HBCU star uses new JUCO rules to hit portal
Sterling Young, the newly crowned SWAC Player of the Year, is entering the transfer portal, making him one of the most intriguing HBCU basketball prospects available. The Florida A&M guard, who had been expected to exhaust his eligibility after the 2024-25 season, will now have an extra year to play due to a recent NCAA ruling. The waiver, announced in December, grants an additional year to athletes who previously competed at non-NCAA institutions, opening the door for Young to extend his college career into 2025-26.
Young's journey to being named the top player in a Division I HBCU basketball league has been anything but conventional. The Queens, N.Y. native took the JUCO route, spending two seasons at JUCO Pratt Community College in Kansas, where he became a key scorer, averaging 15.9 points per game in his sophomore year while shooting 45% from the field and 39% from three. He then made a brief stop at Charlotte, appearing in five games before transferring to Florida A&M, where he finally found his stride. In his lone season with the Rattlers, Young emerged as one of the most dynamic guards in HBCU basketball, leading FAMU with his scoring ability (17 points per game) and earning conference Player of the Year honors.
With his extra year of eligibility, Young's decision to enter the portal shows the ever-changing college basketball landscape - by extension - the HBCU basketball landscape. His scoring prowess and experience at multiple levels make him a highly coveted target for programs looking for an impact player. While Florida A&M would surely love to retain him, Sterling Young now has the opportunity to explore new options, whether at another HBCU or a different level of competition. As the offseason unfolds, his next move will be closely watched, as he has the potential to be a game-changer wherever he lands.
The post HBCU star uses new JUCO rules to hit portal appeared first on HBCU Gameday.
Copyright HBCU Gameday 2012-2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
College sports enters new era after NCAA settlement, but it won't work if schools cheat
Don't think about the House vs. NCAA settlement as an instant cure for all of the issues disrupting, and in some cases swallowing, schools at the top level of college sports. Instead, it's more like the timeout a basketball coach is forced to take after watching his team give up six consecutive layups so he can draw up a zone defense and try to stop the bleeding. A change of strategy might work, but without a full commitment from the players in the game to execute the plan, it's over before it begins. Advertisement In theory, the settlement is a big step in the right direction to solving issues. It forces the wealthy, power-conference programs to directly share revenue with the athletes who help create the popularity of college football and basketball primarily, but other sports too, if the school so chooses. It sets a de facto salary cap that forces schools to prioritize not just which sports to invest in, but which athletes. It allows schools to sign enforceable, multi-year contracts that should ease at least some of the transfer madness. And it has an enforcement component that should — if it works the way it's intended — bring name, image and likeness deals back into the realm of Caitlin Clark appearing in State Farm commercials rather than school-affiliated booster groups paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a couple of meet-and-greets and calling it NIL. Ohio State defensive end Jack Sawyer (33) returns a fumble recovery for a touchdown against Texas during the 2025 Cotton Bowl at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas. But there's no guarantee any of this is going to work. And the main reason is because success will require schools to do something that they've never done in the history of college sports: Acknowledge that the rules are in place for the common good and must be applied to everyone, including themselves. Advertisement It sounds simple. But the decades-long track record of screaming and threatening whenever the NCAA attempted to enforce penalties on rule-breakers suggests it's going to be one of the biggest challenges in the history of the association. As one prominent athletics director said recently, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the settlement was still pending, all of the stakeholders in this — including state legislatures and booster groups constantly looking for loopholes and gray areas — must agree to be governed, or they simply won't be. In fact, the need for complete buy-in on policing of NIL deals and the revenue-sharing cap is so profound that the new enforcement entity being established by the Power Four conferences spent months drafting a document schools will be required to sign that prevents them from suing if they don't like the result of their internal arbitration process. Having that final authority vested in a third party is considered crucial by the Power Four to any semblance of self-governance, a person with direct knowledge of the process told USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on behalf of the group. But will it work? I'm skeptical, as everyone should be. The reason is because pulling this off will require a complete mindset change from the way college sports have always operated, and I'm not sure the necessary foundational work has been done to make that transition. Advertisement In the NFL or NBA, for instance, team owners are highly competitive but fundamentally understand that they are business partners more than competitors, driving long-term decision-making that works to everyone's benefit. College sports has never had that mentality. Schools and conferences attempt to work together when necessary, but they ultimately see each other as adversaries to take advantage of and exert leverage on when it suits their immediate interests. It's a theme we've seen over and over again in everything from conference realignment to how they reacted to COVID in 2020 to the future structure of the College Football Playoff. They are forever probing for the smallest competitive advantage, pushing the limits of the rules and crying foul when the NCAA comes in to investigate. That's how athletics administrators and college presidents are conditioned to operate, especially in the social media era where their feedback loop is imbued with tribalism: When your rival gets caught, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. When you get caught? Lawyer up, plant stories in the media and do everything possible to discredit the group holding you accountable. Look, we can debate the history and effectiveness of NCAA enforcement – investigative tactics used, places where they've overreached, rulings that seemed inconsistent – but the process was set up and endorsed by the schools themselves because they did not trust each other to color within the lines. And its fundamental underpinning was the willingness of schools to submit to that system and even punish themselves when it was clear they broke rules. Advertisement What happened over time, though, was an erosion and ultimately outright rejection of that body's authority to enforce its rulebook. Yes, some of that was the NCAA's fault, but let's get real. It happened mostly because coaches and administrators facing penalties too often got better outcomes when they fought, refused to cooperate or found someone to throw under the bus because they knew the weakness of the system: It wasn't a court of law, and its processes wouldn't necessarily stand up to that level of scrutiny. Fair enough. But every time a major school with resources skates on a massive scandal (cough, North Carolina, cough), or when a state-level attorney general does a school's dirty work to make sure NIL rules can't be enforced (cough, Tennessee, cough), or when an unfavorable transfer eligibility ruling ends up in court (cough, West Virginia, cough) because schools believe they're getting a raw deal from the bureaucracy they vested power in, it chips away at the very idea that schools are willing to be governed, until we arrive at a place where there's not much governance remaining. Advertisement Do school presidents and athletic administrators have the collective will and discipline to suddenly do a 180-degree turn and submit to this new set of rules rather than look for creative ways to avoid them? Will they suddenly put faith into a different kind of bureaucracy that will undoubtedly, at some point, shoot down a key NIL deal or penalize a school for trying to get around the cap? That might be possible if, just as an example, Florida trusted Georgia or Ohio State trusted Michigan to play by the same set of rules, or vice versa. But what almost always happens instead in those kinds of rivalries is that one side believes the other will do something on the edge of the rules to get a player, thus giving themselves permission to go into the gray area as well. And when that happens under this new settlement, every administrator will tell you they want the enforcement arm to strictly apply the rules so that college sports doesn't slide back into the kind of chaos they have experienced the last four years. But will they still feel that way when it's applied to their own program? When it costs them a player? When it costs them wins? When it potentially costs them a job? Advertisement If not, the House settlement will fall apart quickly – and take the entire structure of college sports down with it. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: NCAA settlement altering college sports needs schools to follow rules
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
2026 4-star CB and Texas A&M commit has canceled his future visits
2026 4-star CB and Texas A&M commit has canceled his future visits Texas A&M's recruiting success under coach Mike Elko, who is entering his second season at the helm, has already matched that of former head coach Jimbo Fisher, except for the historic 2022 recruiting class, which, despite its struggles, remains a historical achievement. In the 2026 cycle, Elko has landed 12 commitments, including four-star cornerback Camren Hamiel, who is the highest-rated prospect in Arizona. Landing Hamiel, whose instincts and decisive play makes him a candidate for early playing time as soon as his freshman season, is completely locked in with the program, as Texas A&M recruiting insider Jaxson Callaway (AggiesToday) reported that Hamiel has cancelled his future visits to competing programs, and has moved up his official visit to College Station to Friday, June 12. This has become a trend for several Texas A&M commits, as the news that Mike Elko will call defensive plays and 2025 and beyond is good news for players like Hamiel who possess elite athleticism and versatility, while playing with a high motor at a position that has been an issue for the Aggies over the past two seasons. This summer is critical for Elko and his staff to lock down a majority of the 12 commits in the cycle, and they are looking to flip five-star wide receiver Tristen Keys, who is currently taking an official visit with the Aggies this weekend. Hamiel's dedication to the program is a great sign, and Elko deserves credit for building a foundation that will (hopefully) result in on-field results for years to come. Contact/Follow us @AggiesWire on X and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Texas A&M news, notes and opinions. Follow Cameron on X: @CameronOhnysty.
Chicago Tribune
3 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
153 NCAA rules had to be eliminated to clear the way for the House settlement. Here are numbers to know.
The groundbreaking case leading to the transformation of college sports in the United States comes nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House and Oregon basketball player Sedona Prince filed a complaint against the NCAA and the five most powerful conferences alleging they were unfairly being denied of pay for use of their name, image and likeness. The settlement approved Friday by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken resolved three antitrust cases — House vs. NCAA, Carter vs. NCAA and Hubbard vs. NCAA — that became known collectively as the 'House case.' The class-action lawsuits contended the NCAA, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC violated antitrust law by not providing benefits and compensation to athletes and restraining athletes' ability to make money for endorsements and sponsorships. Incremental gains won by athletes in previous lawsuits against the NCAA set the stage for the House settlement and the all-out professionalization of college sports. Here's a look at key numbers associated with the case. Athletes who played an NCAA sport between 2016-24 and could be eligible for back payments Class members who submitted a claim form or updated their payment information, which represents approximately 26.2% of the 389,700. Athletes who opted out of the settlement and could pursue their own remedies. Back damages to be paid to current and former college athletes who were denied the opportunity to profit from the use of their NIL rights. The amount will be paid in $280 million installments over 10 years. The NCAA will use reserves and insurance to cover about 40% of the payments. The rest will be covered by the NCAA reducing its annual distributions to Division I schools. Estimated amount of the $2.8 billion that will be paid in back damages to football and men's and women's basketball players in power conferences. The 2025-26 pool of money each Division I school can distribute in direct payments to athletes beginning July 1. The amount represents 22% of the average revenue generated by each school from the five defendant conferences and Notre Dame. NCAA rules that had to be eliminated to allow schools to provide additional benefits to athletes under the settlement. All Division I athletes will be required to report to their schools and the Deloitte clearinghouse any and all third-party NIL contracts with a total value of $600 or more, if payment occurs after July 1, 2025. The clearinghouse will determine whether the amount is commensurate with the athlete's fair market value. The widely accepted estimate by University of San Francisco sports economist Daniel Rascher of additional direct compensation athletes will receive over the next 10 years. The estimated amount of damages faced by the NCAA and the five conferences if they avoided a settlement and lost at trial. Plaintiffs attorneys' request for legal fees. The figure is based on attorneys receiving 20% of the NIL settlement fund and 10% of the additional compensation settlement fund as well as an injunction relief award of $20 million paid by the defendants. That does not included about $9 million in expenses attorney.
