Tennessee's Ziegler sues for 5th year of eligibility

Status
Not open for further replies.
#26      
Illini2010-11
illinistephen said:
If Ziegler loses his lawsuit, then I agree with you. If Ziegler wins his lawsuit, then I think it is clear that with roster spots and playing time being a zero sum game that 5th year players would limit the spots of younger players. If each grade level takes 20% vs 25% of spots that alone is a difference. If Ziegler can win, then the slippery slope is why not 6 years or 7 years or more. And at some point, if that happens, a bunch of players in their mid 20's or older doesn't seem to be in the spirit of what college sports has usually been, to me at least.
Click to expand...
There is a lot to unpack here. The argument that allowing 5th year players would limit the spot of younger players is not necessarily true. The old rules allowed players to take a redshirt year to get a 5th year of eligibility (and even more based on injuries and other factors). Ziegler is arguing it is unfair to players like him who did not redshirt and get stuck to only 4 years (when the 5th year is the lucrative NIL year). By nature, what Ziegler is asking for will not change the age construction of many teams significantly, as we have already seen so many older players who are using a 5th/6th/7th year after redshirting their freshman or sophomore year or having injury exemptions (pre temporary COVID rule change).

Ziegler's team actually does have a very valid point in their argument (https://www.knoxnews.com/story/spor...lity-tennessee-basketball-roster/83721786007/), which very well should win in court. It is becoming advantageous for guys to get their NIL package and then redshirt their freshman year, which assures them 5 full years of NIL packages, whereas the player who plays all four years will be stuck at only four years of earning opportunities in college. For the top-tier athletes, this will not really apply, since they will be headed off to the NBA; but for fringe worthy players or guys who have no shot at the league, they would be incentivized to sitting out a year to maximize their earning potentials (Ty would fit in this bucket technically). That is hardly the intent of the NCAA rules, but NIL is changing the landscape considerably. I think that the main purpose is to simply get rid of the redshirt in the way it has been utilized in the past and simply give players 5 years to play/earn NIL.

I personally do not see the slippery slope that you envision, since the language that Ziegler's team is focused on is very specific and not broad. The issue at hand is solely the redshirting mechanisms. I am perfectly fine with simply giving every player 5 years of playing time, regardless of if they use redshirt or not. This lawsuit was inevitable given the NIL landscape, and it is one that is very likely to succeed.
 
#29      
Oracle21
Eventually there will be no limit on years you can be on the team. College will simply be a lower level of pro basketball with pretty good money to be made. You’ll see college players who aren’t good enough for the NBA playing from 22 to 32.

What is going to hurt is the HS guys outside of the top 75. Not sure what they will do
 
#30      
Illwinsagain
Oracle21 said:
Eventually there will be no limit on years you can be on the team. College will simply be a lower level of pro basketball with pretty good money to be made. You’ll see college players who aren’t good enough for the NBA playing from 22 to 32.

What is going to hurt is the HS guys outside of the top 75. Not sure what they will do
Click to expand...
I get your point, but I don't know who would want this. Though, many don't like how things are already. No solutions here, just pointing out that doesn't sound very appealing.
 
#32      
Oracle21
Illwinsagain said:
I get your point, but I don't know who would want this. Though, many don't like how things are already. No solutions here, just pointing out that doesn't sound very appealing.
Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone wants it, but the way the NCAA looks at is the colleges are franchises with long term loyal fanbases, so ultimately it doesn’t matter who the players are. So I don’t see them fighting it.

Ultimately the free market will work it out. Is paying a proven 27 year old Kofi Cockburn (just as an example) better for Illinois than paying an 18 year old? I think the only thing colleges will ultimately mandate is the player must be enrolled in school.
 
#35      
the juiceman cometh
Oracle21 said:
Eventually there will be no limit on years you can be on the team. College will simply be a lower level of pro basketball with pretty good money to be made. You’ll see college players who aren’t good enough for the NBA playing from 22 to 32.

What is going to hurt is the HS guys outside of the top 75. Not sure what they will do
Click to expand...
No. This is not likely to happen.

Eligibility rules have been upheld by the courts many times over. The Ziegler suit is focused on whether it is OK to grant some players a 5th year and not others (depending on if they redshirt or not). It is not saying the NCAA does not have the authority to set a limit on eligibility. I actually think the NCAA has a decent case here and could win, but I also think they'll probably settle because what Ziegler is asking for is already something they are considering doing.

The main takeaway isn't "the NCAA can't enforce anything." Its that the NCAA's well-meaning but flawed approach of evaluating eligibility waivers on a case ny case basis is not going to cut it anymore. There's going to need to be a hard and fast rule, with no exceptions. It's going to mean some players play five seasons, while others that get injured a lot potentially play less than 4.
 
#36      
Calvin
the juiceman cometh said:
No. This is not likely to happen.

Eligibility rules have been upheld by the courts many times over. The Ziegler suit is focused on whether it is OK to grant some players a 5th year and not others (depending on if they redshirt or not). It is not saying the NCAA does not have the authority to set a limit on eligibility. I actually think the NCAA has a decent case here and could win, but I also think they'll probably settle because what Ziegler is asking for is already something they are considering doing.

The main takeaway isn't "the NCAA can't enforce anything." Its that the NCAA's well-meaning but flawed approach of evaluating eligibility waivers on a case ny case basis is not going to cut it anymore. There's going to need to be a hard and fast rule, with no exceptions. It's going to mean some players play five seasons, while others that get injured a lot potentially play less than 4.
Click to expand...

Your second point seems likely to hold IMHO. I think it's a flawed argument to say a redshirt year is equivalent to a regular year, and plaintiffs will have a hard time convincing anyone of that. But the case-by-case determination for the extra year deserves scrutiny, so maybe they win anyway until they figure out how to make that pass legal.
 
#37      
Illini2010-11
Calvin said:
Your second point seems likely to hold IMHO. I think it's a flawed argument to say a redshirt year is equivalent to a regular year, and plaintiffs will have a hard time convincing anyone of that. But the case-by-case determination for the extra year deserves scrutiny, so maybe they win anyway until they figure out how to make that pass legal.
Click to expand...
The plaintiffs can easily point to a bias in the system allowing one group of players (taking a redshirt year) getting five years of NIL funding while those that do not redshirt are limited to four years. In the past, the only real unfairness was the players on 5th years and beyond were getting free scholarships where the traditional players were out of eligibility. This would actually be a very interesting legal challenge (weaving in NIL), and one that could possibly succeed (we have never seen a legal argument challenging the redshirt system in this manner before). I tend to agree with Juiceman that there will likely be a settlement here, especially if the NCAA was considering a move that would almost mirror what the plaintiffs are looking for. The system has not caught up with the changing NIL landscape yet, and this lawsuit is an indication of that.
 
#39      
grue2
Is it time to get rid of all redshirts other than medical? You have 4 years to play. An extra year of eligibility is granted with a medical redshirt.
 
#41      
Mr. Tibbs
Grandpa said:
If they throw age into it there are going to be some disappointed 39 year old Australian punters who are now getting a free education
Click to expand...
Aging Old Man GIF by A&E
 
#43      
rtbritt
But it’s not like these guys who aren’t playing their freshmen year are getting a big NIL package…yes, it’s really money that is cool and all, but are guys like Keaton Wagler getting 100-500k to possibly redshirt at Illinois??
 
#45      
HensonHall71
the juiceman cometh said:
No. This is not likely to happen.

Eligibility rules have been upheld by the courts many times over. The Ziegler suit is focused on whether it is OK to grant some players a 5th year and not others (depending on if they redshirt or not). It is not saying the NCAA does not have the authority to set a limit on eligibility. I actually think the NCAA has a decent case here and could win, but I also think they'll probably settle because what Ziegler is asking for is already something they are considering doing.

The main takeaway isn't "the NCAA can't enforce anything." Its that the NCAA's well-meaning but flawed approach of evaluating eligibility waivers on a case ny case basis is not going to cut it anymore. There's going to need to be a hard and fast rule, with no exceptions. It's going to mean some players play five seasons, while others that get injured a lot potentially play less than 4.
Click to expand...
I agree - everyone has the ability to redshirt and earn a 5th year of NIL if they want to, that right wasn't taken away from Ziegler or anyone else - he chose not to.
 
#47      
grue2
lstewart53x3 said:
I believe the concept the NCAA is currently deciding on is 5 years for everyone. No redshirts, medical or otherwise. You have 5 years to play 5 years.
Click to expand...
I understand that is the most likely path and that they want to get out of the decision making process for who gets "extra" years. I'd rather see it become 4 years to play 4, even if they disallow all redshirts. Grandfather in those already in enrolled in D1.
 
#48      
PepeSilvia
SescIllini said:
Wished Boswell could get a 5th year, as the landscape has changed rapidly. He was the youngest D1 player I believe at the time he started college.
Click to expand...
I'd rather just get back to guys getting 4 years of eligibility(5 years to play 4 with one redshirt).

Boswell is definitely one of the guys that made a mistake reclassing(pretty common occurrence especially with smaller guards).
 
#49      
Calvin
CBS article with some analysis

Not much in terms of legal expertise, but from Norlander:
I'm not convinced I'm right, but I think it's more likely than not to lose because Zeigler's timing isn't ideal, he hasn't been restricted on capitalizing on his NIL rights in recent years and the NCAA's precedent of the redshirt rule isn't discriminatory (as far as I can tell) on his eligibility case.
 
#50      
Travis1173
the juiceman cometh said:
This has never been a thing. Never. This isn't going "back" to anything but creating new arbitrary rules that never previously existed.

And the high school example fails too. What if a kid was held back in 3rd grade, and thus a year older than his classmates? Does his HS career end as a junior, because he's aged out?


One of the elements you have to show to get an injunction is a "likelihood" of succeeding on the merits. That doesn't mean that you have to prove your case, you just have to make a showing that you have a good chance of winning. If his lawyers don't think he can win the case, by definition they should also not think they'll get an injunction.


1. He's already played 5 due to the Covid year
2. He did not enter the transfer portal.
Click to expand...
I can answer your aged-out question. When my high school rugby team arrived at state championships we were informed our outside center was ineligible because he had just turned 19 and according to Tennessee high school rugby rules, you had to be under the age of 19. We had to play without him. He actually was a junior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back