Who Is the New Eligibility Hardship Waiver Rule Designed To Protect?

If you missed the news, you could be forgiven. Earlier this week the NCAA announced the end of the immediate eligibility hardship waiver to little, if any notice. Announced right as the association’s biggest event of the year tipped off, Whether the timing was a coincidence or not, it definitely worked in Mark Emmert’s favor.

We’ve been conditioned to believe what is good for the NCAA is bad for student-athletes, but in this rule change, you might struggle to make that case.

What are hardship waivers, and how have they changed?

Hardship waivers were among the NCAA’s most controversial policies, not because of what they did or didn’t do, but because of the inconsistency in how they were granted. Essentially, a student-athlete must sit out a year of competition if they choose to transfer to a new school and continue playing either football, men’s or women’s basketball, or baseball. There are a number of exceptions to this rule, including the well known graduate transfer (e.g Russell Wilson) and discontinued sports (e.g. UAB) exceptions, but those remain unchanged.

What is changed is the waiver process for players who are transferring because of a family member’s medical or personal issues. Under the old rule, a player could apply to be eligible immediately at a new school that is more convenient, due to proximity or otherwise, for providing assistance with their family member’s care. Now, players would only be able to request a one year extension of their eligibility “clock.” Whereas players usually have five consecutive years to play four years of competition, they can be granted a sixth consecutive year.

Why was this change made?

As mentioned before, the NCAA had consistency issues with how they granted the immediate eligibility waivers. By taking immediate playing time off the table and delaying the additional year of playing time to the end of a player’s career, they’ve limited the pressure and attention usually associated with the decision. There is more time to investigate and evaluate the application, as well as more opportunity for a player to file an appeal if their waiver is not originally granted.

More importantly, I believe this will result in more players keeping their eligibility when they do have a legitimate claim. Because of fear over the abuse of the rule, the NCAA took a hard stance when evaluating each case. By eliminating the fruit of immediate eligibility, they may have also eliminated the backlog of frivolous claims made in a Hail Mary attempt to get a player on the field as soon as possible.

But is it good for the student-athlete?

This should be the question we ask before making any rule change, and in this case, I believe it is. Forcing a player to sit out when the basis of their transfer was that they would have to help care for a sick relative isn’t a terrible idea. Division I athletics are incredibly time consuming, and allowing a student to focus on their family responsibilities without losing their eligibility or number of years they can play is an excellent idea.

Feature Photo Courtesy of LM Otero/AP