The NCAA seems determined to get itself slapped around in court some more with its new eligibility rule. Or is it possible that this is not an individual case looking for a home court cooking judge, the NCAA may be passing some real changes in eligibility rules?

Can the NCAA Really Tackle Eligibility Rules?

Later this week, the NCAA is going to consider a new age-based eligibility rule that would potentially settle individual filings for the immediate future.

Attacking the Bigger Picture

All NCAA athletes will be given five years to complete their eligibility. That five-year clock starts from their 19th birthday, or their high school graduation date, whichever comes first. There would no longer be redshirts, and waivers would be eliminated. There would be some exceptions made. Religious missions away from school would stop the clock. So would maternity leave for female athletes. Military service at any point after high school and during the assumed college years would also be an exception. But as modern culture likes to say. That is it. Full period. Stop.

The proposal under consideration this week is an effort to get rid of players applying for sixth, seventh, and even eighth years of eligibility. There have been a handful of notable cases in the last 12 months, in which a player seeks an additional redshirt year, often years after the year in question had long passed. The NCAA is currently fending off a dozen lawsuits from athletes looking for an additional year of eligibility.

Perception is Not Reality

Because of some of the legal losses being high-profile (Trinidad Chambliss, among others), there is a perception that the NCAA is routinely getting a beatdown in court. In fact, out of 74 cases filed by athletes against the NCAA, only 12 rulings for injunctions have gone in favor of the athletes. Fourteen athletes have voluntarily dropped their cases. Thirty-four have lost their cases. Fourteen cases are still pending. The numbers heavily favor the NCAA, despite the more public cases.

New Rules Getting Rid of Old Standards

The NCAA would like to get rid of the individual cases altogether. The biggest change in the new rule would be the eligibility clock starting at high school graduation or the athlete’s 19th birthday. The elimination of extra years via medical redshirts (or lack of playing time) would be a dramatic change. Right now, if a college football player plays in nine or fewer games, the season does not count against their eligibility. That number was increased from four games to nine by the American Football Coaches Association in January of this year. Under the new rule, how many games a player competes in for a season is inconsequential to their eligibility.

What’s Next?

A timeline for approval is not formalized in any way. But there is a desire by some on the committee to get the approval done in time to begin phasing in implementation before this Fall. And that is where legal complexities come into play. How would an immediate rule change impact players already on extended time in college football? What if a college football player has been following the legal guidance to this point? Are they not automatically grandfathered in for the new rules? Does the new eligibility rule start with players already in the system? Or with players entering the system this Fall? That would leave two sets of rules in place at one time, depending on when you came into the system.

And how would this impact past junior college players? Athletes like Diego Pavia have been at the forefront of challenging the NCAA’s jurisdiction over players who started in junior college. The NCAA does not govern JUCO athletics, so where does that eligibility clock begin and end for those players?

While the NCAA is certainly trying to cut down on the enormous amount of time spent with attorneys, it is specifically the legal counsel for the organization that will be front and center this week for the meetings.

Main Image: Michelle Pemberton/IndyStar / USA TODAY NETWORK