Changes to College Athlete Eligibility Spark Mixed Reactions

Proposed changes to eligibility rules for college athletes are piquing interest among coaches at UCLA and USC, but there’s a clear consensus on one crucial aspect: they need clarity.

“I spoke with 15 head coaches this week,” shared UCLA men’s basketball coach Mick Cronin with California Post. “We’re all on the same page. We just want to know what the rules are so we can focus on our jobs.”

The new 5-in-5 rule under consideration suggests that college athletes would have five years of eligibility starting either when they graduate high school or on their 19th birthday. This would significantly diverge from current regulations, which give athletes five years to participate in four seasons, with added options for waivers and redshirt seasons.

Age-dependent rules would largely eliminate redshirt options and exceptions, except for a few cases like military service, maternity leave, or religious commitments. It raises concerns about what would happen if these rules rolled out immediately—especially for athletes whose eligibility has already lapsed.

Reportedly, NCAA President Charlie Baker indicated that the governing body recommends against grandfathering players whose eligibility has just expired, likely as a way to avoid potential issues.

Many college basketball coaches are already finalizing rosters and budgeting for the upcoming season. If seniors who recently stepped away could return, it creates a logistical nightmare. Where would the funding come from to accommodate these players? And what about those who didn’t enter the transfer portal before the impending changes?

College football coaches are expressing similar anxieties. Questions linger about whether seniors who declared for the NFL Draft can return and how scholarship limitations will be navigated—all while considering the feelings of players who might lose their starting spots.

“Are players who got drafted but didn’t get selected able to come back and reclaim their spots?” pondered UCLA football coach Bob Chesney, emphasizing the need for answers.

Chesney mentioned that establishing age-based rules seems more complex now, especially since rosters are already taking shape, which complicates future planning.

“I think there’s a lot to sort through,” he noted. “And honestly? There are too many variables to make it clear-cut.”

This proposal, if approved, could mark the most significant restructuring of eligibility rules since 1972 when freshmen were first allowed to compete. The NCAA’s Division I Cabinet is set to vote on this in May, with potential implementation as early as next month.

From the NCAA’s perspective, it makes sense to curb regulations that have led to a slew of eligibility-related lawsuits in recent years. Yet, the decision not to allow players to remain eligible post-graduation could ignite new legal challenges.

Existing eligibility rules create scenarios where fresh 18-year-old faces seasoned players in their mid-20s. For instance, Penn State’s Siare Taupaki spent seven seasons at UCLA, effectively navigating his way through redshirt seasons and COVID-related exemptions, before transferring.

Many local coaches see potential benefits in the proposed rules, believing they’d level the playing field. USC baseball coach Andy Stankiewicz stated, “The clock starts once you graduate from high school, giving you five years to play.”

UCLA baseball coach John Savage, however, feels the impact would be less pronounced in his sport. “Most top-tier players don’t linger; they usually get drafted after three years,” he explained. “But I do appreciate the window it creates. It brings fairness and clears up confusing medical excuses.”

Transitioning to this new setup isn’t without its complications. Most personal records are likely to be shattered by athletes with five seasons instead of four, and freshmen might feel the pressure to jump right in rather than take a redshirt year.

Chaos could ensue if, for example, the NCAA or courts allowed a senior to reclaim a season they thought was lost. For Cronin’s team, theoretically, it could mean seniors who recently departed might get another shot. Yet, do those players even want to return, and is the coaching staff on board?

Clark has already entered the transfer portal, hinting at a desire to play elsewhere. Dent’s return could complicate the plans for Trent Perry, who was anticipating the primary point guard role. The situation of bringing back Bilodeau, who led the team in scoring, hinges on whether the Bruins have the financial means to do so.

Ultimately, a clearer picture is needed, and sooner rather than later would really help.