been pretty consistent that they're not against rules. They're against all of the power to create the rules resting on one side of the negotiating table. There will be concessions made in any college football CBA -- just as there are in those of all other professional sports. The important part is real representation and actual negotiations.

It's also important to remember that most players aren't fighting for perpetual eligibility. It's usually one lawsuit by one disgruntled party that sets these precedents. Once players are negotiating as a collective, they'll focus their energy on the things that are the most important/impactful to the largest part of their contingent. They're not going to take on every fringe battle. They're going to fight the big ones.

I would imagine the bulk of the negotiations will be centered around the percentage of revenue that gets shared with the players. And there's a lot of leverage in being the party that has the money to divvy out.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

Quote:

---

My point is that the universities/NCAA will bite the bullet and collectively bargain with the players to make enforceable eligibility rules before they adopt a court-mandated perpetual eligibility model.

---

I can't imagine what Colleges could offer players at the negotiating table that they would consider more important than perpetual eligibility. Compensation is currently uncapped, so they can't offer them more money, why would player's negotiate on eligibility?

---

College football is already becoming a shell of its former self. If they eventually move to no limit on years of eligibility college football will completely lose any veil of it being a college sport.

If it gets to that point I hope it's only for the P2 super conference and all the other conferences can continue with more traditional looking college football.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

Quote:

---

My point is that the universities/NCAA will bite the bullet and collectively bargain with the players to make enforceable eligibility rules before they adopt a court-mandated perpetual eligibility model.

---

I can't imagine what Colleges could offer players at the negotiating table that they would consider more important than perpetual eligibility. Compensation is currently uncapped, so they can't offer them more money, why would player's negotiate on eligibility?

---

Despite what some here may believe, the majority of players do not make much, if any, NIL money. To that end, guaranteed compensation - paid by the universities - would be extremely important to all of those players as they otherwise would not make a meaningful amount of football related money while in college.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

Quote:

---

My point is that the universities/NCAA will bite the bullet and collectively bargain with the players to make enforceable eligibility rules before they adopt a court-mandated perpetual eligibility model.

---

I can't imagine what Colleges could offer players at the negotiating table that they would consider more important than perpetual eligibility. Compensation is currently uncapped, so they can't offer them more money, why would player's negotiate on eligibility?

---

Despite what some here may believe, the majority of players do not make much, if any, NIL money. To that end, guaranteed compensation - paid by the universities - would be extremely important to all of those players as they otherwise would not make a meaningful amount of football related money while in college.

---

Once the revenue sharing stream opens up all the players may see an increase in compensation.

This is awesome. Get rid of the silly redshirt stuff.

On the other side of this argument, there are no guarantees except a one year scholarship, and there are only 11 starters on each side of the ball that will be limiting roster size. The concept of 9 year players is most unlikely since they have to be in good standing scholastically, working on a degree. No school will let them proceed as an assembly line to a doctorate because no school will be wanting to be known as graduating doctors who are as dumb as concrete. Congress will make sure universities are insulated against the mass histeria you guys make this out to be.

jumpinjoe said:

---

On the other side of this argument, there are no guarantees except a one year scholarship, and there are only 11 starters on each side of the ball that will be limiting roster size. The concept of 9 year players is most unlikely since they have to be in good standing scholastically, working on a degree. No school will let them proceed as an assembly line to a doctorate because no school will be wanting to be known as graduating doctors who are as dumb as concrete. Congress will make sure universities are insulated against the mass histeria you guys make this out to be.

---

I think it's as likely as not that academic requirements are dropped altogether for athletes eventually, which would be truly unfortunate.

I, personally, hope that never occurs because that common experience is the only real tie I have to our players at this point. And if it's severed, I'll lose much of the already-waning interest I currently have in supporting Baylor athletics -- and college athletics in general.

I'm just not terribly interested in watching a bunch of random athletes represent my school who have no investment in the school past the jersey they wear and the paycheck they cash. At that point, they might as well be the Waco Bruins or any other such minor league team I would never pay money or carve out time to watch.

Didn't that Vanderbilt QB just get his JUCO years waived against his eligibility? Judge said it was restraint of trade.

There will be 30 year old quarterbacks in college before long.

bear2be2 said:

---

jumpinjoe said:

---

On the other side of this argument, there are no guarantees except a one year scholarship, and there are only 11 starters on each side of the ball that will be limiting roster size. The concept of 9 year players is most unlikely since they have to be in good standing scholastically, working on a degree. No school will let them proceed as an assembly line to a doctorate because no school will be wanting to be known as graduating doctors who are as dumb as concrete. Congress will make sure universities are insulated against the mass histeria you guys make this out to be.

---

I think it's as likely as not that academic requirements are dropped altogether for athletes eventually, which would be truly unfortunate.

I, personally, hope that never occurs because that common experience is the only real tie I have to our players at this point. And if it's severed, I'll lose much of the already-waning interest I currently have in supporting Baylor athletics -- and college athletics in general.

I'm just not terribly interested in watching a bunch of random athletes represent my school who have no investment in the school past the jersey they wear and the paycheck they cash. At that point, they might as well be the Waco Bruins or any other such minor league team I would never pay money or carve out time to watch.

---

I hear ya. I'll be really curious to see what the graduation rate is for football and basketball players in about 3 years. We all knew -- or were -- students who went to multiple schools and often lost lots of credit hours in the process.
I really hope (naively) that at around 20 years old and 7 snaps over 2 seasons that a player would say, maybe this school thing is a good fallback plan. Or after moderate success they would realize that transfering to school Y from school X does not guarantee much of anything.
Maybe a more practical curriculum (i.e trades, associates degrees, certs, etc) would serve them better than that BA in Leisure Management. Plenty of folks making good coin without a traditional degree.
If such a curriculum were to be nationalized across all NCAA schools that might help put the "student" back in student athlete.

There will ultimately be no time limits on eligibility or academic requirements. It is going to be a straight up pro league.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

There will ultimately be no time limits on eligibility or academic requirements. It is going to be a straight up pro league.

---

That's a possibility.

If so, then D2 and D3 will become the new venue for actual collegiate athletics.

Heck, the FCS championship game had higher TV ratings than a lot of major FBS games this year. And it was more fun, IMO.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

There will ultimately be no time limits on eligibility or academic requirements. It is going to be a straight up pro league.

---

When this happens, I'm probably out. I'm just not interested in bad pro football. If there's no real tie to the university, there's no point, to me, in investing.

bear2be2 said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

There will ultimately be no time limits on eligibility or academic requirements. It is going to be a straight up pro league.

---

When this happens, I'm probably out. I'm just not interested in bad pro football. If there's no real tie to the university, there's no point, to me, in investing.

---

I think a lot of people feel that way. It's going to be very interesting. They're walking a fine line at the moment. We've essentially moved from students playing ball to itinerant paid players. It's *almost* minor league pro football now with the schools just serving as hosts, but they definitely don't want to lose the alumni base fan demographics. I could see this going a whole lot of ways.

Killing Floor said:

---

Didn't that Vanderbilt QB just get his JUCO years waived against his eligibility? Judge said it was restraint of trade.

There will be 30 year old quarterbacks in college before long.

---

I wanna see 40-year-old dads with 2.5 kids, wife No. 2 and a Ph.D taking snaps behind center for UNT, Ball State, NC State, Tceh or somesuch.

Just to see a full-on rollout one day of how ridiculous ALL of this is …

BearlyBeloved said:

---

GoldenBear007 said:

---

All these kids going to start walking away with Master's degrees now?

Also if this will exclude the JUCO years (depending on that ultimately ruling), you could see a lot more kids playing 7 to even 8-9 years.

---

Cam Rising says hello.

---

As does The Gipper from Notre Dame!

Media Bear said:

---

Killing Floor said:

---

Didn't that Vanderbilt QB just get his JUCO years waived against his eligibility? Judge said it was restraint of trade.

There will be 30 year old quarterbacks in college before long.

---

I wanna see 40-year-old dads with 2.5 kids, wife No. 2 and a Ph.D taking snaps behind center for UNT, Ball State, NC State, Tceh or somesuch.

Just to see a full-on rollout one day of how ridiculous ALL of this is …

---

I saw that movie….

Except he was a rancher or something and the kicker was incredibly hot. Go fighting armadillos!

cowboycwr said:

---

Media Bear said:

---

Killing Floor said:

---

Didn't that Vanderbilt QB just get his JUCO years waived against his eligibility? Judge said it was restraint of trade.

There will be 30 year old quarterbacks in college before long.

---

I wanna see 40-year-old dads with 2.5 kids, wife No. 2 and a Ph.D taking snaps behind center for UNT, Ball State, NC State, Tceh or somesuch.

Just to see a full-on rollout one day of how ridiculous ALL of this is …

---

I saw that movie….

Except he was a rancher or something and the kicker was incredibly hot. Go fighting armadillos!

---

Kathy Ireland

Breaking News: The NCAA has approved a new rule allowing first-year athletes to compete in up to 30% of their team’s games without using a year of eligibility, per NCAA Proposal No. 2025-5.

The rule takes effect on August 1st, 2025.#4PT #4PlayingTime pic.twitter.com/xRzs2qSaD1

— 4PT (@4PlayingTime) January 17, 2025

GoldenBear007 said:

---

All these kids going to start walking away with Master's degrees now?

Also if this will exclude the JUCO years (depending on that ultimately ruling), you could see a lot more kids playing 7 to even 8-9 years.

---

Sure, why not? Get them all into Doctorate of Sports Management and Coaching programs and they can all graduate as PhDs. Write a playbook as your thesis.

Robert Wilson said:

---

It's *almost* minor league pro football now with the schools just serving as hosts, but they definitely don't want to lose the alumni base fan demographics. I could see this going a whole lot of ways.

---

They'll never lose the alumni base demographic, but they will (and I think already are) losing the T-shirt fan. If you look around in society there are far fewer people walking around with team logos than there were a few decades ago.

Realitybites said:

---

GoldenBear007 said:

---

All these kids going to start walking away with Master's degrees now?

Also if this will exclude the JUCO years (depending on that ultimately ruling), you could see a lot more kids playing 7 to even 8-9 years.

---

Sure, why not? Get them all into Doctorate of Sports Management and Coaching programs and they can all graduate as PhDs. Write a playbook as your thesis.

---

Or you can just load up on Bachelors degrees - start with a BA in Sports History and then go for a BS in Women's Studies