Should players get a 5th year of eligibility? | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Should players get a 5th year of eligibility?

Status
Not open for further replies.
4 years isn’t arbitrary it’s the normal amount of time if should take a student to graduate. Would rather grant a second red shirt year than auto five.

If collectives are willing to pay a guy to sit out 2/6 years then good enjoy the NIt.
 
Only 49% of students graduate within 4 years. 20 years ago, only about 38% did. This is so common that schools rate themselves on 6 year graduation rates, not 4.


www.nbcnews.com

Most college students don’t graduate in 4 years, so the government counts 6 years as ‘success’

As the White House proposes spending billions to improve completion rates, colleges measure successful graduation rates at six and even eight years.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

Graduation rate from first institution attended for first-time, full-time bachelor's degree-seeking students at 4-year postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, time to completion, sex, control of institution, and percentage of app

The primary purpose of the Digest of Education Statistics is to provide a compilation of statistical information covering the broad field of American education from prekindergarten through graduate school. The Digest includes a selection of data from many sources, both government and private...
nces.ed.gov nces.ed.gov

I'm fine with 5 years of playing if it is applied to everyone, no more redshirts / Juco loopholes, but spare me with the you should graduate college in 4 years BS.
 
freescooter said:
Oh please stop. Basketball players get too many special privileges to list. It isn’t and never has been comparable to what normal students, most of whom, you know, pay for their education, get. And nobody recruits writers for the daily campus. I doubt they get NIL or revenue sharing. Accept that basketball players aren’t normal students.
Expand ...
Why does special privileges mean they should have to give up on playing college basketball despite still attending school? What parts of that changes why they should have defined eligibility instead of just throughout their college career?
 
auror said:
Why does special privileges mean they should have to give up on playing college basketball despite still attending school? What parts of that changes why they should have defined eligibility instead of just throughout their college career?
Expand ...
So they can play in college for 20 years Because you can be a student as long as you want if you can afford it, and that’s not an issue if the school is paying you.
 
Allowing someone to play five years because they didn’t graduate in 4 discriminates against a student who graduated in 4 years . They’re being rewarded for being a less than stellar student .
 
.-.
auror said:
Grad students can write for the Daily Campus for the entire time they're on campus. Why shouldn't basketball players?
Expand ...
Aren't basketball players allowed to write for the daily campus?
 
I like it because it would likely benefit UConn. The teams at the top of the sport would benefit the most. We did very well with players getting their 5th covid year. I don't see a downside. I also hate seeing guys at the end of the bench losing a redshirt because they played garbage time minutes.
 
Last edited:
College is structured to mirror High School - Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior.

5th year is valid for red shirt reasons and now for 1st year as JUCO (read as non-NCAA schools).

Appalling to watch athletes want to play 5, 6 years just because they want to and want to sue for this right. But it's not a right. Else everyone would get to play college sports. It's an honor and privilege to play for your College/University. But then you need to grow up - face realities like the need to work and support your family.

If you are not capable of making money in sports professionally - maybe it's time to realize that your degree better be in a field you want to work in.
 
A fifth year is a great idea.
  • Allows more kids to earn more money via NIL instead of a race to the league.
  • Increases the level of play in college.
  • Increases the chance that players who make the jump to the pros are more ready.
  • Allows kids to have a little more academic flexibility.
I think it would also help small and mid-major schools. If you get a high-performing freshman in the door now, they're almost always gone after one season. But if that kid has five years to use he's more likely to stick around for Year 2 and really grow as the focal point of the team before entering the portal in search of a bigger platform.

It's just such an obvious win – a way for college athletics to gain relevance after decades of slowly losing relevance – and not just in hoops. Look at what the baseball team's done over the past few years with super-seniors, or how important 5th and 6th-year QBs have become to programs like ours.

I've yet to see a single compelling argument against it, and no, "it's always been that way" is not compelling.
 
.-.
freescooter said:
Lpl

This must have been a terrible case if the NCAA won!
Expand ...
Based on my reading of the denial, someone challenging this now that revenue sharing is a thing may have had a different result (or a better chance at least).
 
MuchoDogYears said:
They ALWAYS should’ve had five years of eligibility.

Asking a player who has to devote so much time to a sport, to also take on a full course load, and complete it in four years, is why so many athletes never graduate.

Give them five years so at least have a chance to fit in both sports and academia and have a legitimate chance to get a diploma.

It’s a win-win I have no problem with it.
Expand ...
They can study, stay, eat and workout for free during the summer sessions with minimal school class "interruptions". 4's ample.
 
Ewekon said:
They can study, stay, eat and workout for free during the summer sessions with minimal school class "interruptions". 4's ample.
Expand ...
Just curious to get your take on this.

What would you consider the benefit to the fans, the players, the universities, and the coaches in limiting eligibility to four years instead of five?

I’m not seeing the upside for any of those four groups, so interested in hearing from you and others sitting on that side of the fence why the majority here on the BY support four year eligibility rather than five.
 
The issue is the players - for all those who got 4 years and were not paid a dime - getting a 5th year in the era of NIL and college payments is insulting.
 
ec33 said:
Once they opened the door with Diego Pavia this was only a matter of time. I wonder if 5 years is the stopping point. If you can get one year toward your masters, why punish folks in different masters programs?

Only a matter of time before players will be getting doctorates in basket weaving.
Expand ...
Will they need to actual attend those classes? Asking for UNC.
 
.-.
Lafayette said:
The issue is the players - for all those who got 4 years and were not paid a dime - getting a 5th year in the era of NIL and college payments is insulting.
Expand ...
Where do you draw the line? Should women not get the right to vote because women in the 1800s couldn't? What about UConn football players who now get to play D1 football when in the 90s they couldn't, is that fair? Or Solo Ball and Jaylin Stewart getting to play in the Big East for 3 years when Christian Vital had to play in the AAC for his 4 years.
 
navery12 said:
Where do you draw the line? Should women not get the right to vote because women in the 1800s couldn't? What about UConn football players who now get to play D1 football when in the 90s they couldn't, is that fair? Or Solo Ball and Jaylin Stewart getting to play in the Big East for 3 years when Christian Vital had to play in the AAC for his 4 years.
Expand ...
The line has been drawn - we had parity with Title IX and IMHO right up to COVID things were all good. COVID then had a wash year, so an exception was warranted and is now over. We are back to 4 years of play in 5 years of "college".

5 playing years is a systemic change to a problem that does not exist. This is not on any parity with voting rights whereby women were denied what men had. 5 years argument is like "I want 5 years because I want it.".
 
MuchoDogYears said:
Just curious to get your take on this.

What would you consider the benefit to the fans, the players, the universities, and the coaches in limiting eligibility to four years instead of five?

I’m not seeing the upside for any of those four groups, so interested in hearing from you and others sitting on that side of the fence why the majority here on the BY support four year eligibility rather than five.
Expand ...
It benefits the players who want a scholarship out of HS that the older guys have to move on. Do you want a bunch of 30 year old guys who aren't good enough to go pro dominating college basketball? Because that's what you'd get. I am very glad the Covid year is finally gone. It benefits the fans who want to feel like these are college kids, not aging semi-pro players. It benefits the schools who likewise want these to be students who represent the university, each freshman class has guys they identify with who were freshmen with them.
 
.-.
Since he gave arguments originally, revenue sharing has become a thing. A big part of the original denial was that the NIL was separate from the schools/basketball, so they could still technically pay him if they wanted even after he graduated. Revenue sharing is controlled directly by the schools, so it will be more interesting on appeal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,160
Messages
4,555,249
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom