Division I Board Approves Blanket Eligibility Waiver

[OrangeXtreme]

The Council recommended the board provide fall sport student-athletes who compete and then opt out of future participation or have a season cut short due to COVID-19: (1) an extension of their five-year period of eligibility; and (2) an additional season of competition if they participate in 50% or less of the maximum number of competitions allowed in each sport by Division I rules.

The board will meet Aug. 21 to review Council recommendations regarding student-athlete well-being protections and the future of fall championships.

 

[RandomGuy]

It sounds like... if you compete... then...

Meaning, if you are a Sr. that opts out, you are done. Am I correct?

 

[Stern]

 

[Cusefan69]

So this could get very interesting if the ACC and SEC only get part way through their schedule and have to hit the brakes.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

It sounds like... if you compete... then...

Meaning, if you are a Sr. that opts out, you are done. Am I correct?

Fall sport student-athletes who compete and then opt out would get an extension of their five-year period of eligibility and an additional season of competition if they participate in 50% or less of the games.

If you're a 5th year Senior, you get a 6th year.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

So this could get very interesting if the ACC and SEC only get part way through their schedule and have to hit the brakes.

If we only make it to 5 games and cancel, I'm gonna need a bigger spreadsheet.

 

[CuseLegacy]

Fall sport student-athletes who compete and then opt out would get an extension of their five-year period of eligibility and an additional season of competition if they participate in 50% or less of the games.

If you're a 5th year Senior, you get a 6th year.

But if your school cancels Fall sports for the year you get nothing.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

But if your school cancels Fall Sports for the year you get nothing.

You get nothing and like it.

I'm sure the NCAA will rule on this ... right after they get to Bleich's waiver.

 

[griddy]

This actually sounds far from generous. Essentially, seniors who compete in six games or more will use up their eligibility, even if they have a redshirt year. Players have been allowed to play four games and retain a redshirt year of eligibility. This essentially gives those players a couple more games. I was really hoping the NCAA would allow seniors who have a redshirt year to play this season and retain a year of eligibility. That seemed fair, given all the uncertainty these players are facing.

 

[RandomGuy]

This actually sounds far from generous. Essentially, seniors who compete in six games or more will use up their eligibility, even if they have a redshirt year. Players have been allowed to play four games and retain a redshirt year of eligibility. This essentially gives those players a couple more games. I was really hoping the NCAA would allow seniors who have a redshirt year to play this season and retain a year of eligibility. That seemed fair, given all the uncertainty these players are facing.

Right. The way its worded. Opt out, lose it. Play in 6 games, lose it, even if you have a RS. That means all RS eligible bail after 4 games. Forces Sr's without a RS to play. They didnt address opt out. Likely for a very specific reason.(you are going to play)

They refuse to grant the blanket waiver

 

[RandomGuy]

Basically, any Sr. that thinks the season will be cut short, opts out after game 5. Same with any other player. 5 game season.

 

[Alsacs]

Coaches can use this rule to their advantage.

I wouldn’t worry about redshirting any player to start the season.

 

[Louie and Bouie]

If we only make it to 5 games and cancel, I'm gonna need a bigger spreadsheet.

Ive read that the max participation allowed under that section would be 7 games since the max allowable games is 14 if you play in conference championship and a bowl game.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[Alsacs]

In a 10 game season each coach should use their 3 games for RS players and then rotate their players in games for any player who wants to play this year but retain a year of another eligibility.

 

[cuse10]

I honestly don't know how to feel about this. Can schools afford the scholarships especially at the FCS level where the margins are already thin if not nonexistent.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

I honestly don't know how to feel about this. Can schools afford the scholarships especially at the FCS level where the margins are already thin if not nonexistent.

Are they expanding the roster cap? Or does this essentially squeeze incoming recruiting classes?

 

[cuse10]

Are they expanding the roster cap? Or does this essentially squeeze incoming recruiting classes?

Don't know yet. In any case, coaching staffs are going to be forced to comb through their rosters.

 

[Modern Coac]

This is one of those things that sounds like a good idea. But will ne hard to implement. Didn't Barry Alvarez say Wisconsin will not do this?

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Are they expanding the roster cap? Or does this essentially squeeze incoming recruiting classes?

The vote on the recommendations is Friday

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[corpjet]

This is one of those things that sounds like a good idea. But will ne hard to implement. Didn't Barry Alvarez say Wisconsin will not do this?

Screw Barry Alvarez....did I say that out loud?? Sorry

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[OrangeXtreme]