Welcome Guest! Create an Account login email: password: remember me: BASKETBALLFOOTBALLMESSAGE BOARDCHATLINKS site searchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp Message Board BobcatAttack.com Message Board Ohio Basketball Topic:  New Division 1 Eligibility Rules Topic:  New Division 1 Eligibility Rules Author Message giacomo General User Member Since: 11/20/2007 Post Count: 2,771 Status: Offline     New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/24/2026 8:10:42 AM  https://pge.post-gazette.com/.pf/showstory/202606240009/3... Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 4,696 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/24/2026 9:44:53 AM  Weird, I was told that the NCAA was no longer able to govern or create policy. Glad to see them finally trying to do their job. Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 15,789 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/24/2026 9:56:44 AM  I think that this is a key section: "The five-in-five language also is included in Senate legislation intended to address numerous concerns across college sports and comes after a wave of lawsuits from athletes seeking to extend their college careers and ability to earn money through revenue sharing and name, image and likeness deals. Still to be seen is whether the new rules will withstand legal scrutiny alongside the existing challenge." Despite voices to the contrary here, I think Congress will act on this matter. The holdup, as I understand it, is the Big10+ and the SEC who like the current situation. Almost everyone else doesn't. The rest of the world has to out lobby them. The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 4,696 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/24/2026 10:09:22 AM  OhioCatFan wrote: I think that this is a key section: "The five-in-five language also is included in Senate legislation intended to address numerous concerns across college sports and comes after a wave of lawsuits from athletes seeking to extend their college careers and ability to earn money through revenue sharing and name, image and likeness deals. Still to be seen is whether the new rules will withstand legal scrutiny alongside the existing challenge." Despite voices to the contrary here, I think Congress will act on this matter. The holdup, as I understand it, is the Big10+ and the SEC who like the current situation. Almost everyone else doesn't. The rest of the world has to out lobby them. Agreed. And this, too: Quote: Sam Ehrlich, a Boise State assistant professor of legal studies in business and management who tracks litigation against the NCAA, said athletes very well could continue to petition courts for extended eligibility based on antitrust arguments, but appellate courts recently have delivered wins for the NCAA by overturning preliminary injunctions in several cases. Good to see the NCAA finally trying to define the vision for what this looks like and creating policy. No doubt there'll be legal challenges, but the incentives are starting to align across parties to get something done. Back to Top FJC31 General User Member Since: 3/31/2022 Post Count: 2,382 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/24/2026 1:22:22 PM  The 5-year rule once a kid enrolls or turns 19 pretty much eliminates the redshirt. No more extensions or medical redshirts. That really changes the recruiting and player development landscape. If a kid turns 19 prior to stepping on campus, he's already eating into his eligibility time. The domino effect also leans out the portal numbers' wise. Which also makes acquiring talent through it more expensive. I'm unsure where that puts us moving forward; as HS recruiting and player development hasn't been a strength. Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 15,789 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/24/2026 4:27:00 PM  FJC31 wrote: The 5-year rule once a kid enrolls or turns 19 pretty much eliminates the redshirt. No more extensions or medical redshirts. That really changes the recruiting and player development landscape. If a kid turns 19 prior to stepping on campus, he's already eating into his eligibility time. The domino effect also leans out the portal numbers' wise. Which also makes acquiring talent through it more expensive. I'm unsure where that puts us moving forward; as HS recruiting and player development hasn't been a strength. Hasn't there been a court ruling that the time at JUCO doesn't count, and that the clock must start when the athlete first enrolls in a four-year college? Seems like there are lots of variables still at play here. Last Edited: 6/25/2026 10:15:56 AM by OhioCatFan The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top FJC31 General User Member Since: 3/31/2022 Post Count: 2,382 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/25/2026 9:59:30 AM  OhioCatFan wrote: FJC31 wrote: The 5-year rule once a kid enrolls or turns 19 pretty much eliminates the redshirt. No more extensions or medical redshirts. That really changes the recruiting and player development landscape. If a kid turns 19 prior to stepping on campus, he's already eating into his eligibility time. The domino effect also leans out the portal numbers' wise. Which also makes acquiring talent through it more expensive. I'm unsure where that puts us moving forward; as HS recruiting and player development hasn't been a strength. Haven't there been a court ruling that the time at JUCO doesn't count, and that the clock must start when the athlete first enrolls in a four-year college? Seems like there are lots of variables still at play here. That changes under the new ruling. It directly impacts JUCO transfers. Regardless of that stop, their NCAA clock begins upon initial full-time college enrollment or at age 19 (whichever is earlier). Time spent at a JUCO counts against NCAA eligibility. If a player enrolls full-time at a JUCO at age 18, that five-year NCAA clock still begins. So, if they spend two years at a junior college, they will have exactly three years left to play their remaining seasons once they transfer. Basically, birthdays are everything now. This is all to combat mid 20s college athletes. Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 15,789 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/25/2026 10:14:50 AM  FJC31 wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: FJC31 wrote: The 5-year rule once a kid enrolls or turns 19 pretty much eliminates the redshirt. No more extensions or medical redshirts. That really changes the recruiting and player development landscape. If a kid turns 19 prior to stepping on campus, he's already eating into his eligibility time. The domino effect also leans out the portal numbers' wise. Which also makes acquiring talent through it more expensive. I'm unsure where that puts us moving forward; as HS recruiting and player development hasn't been a strength. Hasn't there been a court ruling that the time at JUCO doesn't count, and that the clock must start when the athlete first enrolls in a four-year college? Seems like there are lots of variables still at play here. That changes under the new ruling. It directly impacts JUCO transfers. Regardless of that stop, their NCAA clock begins upon initial full-time college enrollment or at age 19 (whichever is earlier). Time spent at a JUCO counts against NCAA eligibility. If a player enrolls full-time at a JUCO at age 18, that five-year NCAA clock still begins. So, if they spend two years at a junior college, they will have exactly three years left to play their remaining seasons once they transfer. Basically, birthdays are everything now. This is all to combat mid 20s college athletes. But, a court ruling, sustained upon appeal will eviscerate this new rule. What I'm saying is that this new rule may or may not have a very long life. This is why Congress needs to act to give the NCAA (and other ruling bodies) some type of limited anti-trust exemption. Last Edited: 6/25/2026 10:15:27 AM by OhioCatFan The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top FJC31 General User Member Since: 3/31/2022 Post Count: 2,382 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/25/2026 3:00:47 PM  OhioCatFan wrote: FJC31 wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: FJC31 wrote: The 5-year rule once a kid enrolls or turns 19 pretty much eliminates the redshirt. No more extensions or medical redshirts. That really changes the recruiting and player development landscape. If a kid turns 19 prior to stepping on campus, he's already eating into his eligibility time. The domino effect also leans out the portal numbers' wise. Which also makes acquiring talent through it more expensive. I'm unsure where that puts us moving forward; as HS recruiting and player development hasn't been a strength. Hasn't there been a court ruling that the time at JUCO doesn't count, and that the clock must start when the athlete first enrolls in a four-year college? Seems like there are lots of variables still at play here. That changes under the new ruling. It directly impacts JUCO transfers. Regardless of that stop, their NCAA clock begins upon initial full-time college enrollment or at age 19 (whichever is earlier). Time spent at a JUCO counts against NCAA eligibility. If a player enrolls full-time at a JUCO at age 18, that five-year NCAA clock still begins. So, if they spend two years at a junior college, they will have exactly three years left to play their remaining seasons once they transfer. Basically, birthdays are everything now. This is all to combat mid 20s college athletes. But, a court ruling, sustained upon appeal will eviscerate this new rule. What I'm saying is that this new rule may or may not have a very long life. This is why Congress needs to act to give the NCAA (and other ruling bodies) some type of limited anti-trust exemption. From my understanding based on what I've read, it sounds like the NCAA is now on firmer legal ground and should continue to win most, perhaps even all, of the eligibility lawsuits under the new rule. Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 10,847 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/25/2026 3:38:07 PM  And OCF, so it begins! I know they get hammered, but it really does appear that they cannot do anything to enforce the memberships wishes. And that is bleeding to HS sports, as the 800+ schools in Ohio voted overwhelmingly to not allow kids to play at other schools if they do not have that sport. Vote was like 70% against. But alas, here comes the State Legislature. https://www.wlwt.com/article/ohio-lawsuit-new-ncaa-rule-h... Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 4,696 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/25/2026 3:46:35 PM  The NCAA is going to keep getting sued. But they still need to create the policy framework for how they think NCAA athletics should operate. Without that, it's basically impossible for Congress to craft an exemption that solves the problem. It's not a coincidence that the latest draft of a bill reflects this 5 in 5 structure. Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 15,789 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/25/2026 9:33:48 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: . . . It's not a coincidence that the latest draft of a bill reflects this 5 in 5 structure. I didn’t know that, but that’s good news. The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 15,789 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/25/2026 9:40:06 PM  BillyTheCat wrote: And OCF, so it begins! I know they get hammered, but it really does appear that they cannot do anything to enforce the memberships wishes. And that is bleeding to HS sports, as the 800+ schools in Ohio voted overwhelmingly to not allow kids to play at other schools if they do not have that sport. Vote was like 70% against. But alas, here comes the State Legislature. https://www.wlwt.com/article/ohio-lawsuit-new-ncaa-rule-h... Unfortunately, not at all surprising. That’s why the information that BLSS supplied about the latest wording of the SCORE act is so important. The courts will defer to Congress on this matter, unless there’s a constitutional issue involved, and I don’t think there is any constitutional right to play college sports. The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 10,847 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/25/2026 9:46:54 PM  OhioCatFan wrote: FJC31 wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: FJC31 wrote: The 5-year rule once a kid enrolls or turns 19 pretty much eliminates the redshirt. No more extensions or medical redshirts. That really changes the recruiting and player development landscape. If a kid turns 19 prior to stepping on campus, he's already eating into his eligibility time. The domino effect also leans out the portal numbers' wise. Which also makes acquiring talent through it more expensive. I'm unsure where that puts us moving forward; as HS recruiting and player development hasn't been a strength. Hasn't there been a court ruling that the time at JUCO doesn't count, and that the clock must start when the athlete first enrolls in a four-year college? Seems like there are lots of variables still at play here. That changes under the new ruling. It directly impacts JUCO transfers. Regardless of that stop, their NCAA clock begins upon initial full-time college enrollment or at age 19 (whichever is earlier). Time spent at a JUCO counts against NCAA eligibility. If a player enrolls full-time at a JUCO at age 18, that five-year NCAA clock still begins. So, if they spend two years at a junior college, they will have exactly three years left to play their remaining seasons once they transfer. Basically, birthdays are everything now. This is all to combat mid 20s college athletes. But, a court ruling, sustained upon appeal will eviscerate this new rule. What I'm saying is that this new rule may or may not have a very long life. This is why Congress needs to act to give the NCAA (and other ruling bodies) some type of limited anti-trust exemption. Agree 110%. The NCAA Tournament adding a “new” rule does not circumvent the courts. Especially when this ruling g actually hurts JUCO players by limiting their eligibility Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 10,847 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/25/2026 9:48:11 PM  FJC31 wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: FJC31 wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: FJC31 wrote: The 5-year rule once a kid enrolls or turns 19 pretty much eliminates the redshirt. No more extensions or medical redshirts. That really changes the recruiting and player development landscape. If a kid turns 19 prior to stepping on campus, he's already eating into his eligibility time. The domino effect also leans out the portal numbers' wise. Which also makes acquiring talent through it more expensive. I'm unsure where that puts us moving forward; as HS recruiting and player development hasn't been a strength. Hasn't there been a court ruling that the time at JUCO doesn't count, and that the clock must start when the athlete first enrolls in a four-year college? Seems like there are lots of variables still at play here. That changes under the new ruling. It directly impacts JUCO transfers. Regardless of that stop, their NCAA clock begins upon initial full-time college enrollment or at age 19 (whichever is earlier). Time spent at a JUCO counts against NCAA eligibility. If a player enrolls full-time at a JUCO at age 18, that five-year NCAA clock still begins. So, if they spend two years at a junior college, they will have exactly three years left to play their remaining seasons once they transfer. Basically, birthdays are everything now. This is all to combat mid 20s college athletes. But, a court ruling, sustained upon appeal will eviscerate this new rule. What I'm saying is that this new rule may or may not have a very long life. This is why Congress needs to act to give the NCAA (and other ruling bodies) some type of limited anti-trust exemption. From my understanding based on what I've read, it sounds like the NCAA is now on firmer legal ground and should continue to win most, perhaps even all, of the eligibility lawsuits under the new rule. In NO WAY am I disagreeing, but I’d love to see the articles that you have read. Back to Top FJC31 General User Member Since: 3/31/2022 Post Count: 2,382 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/25/2026 11:19:27 PM  BillyTheCat wrote: FJC31 wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: FJC31 wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: FJC31 wrote: The 5-year rule once a kid enrolls or turns 19 pretty much eliminates the redshirt. No more extensions or medical redshirts. That really changes the recruiting and player development landscape. If a kid turns 19 prior to stepping on campus, he's already eating into his eligibility time. The domino effect also leans out the portal numbers' wise. Which also makes acquiring talent through it more expensive. I'm unsure where that puts us moving forward; as HS recruiting and player development hasn't been a strength. Hasn't there been a court ruling that the time at JUCO doesn't count, and that the clock must start when the athlete first enrolls in a four-year college? Seems like there are lots of variables still at play here. That changes under the new ruling. It directly impacts JUCO transfers. Regardless of that stop, their NCAA clock begins upon initial full-time college enrollment or at age 19 (whichever is earlier). Time spent at a JUCO counts against NCAA eligibility. If a player enrolls full-time at a JUCO at age 18, that five-year NCAA clock still begins. So, if they spend two years at a junior college, they will have exactly three years left to play their remaining seasons once they transfer. Basically, birthdays are everything now. This is all to combat mid 20s college athletes. But, a court ruling, sustained upon appeal will eviscerate this new rule. What I'm saying is that this new rule may or may not have a very long life. This is why Congress needs to act to give the NCAA (and other ruling bodies) some type of limited anti-trust exemption. From my understanding based on what I've read, it sounds like the NCAA is now on firmer legal ground and should continue to win most, perhaps even all, of the eligibility lawsuits under the new rule. In NO WAY am I disagreeing, but I’d love to see the articles that you have read. Sure, here ya go. https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2026/ncaa-new-eligi... / https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-five... / https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/ncaas-... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/ncaa-panel-approves-n... Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 4,696 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/26/2026 8:42:53 AM  The broader SCORES Act is pretty interesting. I read it last night, and didn't realize how far reaching it is. I also didn't realize how much of it is about reigning in the SEC and Big 10 -- no wonder they're opposed. Here's a breakdown: -- Codifies the House settlement and revenue share up to 22% of revenue -- Creates a federal law that precedes various state rulings -- Grants a limited anti-trust exemption -- Creates standards, registration requirements, and commission caps for agents -- Mandates medical coverage and health insurance for athletes that extends beyond eligibility -- Implements the 5 in 5 eligibility rule -- Requires any school paying any coach over $250k to sponsor at least 16 varsity sports -- Requires comparable standards for medical care, lodging, meals, rest, transportation, and facilities at championship events across similarly situated men’s and women’s athletic programs. Notably, not revenue share. -- Creates an additional anti-trust exemption as it relates to media rights negotiation so schools can sell media rights as a single entity (like pro leagues) -- Forbids conference mergers between any two conferences exceeding $1b in revenue (i.e. the SEC and Big 10) Most of the coverage has been about codifying House and the eligibility standards, but interesting how much it tries to tackle. Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 15,789 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/26/2026 11:25:17 AM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: The broader SCORES Act is pretty interesting. I read it last night, and didn't realize how far reaching it is. I also didn't realize how much of it is about reigning in the SEC and Big 10 -- no wonder they're opposed. Here's a breakdown: -- Codifies the House settlement and revenue share up to 22% of revenue -- Creates a federal law that precedes various state rulings -- Grants a limited anti-trust exemption -- Creates standards, registration requirements, and commission caps for agents -- Mandates medical coverage and health insurance for athletes that extends beyond eligibility -- Implements the 5 in 5 eligibility rule -- Requires any school paying any coach over $250k to sponsor at least 16 varsity sports -- Requires comparable standards for medical care, lodging, meals, rest, transportation, and facilities at championship events across similarly situated men’s and women’s athletic programs. Notably, not revenue share. -- Creates an additional anti-trust exemption as it relates to media rights negotiation so schools can sell media rights as a single entity (like pro leagues) -- Forbids conference mergers between any two conferences exceeding $1b in revenue (i.e. the SEC and Big 10) Most of the coverage has been about codifying House and the eligibility standards, but interesting how much it tries to tackle. Thanks for the summary. This is very enlightening. This should pass eventually as there are more of us (non-B1G/SEC schools) than of them! ;-) The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top OUbobcat9092 General User Member Since: 12/28/2004 Location: Fairfax, VA Post Count: 1,281 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/26/2026 12:09:47 PM  Wouldn't this rule give Hadaway and Sheldon another year? Bring Back Men's Track & Field Back to Top GoCats105 General User Member Since: 1/31/2006 Location: Seattle, WA Post Count: 7,837 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/26/2026 12:17:06 PM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: -- Requires any school paying any coach over $250k to sponsor at least 16 varsity sports. This point here is really interesting. What are they trying to mitigate here? Schools that make the jump from FCS to FBS already need the 16 sport requirement anyway and are most likely paying a coach more than that. Are they trying to entice basketball-only schools to play more sports? Back to Top Mike Coleman Administrator Member Since: 12/21/2004 Location: Near the Pristine Sandy Shores of Lake Erie, OH Post Count: 2,007 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/26/2026 1:20:18 PM  BillyTheCat wrote: And OCF, so it begins! I know they get hammered, but it really does appear that they cannot do anything to enforce the memberships wishes. And that is bleeding to HS sports, as the 800+ schools in Ohio voted overwhelmingly to not allow kids to play at other schools if they do not have that sport. Vote was like 70% against. But alas, here comes the State Legislature. https://www.wlwt.com/article/ohio-lawsuit-new-ncaa-rule-h... "My school doesn't have lacrosse, so I want to play at School A that has lacrosse. Oh, and they also have the top football program in the area, so I guess I'll have to play that there, too. Oh, and I've never actually played lacrosse before." Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 4,696 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/26/2026 1:34:02 PM  GoCats105 wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: -- Requires any school paying any coach over $250k to sponsor at least 16 varsity sports. This point here is really interesting. What are they trying to mitigate here? Schools that make the jump from FCS to FBS already need the 16 sport requirement anyway and are most likely paying a coach more than that. Are they trying to entice basketball-only schools to play more sports? I think they're trying to protect non-revenue/Olympic sports and keep schools from dropping those to invest more in basketball and football. Back to Top bobcatsquared General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Post Count: 5,861 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/26/2026 2:53:54 PM  OUbobcat9092 wrote: Wouldn't this rule give Hadaway and Sheldon another year? Shhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 10,847 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/27/2026 3:16:33 PM  FJC31 wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: FJC31 wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: FJC31 wrote: OhioCatFan wrote: FJC31 wrote: The 5-year rule once a kid enrolls or turns 19 pretty much eliminates the redshirt. No more extensions or medical redshirts. That really changes the recruiting and player development landscape. If a kid turns 19 prior to stepping on campus, he's already eating into his eligibility time. The domino effect also leans out the portal numbers' wise. Which also makes acquiring talent through it more expensive. I'm unsure where that puts us moving forward; as HS recruiting and player development hasn't been a strength. Hasn't there been a court ruling that the time at JUCO doesn't count, and that the clock must start when the athlete first enrolls in a four-year college? Seems like there are lots of variables still at play here. That changes under the new ruling. It directly impacts JUCO transfers. Regardless of that stop, their NCAA clock begins upon initial full-time college enrollment or at age 19 (whichever is earlier). Time spent at a JUCO counts against NCAA eligibility. If a player enrolls full-time at a JUCO at age 18, that five-year NCAA clock still begins. So, if they spend two years at a junior college, they will have exactly three years left to play their remaining seasons once they transfer. Basically, birthdays are everything now. This is all to combat mid 20s college athletes. But, a court ruling, sustained upon appeal will eviscerate this new rule. What I'm saying is that this new rule may or may not have a very long life. This is why Congress needs to act to give the NCAA (and other ruling bodies) some type of limited anti-trust exemption. From my understanding based on what I've read, it sounds like the NCAA is now on firmer legal ground and should continue to win most, perhaps even all, of the eligibility lawsuits under the new rule. In NO WAY am I disagreeing, but I’d love to see the articles that you have read. Sure, here ya go. https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2026/ncaa-new-eligi... / https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-five... / https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/ncaas-... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/ncaa-panel-approves-n... Thanks, I’ll read them when I get a chance. Back to Top BillyTheCat General User Member Since: 10/6/2012 Post Count: 10,847 Status: Offline     RE: New Division 1 Eligibility Rules    Posted: 6/27/2026 3:20:11 PM  Mike Coleman wrote: BillyTheCat wrote: And OCF, so it begins! I know they get hammered, but it really does appear that they cannot do anything to enforce the memberships wishes. And that is bleeding to HS sports, as the 800+ schools in Ohio voted overwhelmingly to not allow kids to play at other schools if they do not have that sport. Vote was like 70% against. But alas, here comes the State Legislature. https://www.wlwt.com/article/ohio-lawsuit-new-ncaa-rule-h... "My school doesn't have lacrosse, so I want to play at School A that has lacrosse. Oh, and they also have the top football program in the area, so I guess I'll have to play that there, too. Oh, and I've never actually played lacrosse before." EXACTLY!!!!!! Mike you nail this 110% and this is exactly why schools have voted against this overwhelmingly. But legislators cannot let independent organizations rule independently. Back to Top Showing Replies:   1 - 25  of 26 Posts Jump to Page:   1 | 2    Next > View Other 'Ohio Basketball' Topics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               WHO'S ONLINE There are 257 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com 257 Guests 0 Registered Users There are no other users looking at this page.

Copyright ©2026 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties