*** Official 2026-27 Eligibility Thread ***

11,714 Views | 108 Replies | Last: 11 days ago by Pumpkinhead
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is buried in the Warren eligibility thread but figured it deserved its own for random passers by.

TL;DR:

Who is currently eligible? (At 2:38 PM on August 12)
  • Anyone who was granted eligibility last year who has eligibility remaining, even if they would otherwise be ineligible under the new rules (NCAA)
  • Anyone incoming who is eligible under the new age-based eligibility requirements. (NCAA)
  • Any member of the high school class of 2022 (Colorado case)
What matters for A&M:
  • We do not know what the NCAA is going to rule on Bryson Warren
  • Rylan Griffin could potentially return to the team
  • We could potentially sign a player from another school, but there are some additional hurdles before that player would definitely be eligible to play for us
Who does the NCAA think should be eligible?

Anyone who was granted eligibility last year who has eligibility remaining, and anyone incoming who is eligible under the new age-based eligibility requirements.

What's not clear?

The recruiting class of 2022 - The NCAA didn't, and recently reaffirmed it's stance not to, retroactively give this class a fifth year of eligibility. But several groups of players in this class have filed lawsuits all over the country to get that year back. Because of an injunction in Colorado in one of those cases, ALL OF THESE PLAYERS, whether they filed individual lawsuits or not, are currently eligible. The potential eligibility for those players breaks down into several groups, with some overlap.

  • Players who entered the transfer portal after the season, just in case this happened, or players who are trying to return to the school they left: If the injunction holds, or a court orders this group is eligible, then these players are going to be immediately eligible and in the clear. (For us, this exclusively applies to Rylan Griffin. It would have potentially applied to Jacari Lane, but he's entering the transfer portal)
  • Players who didn't, but want to transfer now: (Ex: Seth Trimble, Chendall Weaver, Jacari Lane): Even if the injunction holds, the NCAA says these players will not be eligible because they didn't enter the transfer portal in the spring. It seems exceedingly unlikely that the NCAA would be able to hold that line successfully, but that would be an additional round of legal wrangling.
  • Players whose names are listed in the lawsuits: This is a subgroup that contains members of the first two groups. If the Colorado injunction that applies to this entire class of players doesn't hold, but individual lawsuits do, then these players may be eligible while others aren't. As a result, a lot of players are scrambling to add themselves as plaintiffs in these lawsuits.
Former G-League players

  • Who never played college basketball *A&M related*: For the most part these players are going to be eligible like Nnaji from Baylor was last year, but it is not clear what the NCAA is going to do with what's known as an "Exhibit 10" contract with an NBA team. These are one-year minimum contracts that are not guaranteed. They are basically a way for NBA teams to attract players to play in the summer league. Players can earn money on an E10 contract, and then can either make the NBA roster, G league roster, or be waived at the end of the summer. Bryson Warren had an E10 contract with the Knicks and the Heat, but never made either team's NBA roster. A decision here is going to matter for several other players as well. Dink Pate (Providence) is in a similar situation to Warren. It will also matter for some of the class of '22 players who played in the NBA summer league this summer like Seth Trimble.
  • Who previously played college basketball: This is one we know. The NCAA has consistently ruled (and actually won these cases!) that anyone who previously had NCAA eligibility, and then forfeited that eligibility, cannot return to college basketball, even if they never appeared in an NBA game.
What did I miss? Anything that should be added/clarified here?
TheDecadeSapling
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ah a Bobinator basketball thread. I needed one of these.

I think the NCAA is inept. Surely it can't be that hard to come up with some eligibility standards and then enforce those standards.
taylorswift13_
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What's more difficult, understanding all these rules and exceptions or listening to a Buzz press conference
greg.w.h
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
taylorswift13_ said:

What's more difficult, understanding all these rules and exceptions or listening to a Buzz press conference
Why would you listen to Buzz ever again???
Serious Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
taylorswift13_ said:

What's more difficult, understanding all these rules and exceptions or listening to a Buzz press conference

watching federiko try to ball
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To the NCAA's (rare) credit they did get a committee together and come up with a simple and common sense framework for eligibility.

Then they decided to announce it in the middle of the summer for some reason but not grant it retroactively to the previous class.
chap
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Great summary. Isn't Trimble in the last category also? Played in college then signed an E10? Or am I mixing him up with someone?
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I mentioned Trimble in there in both sections. I do think he's potentially an exception because a judge could rule he only signed an E10 because he was told he was out of eligibility. That probably applies to a few people but he's the only one I'm aware of.
chap
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ah. Missed that. Definitely could see that case being made.

There was talk on another board that all of the girls that graduated off of our national champion volleyball team could probably make a case to come back, but they are all settled into their pro careers now. Of course volleyball NIL being nowhere near basketball.
CactusThomas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I still have my 4 (5?) years, Bob
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Need your birthday, high school graduation year and send any religious or military affiliations and I'll plug it into my new calculator.
halfastros81
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So wrt Rylan Griffen and also Marcus Hill we should know if either have any thoughts of playing here this year by knowing if they are enrolled in school here, correct ? Since classes begin next week that should be a known very soon. It's possible they could enroll and not play but if they don't enroll they can't play .
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Marcus Hill is in a different category altogether and would not be part of any class of players involved here.

I haven't heard any updates on him in a while, but I assume the NCAA would deny his waiver for an extra year, so he would then need to file a separate lawsuit. He would basically be claiming that the NCAA is misapplying the old eligibility rules to exclude him. Even then, it doesn't sound like he would be returning to A&M. He did, however, already enter the transfer portal back in April, so if he does somehow become eligible, he would be clear to transfer and would not be considered a "ghost transfer" that the NCAA is going to try and fight.

I don't know if we can say for sure that enrolling definitely matters, who knows at this point.

We should know something on Rylan's class in the next few days, at least in the Colorado case as it relates the entire class of players.
halfastros81
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seems outrageous to me that someone that isn't an actual full time student could play but outrageous has sort of become the norm I suppose.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There are some variables though that I don't know how exactly they account for. Like if (somehow...) one of these guys actually already acquired enough credits to graduate, does enrolling a grad student change the timeline? Can they enroll in some kind of courses that are off-schedule from the normal academic year?

I have no clue how any of the actual academic side works anymore.

Remember that time PJ Tucker was declared academically ineligible, imagine that happening these days, lol.
Ag-ME
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bobinator said:

There are some variables though that I don't know how exactly they account for. Like if (somehow...) one of these guys actually already acquired enough credits to graduate, does enrolling a grad student change the timeline? Can they enroll in some kind of courses that are off-schedule from the normal academic year?

I have no clue how any of the actual academic side works anymore.

Remember that time PJ Tucker was declared academically ineligible, imagine that happening these days, lol.



While talking about out the rules can be somewhat interesting, considering who they have brought into the team would we actually bring back the players you have mentioned?
Would we even have room for them on the team as a possible player getting significant minutes?
Do we have any nil monet remaining to pay a sometimes starter?
It seems we already have the team pretty much set and trying to get into rhythm, so would any of those actually help is?
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Without breaking the paywall here I think it's safe to say that Luke wouldn't have posted this on twitter if we were just standing pat.

Method Man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We really don't need Hill but I'd take RG back.
halfastros81
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Depends on how many roster spots are open and who might fill them. I'd rather have Hill than an open roster spot filled with someone that can't play at this level unless it's someone with significant development potential if for no other reason than better practice competition. We know Hill can score . If your'e down to either Hill or Griffen then yes I'd take Griffen but it's not like Hill is an unproven player at this level.

The comparative per game stats last season were pretty close between the 2 . The one that really sticks out in Rylan's favor is 3 pt %.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
8/18 Update:

Now eligible: 70+ players that were part of the California lawsuit, including the newly committed Jordan Pope - This TRO will mean that Jordan Pope will remain eligible even if the Colorado injunction is not upheld.

GCP12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
8/18 Update Part II: E10 contracts enough to rule you ineligible!
CactusThomas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GCP12 said:




Turrible
rsf0626
How long do you want to ignore this user?
These rules changing is getting old
mikesyracuse1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When we signed Pope yesterday, I was anticipating this decision this week.

Mikesyracuse1
The Marksman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ridiculous that these players were eligible last season but aren't this year. Not to mention Alabama cheating their way to several keys victories with an ineligible player last season and suffering no consequences.
However, I do feel that Pope is probably an upgrade over Warren. I'd like to see us look for the best player available(ideally a big or a wing) for that final roster spot now.
Serious Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Marksman said:

I do feel that Pope is probably an upgrade over Warren.

same, and now that hes eligible to mitigate the loss of warren for us, ill play devils advocate and say good on the NCAA for drawing the line. The slippery slope of letting non-amateurs into college sports needs to be dealt with.
EliteZags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pope = boat
Warren = mystery box

who can resist the mystery box, the boat's a boat but the mystery box could be anything, it could even be a boat
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is where I am, I think they backed themselves into a weird corner last year with some of the europeans they let come over but they need to come out with clear language that explains where the line is with professional players.

The 5 for 5 clock was a great start for domestic players. It's simple, it's common sense, and there's not a ton of room for exceptions (someone at some point might try and challenge what a religion is or something...).

I'm okay with the domestic line including exhibit tens (or even the entire G League) because American-born players will know that choosing to play in it voids your NCAA eligibility. Now we just need a clear international equivalent. Could be as simple as if you've made an appearance in any of the top leagues in any country then you're ineligible. I think trying to set some kind of financial guidelines is going to be tough which as far as I know is what they've done so far.
Topher17
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This one didn't go in our favor and so people will be upset, but Warren knowingly forwent his eligibility when he made his decision out of HS. He knew full well what he was doing and years later realized he made the wrong choice, so it's hard to feel bad for him. Decisions have consequences. The selectivity of who has to face the consequences or not based on random NCAA and court decisions has been the annoying thing.

As others have said, the NCAA drawing these clear hard lines is what is needed, they just now have to stick to them. The international thing is a little tougher, but it can and should be done in a very clear way so everyone knows up front how their decisions will impact their eligibility.

Bad outcome for us, but a step in the right direction for the sport.
Dr. Horrible
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Other than I don't know how this is much different…

Kampfers
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It isn't, nor are the Euro players the NCAA keeps approving.

The sticking point was the Exhibit 10 contract he signed, a non-guaranteed training camp "try out" contract. Never even made an NBA roster. There's no basis to say he can't play but a guy with years of pro experience from Spain or Lithuania can. Which is why the NCAA will continue to lose these lawsuits.
Kampfers
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Serious Lee said:

The Marksman said:

I do feel that Pope is probably an upgrade over Warren.

same, and now that hes eligible to mitigate the loss of warren for us, ill play devils advocate and say good on the NCAA for drawing the line. The slippery slope of letting non-amateurs into college sports needs to be dealt with.

I agree with the sentiment by and large, but it's funny acting like college sports is anywhere remotely close to amateurism.

These guys are getting paid far better than the guys in the G-League and a good chunk of the guys in Europe too.
Serious Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
touche. not sure what word to use anymore to differentiate college players from certified pro players, but a distinction should be made nonetheless.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I wonder if the future is some kind of international agreement that college basketball is a one-time-only league built around the current "5 for 5" rule.

I think there's basically three things everyone can agree on:

1) There should be an age limit
2) There should be a level of professional at which point you are no longer eligible (what exactly that level is is an open question)
3) Once you leave, you can't come back
Last Page
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.