The NCAA announced Monday evening that it was going to allow spring student-athletes to maintain their current eligibility status for next year after their seasons were most canceled due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

The decision has wide-ranging implications, especially for baseball. It also impacts softball, outdoor track, golf and tennis at NC State.

The Wolfpacker asked a compliance director at a Division I college, who asked to remain anonymous, a few questions about the implications of the decision.

In a nutshell, what did the NCAA decide to do with the vote on eligibility for the spring?

The NCAA Council (comprised of one member from each of the D1 conferences) voted to provide:

— An additional season of competition to all spring sport student-athletes that were eligible and competed during the spring 2020 season (regardless of class).

— An automatic extension to the 5-year clock IF a sixth season is needed for seniors to use that extra season (applies to redshirt seniors that lost this year).

— The exemption of aid, up to the amount they received in 2020, for any student-athlete whose eligibility would have exhausted this spring but elects to return in 2021. If there is an increase, it is not exempted.

For example, if a 50% scholarship in 2020 is raised to 75% in 2021, then 50% would be exempt, but 25% would still count towards the limit. This only applies at the current school. If they transfer for the additional year, they would not be exempted from their new team's limitations.

— The exemption of roster status in baseball for any student-athlete whose eligibility would have exhausted this spring but elects to return. Basically, if a senior elects to return, he will not count against the 35 roster cap, or the 27 scholarship athlete cap, for baseball.

This, again, only applies at the current school. If they transfer for the additional year, they would not be exempted from roster limitations at their new school.

How does this decision impact the roster and scholarship numbers for each sport, and for how long will that be an issue (is it a one-season or multi-year change)?

This will certainly have an impact that extends beyond this season. For the short term, it'll impact what teams do with their incoming class that has already signed. If you were expecting to carry 35 baseball players and find out that five seniors are returning, you have to do some juggling. The length of season and length of games isn't changing, so playing time isn't changing, either.

With a roster of 35, there are already people unhappy with playing time. Raise the roster to 40 and chemistry issues are likely to occur. I've seen it mentioned that some coaches may just elect to redshirt their incoming class across the board, depending on how many seniors elect to take advantage of the extra year. If that happens, it helps mitigate some of the issues in 2021, but you're just delaying the crunch and now impacting the size of class you'll bring in for 2022.

The most ideal situation that coaches are probably hoping, at least in baseball, is that most seniors elect to ride off into the sunset and not use this extra season. Some will, some won't. Other sports are certainly more open to the idea of seniors returning if it makes their team stronger (a baseball senior maybe isn't a "difference maker" at this point).

Are schools required to retain seniors who are now granted a fifth year?

Schools are not required to renew a senior scholarship, in this situation. In fact, the NCAA not only granted the schools the right to reduce or cancel the aid of a 2020 senior, it also eliminated the opportunity to appeal that decision by the student-athlete if a school does not renew the scholarship. This is a nod to the fact that many schools will not be financially capable of bringing back everyone at their same aid level since they likely had already signed their replacement.

If schools were required to bring them back, it would likely have been at the expense of an underclassman or non-spring athlete, and that isn't ideal for anyone.

Is this ruling an extension of each player’s eligibility clock (five years to play four) or does it count as a redshirt?

This ruling will automatically qualify as a "denied opportunity." A denied opportunity is something outside of a team’s control (injury, etc.) as opposed to a coach's decision to redshirt.

In order to get a sixth season, a student-athlete either needs two denied opportunities OR one denied opportunity AND one redshirt during the freshman year. If the student already redshirted as a freshman, they will automatically qualify for a sixth season by using this as their second denied opportunity.

For the true junior, 2020 will count as denied opportunity No. 1. If they get hurt and miss 2021 or 2022 as well, they'll automatically get a sixth season. No waiver needed.

For the redshirt junior that redshirted as a freshman - they'll be considered a redshirt junior again and automatically have two more seasons, even though the second season would be their sixth year. No waiver needed.

For the redshirt junior that redshirted any year except their freshman year, they automatically get this season back, but would need to do an extension of the 5-year clock waiver (which I imagine would be approved). Yes, waiver needed.

The one thing that would make it all a lot easier is a rule proposal that'll be voted on in April that will allow ANY redshirt to qualify as a denied opportunity (not just a freshman redshirt). In this scenario, any student that misses two years — one for hardship and one for redshirting — would get the sixth season approved. My hunch is that this will be approved in April and the scenarios become a lot more simple.

Will there be any implications for the transfer rule to be debated in June or is that a separate issue on its own?

The decision doesn't explicitly provide any added opportunities to transfer and be eligible right away. As you referenced, the transfer waiver process was in the midst of being reevaluated when our world turned upside down. That discussion has been paused until June, but I anticipate it'll still change. The only question is will that change take effect for 2020-21, or be postponed until 2021-22 in light of these other changes.

It's a semantic point to note, but it should be note that the RULES surrounding transfers are not changing. The discussion is around a loosening of the transfer WAIVER process, which is the process that the student-athletes that don't automatically qualify for immediate eligibility have to pursue.

If a senior is denied a scholarship, do they get an automatic transfer waiver?

For the senior that is not renewed, they would not automatically qualify for a waiver. The new school would still have to file an individual waiver for that student. However, the current waiver approval process is set up to grant relief if it is documented that the opportunity to return to the previous school was denied.

Basically, they'd have a great chance to get it approved.

Will there be flexibility afforded to incoming freshmen who now decide that their situation has changed and want to re-explore options, or is that not really an issue?

At this time, there has not been action that would release incoming freshmen from their current NLIs [national letter of intent] due to a change in roster status at their current schools. However, I imagine that most schools would be encouraged, both by the NCAA and public pressure, to honor an NLI release request that is made by a prospect if it is evident that their role on the team will significantly change.

But if there is a student-athlete that was already looking for a way out and is hoping that this gives them the lifeline they were seeking, they may be disappointed.

——

• Talk about it inside The Wolves' Den

• Subscribe to our podcast on iTunes

• Learn more about our print and digital publication, The Wolfpacker

• Follow us on Twitter: @TheWolfpacker

• Like us on Facebook