New NCAA eligibility requirements
Please sign in to add a comment.
hovis Nov 15, 9:09 a.m.
That is what I am saying. A lot of these schools would be capable of anything if the money was right. And who can blame them?
Ken D. Nov 15, 8:35 a.m.
"If it was solely for the sake of competitive football would Vanderbilt choose to be in the SEC? Do you think their fans and boosters really enjoy that or would they rather play Wake Forrest and other academic schools like that week in and week out?"
Good question. Why are they there? Maybe it's because they feel their alumni want to stay in the same conference as Tennessee. Or maybe it's the $20+ million they get from the SEC to help pay for their field hockey team.
hovis Nov 14, 1:47 p.m.
I do not know how likely any of it is. I do think that it is certainly possible though. Whether or not it will work in the long run I do not know and neither do they.
But here is another thing. I think that there are plenty of other teams that if given a viable option would go in the complete other direction. They would offer less or no scholarships if everyone else would also. In particular, a lot of the schools not in a current BCS conference. Most of them have administration that is sick of kids in there school that have no business in college.
They may have a point too. If your team still played most of its conference rivals and rivalry games on the same footing with each other, what would those other schools do matter anyway? If it was solely for the sake of competitive football would Vanderbilt choose to be in the SEC? Do you think their fans and boosters really enjoy that or would they rather play Wake Forrest and other academic schools like that week in and week out?
As to would other schools join them and sacrifice the competitiveness of their football program? Yes. If the money was right, yes. Did someone mention Vanderbilt awhile ago?
There are many schools out there that already do just that.
As far as true national championship, it seems to me the way the sports media works now it would just be whoever ESPN said it was. And if this D League is partly their creation and they put up the contract for it then I can guess who they will put the crown on.
Ken D. Nov 14, 10:25 a.m.
I think many of the folks that expressed those sentiments think that a large number of schools outside their own conferences would go along with them if they left the NCAA. I don't believe that would be the case.
As for shorter schedules and larger playoffs, the schools who would drive this wouldn't accept fewer home games to have more playoff games. And I don't think there would be enough teams in total to have more than a four team playoff. Let's say you are in a conference whose schools rank near the bottom in the academic prestige category. Those would be the Sunbelt, and now, to an extent, C-USA.
Do you really want to pull out of the NCAA so you can be dominated by the SEC and Big XII teams who would go with you? Do you think you will somehow get more TV and bowl money than you get now for your willingness to be cannon fodder for Alabama, LSU and Oklahoma? While there are some great teams there, I don't think ESPN would pay as much to televise games that are only relevant in the deep south. Those schools would never be playing for a true "national" championship. And in the long run, I think that would hurt their quality as much as in the short run paying players might help it. Just my opinion.
Beware of unintended consequences. Words to live by.
Pack pride lead investigator Nov 13, 8:13 p.m.
For the record I support every one of the new rules and the things that Ken suggested sound well reasoned too.
I have (somewhat unfortunately) had a good deal of contact with the programs that I am talking about would possibly leave. The idea of them leaving is not some far fetched thing that I am just throwing out there it is what they openly suggested was in their best interest going back some 35 odd years. And they really believe it. I do not advocate it for my school or think that a university should be anything but a university first but I will play devils advocate and tell you what they believe like I have been told by them.
First of all, the contracts are with ESPN not the NCAA. It is just a governing body. What is the difference in having a "conference realignment and leaving the NCAA out of it?Also, it would give us the ability to pay our players what they deserve to play football. And we do not have to pretend that they are in school learning anything when most of them are not. They vast majority of them are not getting a real degree at any institution anywhere. We could shut down the "communications major" department and put real students with real majors in their place. We could offer a higher product of football that more people would watch. Less schools would just mean that we would shift to 8 game schedules that would leave room for the 16 team playoff system we have always supported along with paying the players.
Now back to reality...have you heard 90% of these ideas constantly and suddenly espoused from any certain major news source? For the record football used to be about schools and family bragging rights and the institution. Now not so much. Do I think it is likely? I did not think it would be likely that Texas a&m would leave their rivals since forever ...for the money. I did not think the NCAA would even look at playing players but they have...for the money. I would think a lot of things about
firstname.lastname@example.org Nov 13, 5:43 p.m.
Ken. Your 2nd paragraph on the 1st page hit it for me. I truly don't see any school leaving the NCAA. In spite of their many flaws, they are at least trying to make an effort now.
Ken D. Nov 13, 4:35 p.m.
I find it hard to believe that the Big Ten, which ranks second to the ACC in academic prestige, and which would only accept schools who were members of the academically prestigious Association of American Universities, would leave the NCAA because they wanted higher academic standards. Especially if those standards reduced the competitive advantage the SEC now enjoys. I don't see the PAC 10 doing it either. The SEC and Big XII couldn't go it alone - they need the NCAA.
ncstateforever Nov 13, 11:12 a.m.
I was watching the Ala. LSU game with 90 thousand in attendance. I don't see them or the boosters wanting to change things and make it more difficult for them to fill those seats. The NCAA would be in a difficult postion if the SEC teams, the Big 12, the PAC 12, and the Big 10 were to leave and form their on athletic league with less stringent rules. One other thing, the NCAA inforcement team would have to increase its numbers to make sure that teams are following the academic rules. And, lastly, it is the National Collegiate [b]Athletic[b] not Academic Association.
hovis Nov 12, 11:04 a.m.
We agree completely. It would not bother me at all to see any of them leave anyway. But I think if you put "pressure" and "money and "winning by any means nessecary" on a a scale what certain schools would consider the weightier argument (with a large amount of fan support too).
Ken D. Nov 12, 10:59 a.m.
I agree that fans of some schools would not be happy with these rules. Those are the schools who currently enjoy what I consider an unfair competitive advantage due to their "management" of academic rules. But I believe most D-I schools (and certainly their presidents) would consider this an improvement.
And even within the two leagues who I think would object most strenuously to such changes - the SEC and Big XII - I think their presidents and faculty would be mortified if they went their separate way from the NCAA. I don't think every school in those two conferences would secede even if the majority did. Surely Vanderbilt would not. I doubt Kentucky would be willing to make itself ineligible for a national championship in basketball. In the Big XII I don't think Kansas, K State or Iowa State would pull out, and I doubt two former members now in the SEC - Missouri and A&M - would go along either. I even think Texas, which seems to care a lot about its academic prestige, would stay in the NCAA.
If presidents want to make a statement about the relationship of athletics to education, this is a way to do it, and if enough of them got behind it the peer pressure on the SEC would be tremendous. And if the SEC resisted that pressure and basically became an NFL developmental league - isn't that what a lot of people want to see anyway?
hovis Nov 12, 10:38 a.m.
I like every statement Ken D made but I seriously doubt the ability of the NCAA to enforce such rules in the long run. As with all NCAA rules they will only apply to the schools that wish to follow them. The ACC is full of schools that do so or at least attempt to. We all know that there are many schools that make it their goal to get around any NCAA rules by any means necessary and these schools are not in the ACC. Call any school in the ACC cheaters if you want. It does not come even remotely close to what goes on elsewhere with the knowledge and backing of all school administration.
If they do somehow find a way to enforce these rules, I think that the SEC and a few other selected schools will just leave the NCAA. They have threatened it for years and their fan base does not care one bit if their kids are in class at all. Plus, with the contracts written the way they are now what hit would they even take if they did bow out of the NCAA? None. Then they could have every player no matter his scholastic ability and the semi-pro league that they always wanted. And if the average modern day ESPN only fan felt that the best football was played by these schools who would they watch? That is who ESPN and such cater to now, not the Alumni groups (etc.) that they used to. That is where all of the vast supply of new money comes from.
So really, I applaud the new rules. I just do not think that it will put anybody on a more equal footing or any of the other stuff that people say because in the end you will still have the schools that try to obey the rules, and the schools that actively do not. The ones that obey will just have more rules to follow.
Ken D. Nov 12, 10:10 a.m.
That last paragraph got cut short. It should read "does count against the scholarship limit".
Ken D. Nov 12, 9:57 a.m.
Reduce the number of scholarships in football from 85 to 70. Each athlete starts with four years of eligibility. Academic redshirts count against the total. If a student-athlete completes four years and is within two semesters of completing his degree requirements, he may play a fifth season which won't count against the scholarship limit. To be eligible for this extra year, the president of the university, along with the Chief Academic Officer (usually the Provost) and the head of the department in which the athlete is majoring, must certify in writing to the NCAA that the student is expected to complete his degree requirements within that time frame.
However, in the event that fewer than 90% of the players so certified during the preceding five years actually received their degrees, then no player at that school may be granted a fifth year of eligibility. In addition, the school will be required to continue to provide full scholarship assistance to players who would have qualified for that fifth year, and to count those athletes against their allowed number of scholarships.
If an athlete enters the NFL draft prior to completing his four years of eligibility, he must be counted against the school's allowed number of scholarships until those four years are up.
If an athlete earns his degree within his first four years, and qualifies for admission to graduate school at that institution, he will be awarded three additional years of eligibility, and won't be counted against the allowable scholarship limit. Each year, the University Chancellor and the Dean of the graduate program must certify in writing that the athlete is making appropriate progress toward his degree. As with undergraduates, 90 % of athletes so certified must obtain their graduate degree or this benefit is not available to its scholar-athletes.
If the athlete transfers to another D-I school as a graduate student, he is granted a fifth year of eligibility and does co
Ken D. Nov 12, 9:52 a.m.
The NCAA has established new, and stricter, requirements for freshman eligibility to take effect for the 2016 season. They are a big improvement for those who believe athletes should actually be students. IMO, however, they only address half the problem. The other half is after they enroll in college.
The new requirements to be eligible to play as a freshman include 16 core courses with a minimum GPA of 2.3. Ten of those sixteen courses must be completed before the student starts his senior year in high school. I would go one step further here - I would require that the student must achieve the 2.3 GPA in the ten core courses before he starts his senior year. I'm skeptical of the kid who has a 1.8 GPA in 10 courses and then magically manages a 3.2 for the next six.
These new requirements give the student motivation to get serious about his academics from the start of his freshman year. That's a good thing. But once he gets to college, if he has already qualified to play, neither he nor his school have much motivation to do more than simply keep him eligible. I would propose radical changes to provide motivation to ensure he actually gets an education. I also suspect that the changes I propose would have a secondary benefit - I believe they would create more parity in college football.
These are my suggestions.
ACC: NC State at Georgia Tech
Tomorrow at 12:00 pm on WRAL-TV
SEC: Arkansas at Florida
Tomorrow at 2:00 pm on WRAL-TV
PGA: Waste Management Phoenix Open
Tomorrow at 3:00 pm on WRAL-TV
Big 10: Michigan at Michigan State
Sunday at 1:00 pm on WRAL-TV
NHL: Hurricanes vs. St. Louis
Tonight at 7:00 on 99.9 The Fan
ACC: NC State at Georgia Tech
Tomorrow at 12:00 pm on WRAL-FM
NHL: Carolina Hurricanes at NY Rangers
Tomorrow at 7:00 pm on 99.9 The Fan
— Fri 7:14 a.m.
— Fri 6:57 a.m.
— Thu 10:16 p.m.
— Thu 9:53 p.m.
— Thu 9:10 p.m.
— Thu 8:48 p.m.
— Thu 8:41 p.m.
— Thu 8:39 p.m.
— Thu 8:36 p.m.
— Thu 8:35 p.m.
— Thu 8:34 p.m.
— Thu 8:33 p.m.
— Thu 8:30 p.m.
— Thu 8:28 p.m.
— Thu 8:27 p.m.
— Thu 8:23 p.m.
— Thu 8:19 p.m.
— Thu 8:16 p.m.