For decades, the postgraduate season has been a fabric of the prep school basketball experience. It’s allowed tens of thousands of student-athletes searching for better college options to take an extra year, hone their skills and improve their recruitment.
This spring, a proposed NCAA rule change threatened to negatively alter the postgraduate opportunity. But a new modification to the proposal now has prep schools and prospective postgraduates around New England breathing a sigh of relief.
In April, the NCAA’s age-based “5-in-5” eligibility rule – which would give Division 1 athletes five full seasons of eligibility during a five-year window in their chosen sport – was first proposed. Under the initial framework, the eligibility clock was set to begin the academic year after the athlete’s 19th birthday or high school graduation, whichever comes first.
But on Friday, the NCAA made a major modification to that framework, announcing that the Division 1 Cabinet changed the proposed model to start the eligibility clock upon initial full-time college enrollment or at the beginning of the academic year following their 19th birthday, whichever comes first, eliminating the high school graduation framework.
That modification is a major victory for prep schools and postgraduates.
“It’s very encouraging,” Williston Northampton coach Ben Farmer said.
Under the initial proposal, if a prospect’s high school graduation came before they turned 19, they would essentially burn the first year of their five years of college eligibility if they chose to take a postgraduate season. It would have effectively punished kids for trying to better themselves on the court, in the classroom and ultimately their recruitment. But the rule modification mostly preserves the value of the postgraduate year.
In New England, there is a large concentration of prep schools where postgraduates have benefited for a long time.
“Very rarely is it just about basketball,” Wilbraham & Monson coach Mike Mannix said. “There’s always another factor in the relevance of a postgraduate year for a kid coming to my school or anybody else, whether it’s they better themselves socially, they come to a boarding school with a big international presence and they surround themselves with students from 25 other countries for the next nine months.
“There’s a lot more to it than just getting your jumper better.”
The NCAA said the Division 1 Cabinet plans to vote on the age-based eligibility model during a meeting on June 23-24. What other questions or concerns linger? What else is there to know about the effects of the rule if it passes? Let’s dive in.
Clarifying questions and thoughts
The rule proposal isn’t clear on when a prospect would need to turn 19 by to avoid their following season being one of their five years of college eligibility. For example, if they turn 19 in July or August, then would their eligibility clock start immediately? A prospect could theoretically turn 19 the summer before a postgraduate season. How does the NCAA interpret their eligibility? They may need to set a specific parameter where you have to turn 19 before a specific date or deadline to preserve the first year of eligibility.
What about postgraduates in the Class of 2027? Many have already made that decision and commitment. If they have already turned 19, are they going to lose next season as their first year of college eligibility? Or do they need to consider reclassifying back to the 2026 class to preserve their full eligibility? It seems likely – and fair – that there would be a one-year grace period before full implementation of the rule.
It’s also important to note that this rule proposal only affects Division 1 players. Division 2 and 3 players are not included.
What might happen to reclassifying?
Right now, it’s common for aspiring prospects to repeat in eighth grade to gain advantages in recruiting, and some may repeat again in high school.
But if this rule is passed, they’ll have to think harder about those decisions. It might not make sense to repeat in eighth grade, because it could ultimately make them too old upon high school graduation and risk losing college eligibility. Repeating in both eighth grade and high school would almost certainly cost a year of college eligibility, unless they’re very young.
Families will just have to do the math before making that decision. If they repeat eighth grade, when are they going to turn 19? They could play it out and say, ‘OK, I’m turning 18 as a senior. I can still do a postgraduate year and maintain my five years of college eligibility.’ It’ll be a case-by-case basis for everyone.
There could certainly still be cases where a prospect turns 19 during their senior year. If that prospect still isn’t getting the college recruitment they’re seeking, it might still make sense for them to do a postgraduate season – when they’d be 20 – even if it means burning a year of college eligibility. That would leave them with four years, and you can still earn a college degree in that time period.
“(If) you don’t have the college option that you’re hoping for, it might make sense for you to use one of your five years for a PG year,” Farmer said. “(It’s) another spring and summer of AAU, play in June, another year to develop your body.
“Doing a postgrad year doesn’t guarantee you go (Div. 1), but it gives you a chance. It gives you another year and it gives you a chance.”
And again, the eligibility rule only affects Division 1. Many use postgraduate years to improve their Division 2 and 3 opportunities.
How will recruiting be impacted?
Mannix says Div. 1 coaches have proposed differing approaches to him if the rule is passed.
One coach said their ideal situation would be if they get an 18-year-old recruit who has five years of eligibility, has a successful four-year career in their program and they help him go somewhere else for a fifth year to earn a pay package or NIL deal.
The other coach said they wouldn’t care if a recruit loses a year of eligibility in high school because their school would only be getting them for four years anyway.
Mannix also said he talked to a high-major assistant who said they didn’t care if a prospective recruit has four or five years of eligibility. The transfer portal has created a climate where players are bouncing around every year.
The prevailing notion is that this rule change would ultimately be a net positive for high school recruits, who have had a challenging time landing college opportunities in the era of the transfer portal. Farmer acknowledged that there will be a good amount of players who take advantage of a fifth year because of the money they can make in NIL. But the idea is that this rule would flush out the 25-year-olds – and some even older than that – who are clogging the system and trying to maintain eligibility. It would likely cap college players at 24 years old, and most agree that’s in the best interest of the health of the sport.
“Just getting back to an age-based eligibility, it’s important,” Farmer said. “I just think more opportunities for these high school and prep school (players) to have a chance at playing at the Division 1 level, I just think it’s important and it’s healthy for college basketball.”
The belief is that will ultimately create more opportunities for high school prospects, because those older players will be phased out. Farmer noted that the revenue-sharing rule from the House vs. NCAA settlement, where schools can opt into paying players and creating more scholarship spots, would also help. Mannix still hopes the NCAA addresses unlimited transfers in college basketball; if they enact limits, that could help high school recruits.
But the NCAA’s five-year eligibility rule – and more importantly, the June 5 modification – is a necessary step in the right direction. It’s the best of both worlds – the NCAA preserves the principle of its age-based eligibility model, and prep schools preserve their value for postgraduate players.
