New minimum 2.3 core GPA in HS or else automatic "Academic Redshirt" starting in 2016

#26
#26
BigZiti09 said:
Changing the requirements half way through the process doesn't matter?

What if you signed up to run a 50 yard dash and when you got 25 yards in, you were told to run 1 mile?

Maintaining a 2.3 GPA in core classes in High School shouldn't be that difficult. I get that. Still not right to change rules midway through the process. Should start this rule in 2018 IMO.
Click to expand...

Another thing--if I really wanted the prize (in this case the scholarship), I'd run the mile and do what was asked of me, or do my dead-level best trying.

If I didn't care, then I'd stop after 50 yards. What happens then is my fault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
supersmo18 said:
Another thing--if I really wanted the prize (in this case the scholarship), I'd run the mile and do what was asked of me, or do my dead-level best trying.

If I didn't care, then I'd stop after 50 yards. What happens then is my fault.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. You can't change the rules to something midway through. Since my analogy didn't paint the picture for you. Let's try another.

What if you're playing a football game and at half time while trailing by a touchdown, you're told that we are only going to play 3 quarters. Not four.
 
#29
#29
If highschool sophomores are shooting for doing just enough to become NCAA eligible (maintaining a 2.0 average) that's a terrible strategy. Who knows what grades you're going to get your junior and senior years that could potentially push you below a 2.0.

Obviously the strategy is to just get the best grades you can get. I don't really see how changing the requirements at this point is terribly unfair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#30
#30
I think I heard about this a while back. It seems like it has been in the works for a while. I heard an interview with Josh Pastner last year or maybe earlier, and he mentioned it. I believe he said that a high percentage of the current incoming basketball players would not have qualified under the new policy.
 
#31
#31
BigZiti09 said:
Changing the requirements half way through the process doesn't matter?

What if you signed up to run a 50 yard dash and when you got 25 yards in, you were told to run 1 mile?

Maintaining a 2.3 GPA in core classes in High School shouldn't be that difficult. I get that. Still not right to change rules midway through the process. Should start this rule in 2018 IMO.
Click to expand...

Ziti, as my post above states, I have heard about this, and it was quite some time ago. Frankly, I forgot about it, but I would think that high school coaches and players already know about it. Josh Pastner mentioned it in a radio interview, and it has probably been at least a year since I heard it. TIFWIW.
 
#32
#32
This is so dumb. Just let the kids play.

I'm sort of torn on this. On one hand, you can say that non-athletes are not going to be given a full scholarship to a university on a 2.0 (C+) average, and most universities are not likely to give non-athletic scholarships to anyone with only a 2.3 (B-) average either, so why do athletes get free rides for only maintainly a C+ average? On the other hand, you can make the argument that those who come in on athletic scholarships essentially are working for the university and making the universities in the power conferences a boatload of money, so do those student/athletes deserve some leeway as far as academic requirements? I personally lean in favor of the former, but I think a fair case can be made for the latter. But I think society may be doing those kids a disservice if we don't expect more from them other than to allow high schools to simply prepare them for a possible NFL career.

Kinda crappy to change a rule when these kids just finished their sophomore year.

It was going to effect one class no matter when they implemented the rule. It still gives those sophomores 2 school years to get their ish together academically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#33
#33
Crazy Ivan said:
It was going to effect one class no matter when they implemented the rule. It still gives those sophomores 2 school years to get their ish together academically.
Click to expand...

I think his point was that if you announce the rule will go into effect 4 years in the future, rising freshmen will be aware of the rule and can enter high school knowing what the requirements are.
 
#34
#34
roberthunter said:
I think his point was that if you announce the rule will go into effect 4 years in the future, rising freshmen will be aware of the rule and can enter high school knowing what the requirements are.
Click to expand...

I do believe this rule was announced atleast by the beginning of this school year if not earlier.
 
#35
#35
on one hand you have college athletics moving toward semi-pro status. Yet, on the other you have higher academic requirements.
 
#38
#38
BigZiti09 said:
You're missing the point. You can't change the rules to something midway through. Since my analogy didn't paint the picture for you. Let's try another.

What if you're playing a football game and at half time while trailing by a touchdown, you're told that we are only going to play 3 quarters. Not four.
Click to expand...

I'm not missing the point. MY point is, that it's going to happen, regardless of how it happens. The problem is how its implemented. Either you sign up to run 50 yards and told to run a mile, or you only play 3 quarters of the football game instead of 4. You have less time to complete the requirements. So, back to my other post, if you "prorate" the requirements, then IMO, that's the only way to make it "fair" for everyone. But even then, people with whine and moan about things. It ultimately doesn't matter when this change takes place, because it will. Just how it's done.

That's the problem with many things in life, and not everyone can be or is going to be happy with it or the outcomes. People just gotta suck it up and deal, and move forward, regardless of how these changes occur. If you remain rigid, then good luck moving on and succeeding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#39
#39
Crazy Ivan said:
This is so dumb. Just let the kids play.

I'm sort of torn on this. On one hand, you can say that non-athletes are not going to be given a full scholarship to a university on a 2.0 (C+) average, and most universities are not likely to give non-athletic scholarships to anyone with only a 2.3 (B-) average either, so why do athletes get free rides for only maintainly a C+ average? On the other hand, you can make the argument that those who come in on athletic scholarships essentially are working for the university and making the universities in the power conferences a boatload of money, so do those student/athletes deserve some leeway as far as academic requirements? I personally lean in favor of the former, but I think a fair case can be made for the latter. But I think society may be doing those kids a disservice if we don't expect more from them other than to allow high schools to simply prepare them for a possible NFL career.

Kinda crappy to change a rule when these kids just finished their sophomore year.

It was going to effect one class no matter when they implemented the rule. It still gives those sophomores 2 school years to get their ish together academically.
Click to expand...

Thank you. :hi:
 
#41
#41
If a student cannot hold a 2.3 in high school we should not want them representing the University. How can you expect a player to fully comprehend the game when they cant hold the minimum standard?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#42
#42
UcaVol said:
If a student cannot hold a 2.3 in high school we should not want them representing the University. How can you expect a player to fully comprehend the game when they cant hold the minimum standard?
Click to expand...

Stanford University supports your position and they've been way ahead of UT lately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#43
#43
Biopsyman said:
2.3 is hard to get.. You really need to try to earn that GPA
Click to expand...

Correct if wrong , I think the football players carry six hours, not a heavy load. Plus they have access to academic support, with effort the 2.3 can be achieved.
Like everything else in life," you get out of it what you put into it"! :yes: :hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#44
#44
seems to me like an attempt by the NCAA to kill the talk of unionizing by stressing the importance of education. i actually think it is a pretty good idea. if these athletes start coming out of college with good degrees where they can make good money (accounting, engineering, etc. instead of stuff like family planning where the salaries aren't particularly high), i think this talk of unionizing becomes irrelevant.
 
#45
#45
This doesn't bode well for the deep south teams :):):) This may help chase some big time coaches to the NFL :):):)
 
#46
#46
Any way to tell which teams would be impacted most? Any spreadsheets or data sets or numbers to crunch? LV, you got anything on this? ;)
 
#47
#47
zreeves said:
seems to me like an attempt by the NCAA to kill the talk of unionizing by stressing the importance of education. i actually think it is a pretty good idea. if these athletes start coming out of college with good degrees where they can make good money (accounting, engineering, etc. instead of stuff like family planning where the salaries aren't particularly high), i think this talk of unionizing becomes irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Oh! Those evil football, baseball, basketball, and hockey unions. Union bad. And the wealth gap grows ever wider. :crazy: :loco: :idea:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top