Is it too early to discuss how the NCAA’s proposed five-year eligibility rule will impact college water polo? The water polo lobbyists should argue for roster size caps to be increased/scrapped due to current players staying on longer if implemented.
1 Like
Yeah seems too early, I think a lot of hurdles still on this .
I think it’s a good thing and hope it’s implemented - the current system of having 25yr old seniors with 3 years of National team deferments intermixed within their 4 years of college playing only exists to benefit about 4 schools. How is a rule fair if only a handful of schools can take advantage of it?
5 years is fine too, many schools are impacted and kids struggle to graduate in 4 years, if the norm is now 5 years to graduate, then let’s adapt to the times.
There is enough natural attrition in college that the pipeline of HS kids to college won’t be noticeable adding a 5th collegiate year.
3 Likes
The norm is not 5 years to graduate. It’s very easy to graduate in 4. It’s normal for kids to enter college with a semester of credits already taken care of from AP classes. Playing 5 years is a terrible idea. We saw what the Covid year did to disrupt recruiting and roster spots. 4 years of playing in 5 years to accommodate a redshirt is perfectly fine. If you allow 5 years then kids will graduate in 4 and then transfer to to the big 4 and stack the odds even further in their favor
4 Likes
I like the age limits very much. The 5 year only seems reasonable for sports where players are suing to play because of the dollars involved. In water polo it will increase the logjam for HS graduates.
2 Likes
It also doesn’t help with parity at all. The ivys and military academies don’t allow 5 years. I’m a Fordham alum and it would help us - but it’s still not good overall
True but we have long past the point of having rules for competitive equity. The almighty dollar rules college sports now and the gap between the haves and have-nots will continue to grow. I’m not sure an extra year of eligibility will make much difference for an Ivy or Military academy.
1 Like
Exactly, and that was before the roster size cap. If implemented, they would have to increase roster sizes. If not, 5 classes would have to fit into a team of 24.
Also on the table is bringing back the one time transfer rule; one transfer without penalty but a second transfer would require s-a to sit a year/lose one year of eligibility. Not sure this happens much in water polo though.
1 Like
The NCAA is proposing the 5 for 5 eligibility model to simplify rules with a clear age-based standard in order to reduce costly legal challenges. Great; 5 years to play 4 starting on your 19th birthday/when you graduate. Done, no exceptions. No need to add a 5th year. Keep the redshirt year- this would be an incentive for coaches to bring in HS student-athletes (not transfers) and give them a year to develop players/acclimate them to their system. Furthermore, stop counting red shirts against roster limits.
4 Likes
This ignores attrition; look at Concordia last year - 10 freshmen, one senior.
Incredibly rare for an entire freshman class to stay together for all 4 years.
Plenty of room for the few kids that make it to a 5th year to have space, and if not, they can go somewhere else and get a Masters degree.
I just read an article that about 60 Universities are planning on launching College in 3 programs. That is a degree in 3 years VS the traditional 4. Somehow they are reducing the credits needed not making it more intense. Many kids would rather start a career than play 2 more years of a sport that has no monetary future. Basketball and Football for sure, but water polo, you wont see many 5th years if these 3 year degrees become available at water polo schools.
3 Likes
I don’t think the few 3-year schools are going to make much of a difference (or spread), honestly. Only one accrediting body has reduced the required number of credits from 120 to 90, so for most currently accredited universities, there’s no option here. Plus the 60 schools at issue are generally ones you’ve never heard of, and are more “career focused” (or bible) schools. Add to that the fact that most graduate programs (masters, law schools, PhD programs, etc.) require 120 credits and, while interesting, I don’t think you’re going to see much of an impact here.
1 Like
I’m just curious about what outcome they are looking for? What is the argument for doing this from the NCAA perspective? I’m not seeing a direct correlation line to how this would support their stated mission.
Mission of the NCAA
The NCAA’s mission focuses on providing a world-class athletics and academic experience, cultivating an environment that prepares student-athletes for success on the field, in the classroom, and for life. Key mission pillars include:
-
Student-Athlete Well-being: Prioritizing health, safety, and holistic development.
-
Academic and Athletic Excellence:
Balancing the pursuit of championship performance with educational success.
-
Fair and Inclusive Competition: Ensuring equitable opportunities and enforcing rules across all three divisions.
-
Member Support: Offering resources and leadership to college athletic departments.
I think it’s probably because they are trying to avoid more lawsuits, about eligibility years. Now that there is money to be made as a student athlete, athletes will sue to be able to play more years, their argument being that NCAA is depriving them of good earning years. So they figured, “hey, let’s give them a 5th year and hopefully that will be enough for them to leave college ball”
If I’m reading the proposed eligibility rule correctly, players will lose a year of eligibility if they take a gap year immediately after high school or during an Olympic year.
Period of eligibility concepts
The Cabinet also discussed a concept which — if eventually proposed and adopted — would adjust period of eligibility rules in Division I. In its current form, the concept explores eliminating “seasons of competition” and instead implementing an age-based model that allows student-athletes to be eligible for Division I competition for a window of five years, starting the academic year immediately after a prospective student-athlete’s high school graduation or 19th birthday, whichever occurs first. There are possible exceptions considered under that model, including pregnancy, military service and religious missions.
Everyone running out to get baptized Mormon for the extra year? LOL
Totally football-focused article but this change, if enacted, will affect water polo. Does this rule out the opportunity for athletes to take gap years after high school? Will international athletes be bound by the same rules? What exceptions will be allowed?
1 Like
One very unclear statement in there.
“Perhaps the most interesting note from an NCAA press release announcing the recommendation is that the board does not support grandfathering existing student-athletes into the five-for-five eligibility model. Instead, student-athletes competing in the 2025-26 academic year will be bound by the four seasons of competition in five years of eligibility rule.”
Is this referencing student athletes that completed their 4 years of eligibility in 25/26 only, or anyone who played during 25/26 maintains the old rules and the new 5 year only starts with incoming freshmen? Not very clear.
The latter. Pulled this info from an NCAA article:
- Maintain existing rules — allowing four seasons of competition in five years of eligibility — for student-athletes competing in the 2025-26 academic year; new rules are not expected to retroactively apply to student-athletes whose eligibility is or will be completed by the spring of 2026.
- Maintain existing rules — allowing four seasons of competition in five years of eligibility — for student-athletes competing in the 2025-26 academic year; new rules are not expected to retroactively apply to student-athletes whose eligibility is or will be completed by the spring of 2026.
The way I read the last line in the paragraph is it only doesn’t apply to "student-athletes whose eligibility is or will be COMPLETED by the spring of 2026. So that would mean anyone who hasn’t completed their 4th year by the end of this current school year (25-26) is still eligible if using this criteria. Am I reading this incorrectly?