Athletic eligibility, NIL and free agency

[ugarte]

if you think it's bad for us imagine how they're reacting to the age limit in hamden

[BearLover]

if you think it's bad for us imagine how they're reacting to the age limit in hamden

I know you joke but this change would be pretty great for Q, they'd have 10 fifth year transfers. Yeah they'd be 23 instead of 25, but Rand can manage.

[stereax]

Five year clock, starting from 19 or high school graduation, whichever is earlier. That's the proposal.

For Cornell hockey, that shouldn't be too painful - most of our guys come in at 20, don't they? So four years from there.

I am almost certain that the majority of hockey players in that good-but-not-great tier would simply repeat a year of high school so as to not be caught in the eligibility web.

While I think this is a good idea in principle - because some of the football, basketball, etc cases have been wild - I think the implementation of it as it stands is gonna lead to many athletes taking extra years in high school specifically to preserve eligibility. Which is dumb and not what should be enforced. If you want to do a flat five years of eligibility, cool. Tie it directly to age then and keep your limited maternity/military exemptions. Cause under this system, a guy who graduates high school at 15 and pursues, say, hockey as a full-time junior athlete gets screwed over when he wants to apply for college eligibility as an 18-year-old. ("No hockey player would graduate high school at 15" may I introduce you to Zayne Parekh?)

Flat five years without age restrictions would be an extinction-level event for Ivy national competitiveness. Sports are zero-sum, so even if it doesn't impact our own players directly, if all our opponents are able to get five years out of their best players or bring in the best fifth-year grad student transfers, they'll have a massive edge over the Ivies.

With age restrictions, it is a little better for the Ivies but still very bad. As you rightly pointed out, kids can now just repeat a year in high school and get five years even if they start college at age 19. If kids couldn't do that, then hockey would be okay, since only the true freshmen coming straight from high school would get 5 years. Those kids are usually the very best recruits who wouldn't want to stay 5 years anyway.

In other sports like lacrosse, this would be a complete disaster for the Ivies. Maryland, Duke, Johns Hopkins et al would be stacked with the most elite fifth years, and we'd be severely disadvantaged. The silver lining to me is that this could get the Ivy League to allow grad student athletes. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but at least this is a possible impetus for them finally changing it.

The only Ivy sport that benefits from this rule change is basketball. Now we would be less likely to see players like Fiegen graduate early since they'd still have a fifth year at the end regardless. But this comes at the expense of nuking the competitiveness of every other sport - hockey, lacrosse, wrestling, etc.

I mean... in hockey, aren't grad transfers still very much a thing anyway? (Involving having missed a large chunk of at least one season, but still.) And the guys who are doing those grad transfers aren't the elite ones anyway. Of course this is different in sports with lower professional prospects (such as lax), where a lot more students will want to pursue that fifth year.

I definitely see your point on a lot of this though, that an increased ability to grad transfer can definitely lead to "stacked" grad teams, but at the same time I feel like if everyone is competing for grad students, then it'll even out.

[ER]

This change is going to nuke the Ivy League unless they reverse the ban on grad students:

https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/ncaa-proposing-major-changes-to-eligibility-rules-including-age-limits-121509806.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAA8SSlGsAIcZiG4Dn2RVSWtWiHbuYgDCeOS2Yxs6GqOomLExzv9gH4k4M2XO-Txc2hXphnJyZOsp0GI8VPHVDIWAR50cGw6_Ln_X4YfRRWJ1knGKGp4LVbQAPNsGZ0plga0T33r_tipcOdPugKdtr0lxen6u0usIw0QJoEzU1uGb

Policy makes no sense. You want to encourage academic excellence? Why wouldn't they want them to stay and play a 5th year AND get a graduate degree?

[marty]

Five year clock, starting from 19 or high school graduation, whichever is earlier. That's the proposal.

For Cornell hockey, that shouldn't be too painful - most of our guys come in at 20, don't they? So four years from there.

I am almost certain that the majority of hockey players in that good-but-not-great tier would simply repeat a year of high school so as to not be caught in the eligibility web.

While I think this is a good idea in principle - because some of the football, basketball, etc cases have been wild - I think the implementation of it as it stands is gonna lead to many athletes taking extra years in high school specifically to preserve eligibility. Which is dumb and not what should be enforced. If you want to do a flat five years of eligibility, cool. Tie it directly to age then and keep your limited maternity/military exemptions. Cause under this system, a guy who graduates high school at 15 and pursues, say, hockey as a full-time junior athlete gets screwed over when he wants to apply for college eligibility as an 18-year-old. ("No hockey player would graduate high school at 15" may I introduce you to Zayne Parekh?)

Flat five years without age restrictions would be an extinction-level event for Ivy national competitiveness. Sports are zero-sum, so even if it doesn't impact our own players directly, if all our opponents are able to get five years out of their best players or bring in the best fifth-year grad student transfers, they'll have a massive edge over the Ivies.

With age restrictions, it is a little better for the Ivies but still very bad. As you rightly pointed out, kids can now just repeat a year in high school and get five years even if they start college at age 19. If kids couldn't do that, then hockey would be okay, since only the true freshmen coming straight from high school would get 5 years. Those kids are usually the very best recruits who wouldn't want to stay 5 years anyway.

In other sports like lacrosse, this would be a complete disaster for the Ivies. Maryland, Duke, Johns Hopkins et al would be stacked with the most elite fifth years, and we'd be severely disadvantaged. The silver lining to me is that this could get the Ivy League to allow grad student athletes. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but at least this is a possible impetus for them finally changing it.

The only Ivy sport that benefits from this rule change is basketball. Now we would be less likely to see players like Fiegen graduate early since they'd still have a fifth year at the end regardless. But this comes at the expense of nuking the competitiveness of every other sport - hockey, lacrosse, wrestling, etc.

I mean... in hockey, aren't grad transfers still very much a thing anyway? (Involving having missed a large chunk of at least one season, but still.) And the guys who are doing those grad transfers aren't the elite ones anyway. Of course this is different in sports with lower professional prospects (such as lax), where a lot more students will want to pursue that fifth year.

I definitely see your point on a lot of this though, that an increased ability to grad transfer can definitely lead to "stacked" grad teams, but at the same time I feel like if everyone is competing for grad students, then it'll even out.

Even out except for 6 or 8 teams that won't let them play. I hope this policy will change.

[BearLover]

Five year clock, starting from 19 or high school graduation, whichever is earlier. That's the proposal.

For Cornell hockey, that shouldn't be too painful - most of our guys come in at 20, don't they? So four years from there.

I am almost certain that the majority of hockey players in that good-but-not-great tier would simply repeat a year of high school so as to not be caught in the eligibility web.

While I think this is a good idea in principle - because some of the football, basketball, etc cases have been wild - I think the implementation of it as it stands is gonna lead to many athletes taking extra years in high school specifically to preserve eligibility. Which is dumb and not what should be enforced. If you want to do a flat five years of eligibility, cool. Tie it directly to age then and keep your limited maternity/military exemptions. Cause under this system, a guy who graduates high school at 15 and pursues, say, hockey as a full-time junior athlete gets screwed over when he wants to apply for college eligibility as an 18-year-old. ("No hockey player would graduate high school at 15" may I introduce you to Zayne Parekh?)

Flat five years without age restrictions would be an extinction-level event for Ivy national competitiveness. Sports are zero-sum, so even if it doesn't impact our own players directly, if all our opponents are able to get five years out of their best players or bring in the best fifth-year grad student transfers, they'll have a massive edge over the Ivies.

With age restrictions, it is a little better for the Ivies but still very bad. As you rightly pointed out, kids can now just repeat a year in high school and get five years even if they start college at age 19. If kids couldn't do that, then hockey would be okay, since only the true freshmen coming straight from high school would get 5 years. Those kids are usually the very best recruits who wouldn't want to stay 5 years anyway.

In other sports like lacrosse, this would be a complete disaster for the Ivies. Maryland, Duke, Johns Hopkins et al would be stacked with the most elite fifth years, and we'd be severely disadvantaged. The silver lining to me is that this could get the Ivy League to allow grad student athletes. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but at least this is a possible impetus for them finally changing it.

The only Ivy sport that benefits from this rule change is basketball. Now we would be less likely to see players like Fiegen graduate early since they'd still have a fifth year at the end regardless. But this comes at the expense of nuking the competitiveness of every other sport - hockey, lacrosse, wrestling, etc.

Sounds like the NCAA is going to try to ram through the 5-years-to-play-5-seasons rule soon. Now would be a good time to contact the Ivy League directors and implore them to finally let grad students compete. I will do so myself, and I ask that others join me. I suggest emphasizing that letting grad students play is in line with the Ivies' priority on education. There are many great students who want to further their education in the Ivy League and cannot due to the ban on grad student eligibility. And, of course, the ban puts the Ivies at a further disadvantage compared to other schools which will now all have fifth year players.

Ivy League leadership directory: https://ivyleague.com/staff-directory

[Weder]

Sounds like the NCAA is going to try to ram through the 5-years-to-play-5-seasons rule soon. Now would be a good time to contact the Ivy League directors and implore them to finally let grad students compete. I will do so myself, and I ask that others join me. I suggest emphasizing that letting grad students play is in line with the Ivies' priority on education. There are many great students who want to further their education in the Ivy League and cannot due to the ban on grad student eligibility. And, of course, the ban puts the Ivies at a further disadvantage compared to other schools which will now all have fifth year players.

Ivy League leadership directory: https://ivyleague.com/staff-directory

Aren't the Ivy presidents the people you really need to lobby for this kind of change?

[BearLover]

Sounds like the NCAA is going to try to ram through the 5-years-to-play-5-seasons rule soon. Now would be a good time to contact the Ivy League directors and implore them to finally let grad students compete. I will do so myself, and I ask that others join me. I suggest emphasizing that letting grad students play is in line with the Ivies' priority on education. There are many great students who want to further their education in the Ivy League and cannot due to the ban on grad student eligibility. And, of course, the ban puts the Ivies at a further disadvantage compared to other schools which will now all have fifth year players.

Ivy League leadership directory: https://ivyleague.com/staff-directory

Aren't the Ivy presidents the people you really need to lobby for this kind of change?

I'm honestly not sure. I saw this quote and assumed the ED had some say.
Ivy League executive director Robin Harris said that the Ancient Eight was "comfortable with the league's current position and ... not interested in expanding further eligibility to graduate students."
source: https://www.columbiaspectator.com/sports/2022/02/14/karpen-the-ivy-leagues-graduate-student-athlete-policy-is-causing-it-to-fall-behind/

However, I just found this article: https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/28673063/is-ivy-league-transfer-policy-helping-players-hurting-them
It says: Coaches like Martin and Donahue have an uphill battle in getting the rule examined, however. First, the change needs to be proposed by a coach or administrator and put into the legislation system. The coaches in the league then vote, with a majority (at least five votes) needed to advance to the next step. It then goes on to a vote among athletic directors before moving to the Policy Committee, a group that includes school vice presidents and deans, faculty and athletic administrators. The final step would be a vote among school presidents, and both the Policy Committee and presidents need to approve the change by a supermajority (six votes).

So I guess you're right, and I don't even know how to get started lobbying for this. I'm still confused why Harris is even speaking publicly about these rules if she doesn't have a say. She is also quoted in the immediately above article (warning: this quote is extremely stupid):
"What's the problem with it?" she said. "We're still continuing to thrive as a league. ... I think we have to have an issue to fix. [I assume this is supposed to say "DON'T think."]
"It's a philosophical approach that we do what's right for college athletics and what's right for student-athletes, as well," Harris added. "We have other rules that maybe put us at a disadvantage competitively, and yet we continue to have about 100 ranked teams a year, continue to do well in NCAA tournaments, win national championships. ... We haven't really talked about it, because it's one of the philosophical underpinnings of the league.
"It's a testament to what our coaches are doing," Harris countered. "[The players] are able to transfer and play at some of the bluebloods. ... I really think that it showcases the student-athletes."

Overall, the above makes it sound hopeless that it'll ever get changed. Should be a disaster for lacrosse, at minimum.