The basic difference is that in major NCAA D-I sports, students go to college for the purpose of playing the sports. Teams receive millions of dollars in equipment, training, and facilities. Players naturally gain a physical advantage after years of training and aging into their mid-20s. Listen to the dicussion about Maurice Clarrett: The common theme is that no matter how good someone is as a college freshman, a 19 year old is not physically able to compete in the NFL. I would argue that non-revenue sports follow similar eligibility models because the NCAA rules are based on the headline sports, not because there's any real reason a law school student should be barred from playing D-III lacrosse. In quizbowl, there is no inherent advantage in being 25 instead of 19. There is no multimillion dollar apparatus that improves the players. Most importantly, it is not the raison d'etre of the participants' presence in school. The figure of the elderly quizbowler remaining in school just to retain eligibility is a straw man (with one exception, who is now retired). In all aspects of the way qb is run, it's an extracurricular activity, not a sport. If you don't want to expel someone who happens to be in his tenth year of school from the College Democrats or the Biology Club, then you can't expel him from qb.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST