More Special Basketball Coverage

5-8 Rule Equaled a Big Zero

By Kristi Chartrand

kristi@otcdsl.net

Last Thursday, loud applause resonated from college basketball coaches across the country. The “5-8” rule, which had been in effect since August of 2001, will be torn out of the NCAA rulebook.  

The NABC worked extremely hard to get this rule rescinded. Finally, the NCAA management council recommended the NCAA Board of Directors vote to lose the rule. Mission accomplished.

The “5-8” rule allowed a basketball program to award up to a maximum of 5 scholarships in one year, and 8 during a two-year span. The maximum number of scholarship players one team can have is 13, but thanks to the “5-8” rule schools were often kept well under that number.

Like most rules the NCAA concocts, I understand the premise behind it, but they never seem to take the big picture into consideration. It’s their duty to do what’s best for the student-athletes. They chose to ignore the fact that transfers and early NBA defections are a huge part of the college basketball landscape in this day and age. That’s not going to change anytime soon.

The rule was instituted to help graduation rates and encourage coaches to recruit players who wanted to stay in school for the duration and earn their degree with their respective school. If you want to read between the lines, it was instituted because coaches were running players out of their programs to make room for other players. But in my mind the unintended consequences were the reason the NCAA made the right choice and voted to lose a bad rule.

University of Illinois Head Coach Bruce Weber stated, “The intent was there with this rule because it was said that coaches were running kids out of their programs. But it was truly hurting the student-athletes because there were such a large amount of scholarships being unused” said Weber. “Now it’s up to us as coaches to make sure that this privilege is not abused.”

Coaches don’t believe the rule has done a thing to enhance academics, nor do I. This business is about the kids and about giving them the chance to receive an education 1^st, and to play basketball 2nd. Anything that takes a scholarship opportunity away from a kid is a horrible rule. It’s that simple in my mind. Hundreds of scholarships a year were going unused and that does not aid academic reform one iota.

There are many reasons this rule’s abolishment was the primary focus of the NABC. New coaches taking jobs in new places were affected. There are always transfers when a new coach takes over program, it comes with the territory. Programs hit hard with senior graduation along with a mass of early defections were hurt by the rule. But the people hurt the most by this rule were not the coaches, and not the NCAA.  It was the student-athletes who lost out on a chance to play for the school of their choice, or a chance to play Division I basketball altogether. It’s just wasn’t fair to the kids. Try to justify to a kid unable to play D-I basketball that there were over 200 scholarships unused last year that technically should be available.

While coaches are out logging a ton of frequent flyer miles recruiting for next season, this rule change is a welcomed relief. They’re now free to recruit to fill their needs but the ball is in their court, so to speak. It’s now up to the coaches to keep up the integrity of the rule, and not abuse the rule.

Though the NCAA lost the “5-8” rule, they’ve gained what seems to be a strict, but fair, academic reform package. This is what WILL help academic standards in college basketball. Starting in 2006, schools will be penalized for poor performance in the classroom. A graduation rate (still to be determined) will have to be met, or schools will be punished. Consistently poor performing teams will receive warning letters in 2006-2007, the next step will be losing scholarships in 2007-2008, and by 2008-2009 schools could lose out on a chance to compete in the postseason.

S

p

o

n

s

o

r

t

h

i

s

p

a

g

e