It’s a tale as old as time: the NCAA only allows student-athletes four years of athletic eligibility.
But now, these athletes have been able to start tricking the system to allow them more time to become more prominent, stronger and more experienced to increase their draft stock.
On Wednesday, Jan. 29, Wisconsin cornerback Nyzier Fourqurean filed a lawsuit in the Western District Court against the NCAA.
The lawsuit challenges the inclusion of his two years at the Division II level in his five-year eligibility clock and alleges a violation of antitrust laws. It could reshape the NCAA’s eligibility rules.
This lawsuit could set a precedent for future cases and significantly impact the NCAA’s regulations. However, the situation became more complex when Diego Pavia sued for a similar reason and appealed for a junction allowing him to start his season.
After the appeal was granted, the NCAA board voted to appeal the intersection.
This decision could potentially provide more opportunities for junior college players in similar positions but could also lead to a more intricate and unfair system.
So, how does this translate to baseball eligibility, and how can players switch between NAIA, JUCO, and Division I-III?
The process involves several steps and considerations, including transfer rules and eligibility checks, which can vary depending on the student-athlete’s circumstances.
Understanding these processes is crucial for student-athletes and their coaches when planning their athletic careers. The outcome of Pavia’s legal battle, announced in Dec. 2024, could significantly impact Division I programs.
A potential change in eligibility rules could disrupt the current system, which streams junior college players who contribute to the strength of these teams.
Baseball is in an era where older rosters win championships for their schools. This ruling will enable players who played in a junior college at one point to have an extra year on their Division I clock time for the 2025-2026 year.
First, there must be a discussion about what this lawsuit means and how it’s broken down. Pavia and Fourqurean are suing for antitrust laws because they couldn’t cash in on their NIL opportunity, but what is antitrust law?
Antitrust laws promote competition among suppliers and consumers, such as the NCAA and college athletes. Against this backdrop, current and former student-athletes have brought antitrust lawsuits challenging the NCAA’s restrictions on compensation.
“They can create what they call a ‘level playing field.’ That’s been a mantra in college athletics for 60 years,” Karen Weaver, an adjunct assistant professor academic director of GSE’s Collegiate Athletics Certificate Program and expert on college sports at Penn State, said. “The problem is that it appears to be in direct violation of U.S. antitrust law.”
So, let’s transfer that to how baseball will proceed and how this will create a domino effect for players and everyone involved.
In baseball, you can compete in three divisions: NCAA Division I-III, NAIA and NJCAA.
Now, all three have different rules similar to the time clock set for athletes, but they add the smoking gun: redshirting.
Redshirting is a common collegiate sports practice that allows players to extend their eligibility if they meet specific criteria. It enables redshirts to spend an extra season on the team without actually playing in games.
This is beneficial because it allows players to experience a collegiate environment without using their eligibility. However, it also has some downfalls, and it makes it harder for younger recruits to get playing time.
Players can redshirt for medical reasons; NAIA rules say you can wear redshirts if you play for less than 20% of the season. Coaches can submit a form for an extra year, a hardship waiver or the rare case of a sixth-year waiver.
But how is this fair to other players and people trying to make their way through collegiate baseball?
As mentioned, collegiate baseball teams want older players to win national championships. Since there are so many ways to circumvent the system, teams now have seniors who are 26-30 years old.
These players are taking priority on the field, leaving young high school recruits with fewer NCAA Division I offers and less time to play.
As this issue of eligibility is being raised again, the question has to be asked: Who will change?
Will the NCAA accommodate these athletes’ realization of their worth and the injustice that has happened to them?
Or, will the NCAA hold firm and say enough is enough with athletes and there are rules for a reason to prevent people from trying to stay in college?
Only time will tell how this old tale plays out.
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
