Eligibility and coronavirus: Dissonance in a difficult conversation
Due to COVID-19, the spring NCAA winter and spring championships were cancelled. Subsequently, most colleges and universities cancelled their spring athletic season.
Since that decision, a debate has sprung regarding athletic eligibility for winter athletes.
Sports like basketball and indoor track and field never got to have their season’s championships decided. Instead, the coronavirus decided for them.
But the situation is more complicated than just giving all athletes an extra year of eligibility.
See, team sports rely on their older players cycling out so their new players can use their eligibility properly.
If a basketball player redshirts (practices, but doesn’t play any games to conserve their eligibility) their freshman year, they can compete through their fifth year as a senior, when they’re presumably at their best. Giving everyone an extra year of eligibility gives less value to incoming freshmen, because now players that were fifth year seniors during this year’s season will be sixth years going into next season, if they choose to continue to compete. Giving everyone an extra year might mean less play-time for incoming players with the most potential, not to mention starting a precedent of six years worth of competing.
In individual sports like track and field or swimming and diving, playtime isn’t an issue. There’s usually no limit to how many athletes a coach can enter into a meet, so an extra year of eligibility really wouldn’t change much.
But still, qualifying players and athletes this year were robbed of their potential at a national title. And that should be reimbursed some way or another.
The question lies in whether we should be fairer to newcomers or veterans.