MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on April 18, 2022, 06:54:22 PM
-
The six year clock to complete five years of eligibility. It would keep some experienced players in the college game, which will improve the product on the floor. It also gives players more time to complete their degrees and/or get a start in their graduate programs.
-
The six year clock to complete five years of eligibility. It would keep some experienced players in the college game, which will improve the product on the floor. It also gives players more time to complete their degrees and/or get a start in their graduate programs.
I agree.
Also would like to see some changes on % progress towards a degree. Right now with the way the rules are, many students have to select purely fluff degrees as some more challenging degrees are simply impossible with the current rules. Could also then open up more opportunities for remedial courses that don't count towards a degree, so they can have success.
Open up more opportunities for students to gain long-term success through education.
-
Excellent points.
-
I have mixed emotions on this. I don't know for sure how it would play out over the long term, but it was really tough for a lot of high school senior student athletes this past year because the scholarships didn't open up. I would be more inclined to support this if there was some expansion in the number of scholarships that schools could make available. Or, I do like the idea that schools will allow kids to complete their degree at no cost once their eligibility is used up. While we tend to focus more attention on MBB (and specifically high major MBB) that represents a very small percentage of the people affected. This past year a lot of kids who would have gotten college scholarships in other years got shut out because schools retained super seniors. I understand that they were obviously borderline athletes...but I do feel for them.
-
I agree.
Also would like to see some changes on % progress towards a degree. Right now with the way the rules are, many students have to select purely fluff degrees as some more challenging degrees are simply impossible with the current rules. Could also then open up more opportunities for remedial courses that don't count towards a degree, so they can have success.
Open up more opportunities for students to gain long-term success through education.
Or we could stop pretending that these are "student athletes" and not "athletes who may possibly go to school" and do away with all these dumb requirements.
-
I have mixed emotions on this. I don't know for sure how it would play out over the long term, but it was really tough for a lot of high school senior student athletes this past year because the scholarships didn't open up. I would be more inclined to support this if there was some expansion in the number of scholarships that schools could make available. Or, I do like the idea that schools will allow kids to complete their degree at no cost once their eligibility is used up. While we tend to focus more attention on MBB (and specifically high major MBB) that represents a very small percentage of the people affected. This past year a lot of kids who would have gotten college scholarships in other years got shut out because schools retained super seniors. I understand that they were obviously borderline athletes...but I do feel for them.
"The NCAA's announcement said seniors student-athletes who take advantage of the additional year of eligibility will not count against team scholarship limits in 2021-22."
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-approves-blanket-waiver-for-2020-fall-sports-athletes-to-retain-year-of-eligibility/
-
"The NCAA's announcement said seniors student-athletes who take advantage of the additional year of eligibility will not count against team scholarship limits in 2021-22."
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-approves-blanket-waiver-for-2020-fall-sports-athletes-to-retain-year-of-eligibility/
But Greg Elliott will count against someone's scholarship cap next year when he uses his fifth year. It's a legit concern so perhaps the best option is to leave a fifth year open at the discretion of the school.
-
But Greg Elliott will count against someone's scholarship cap next year when he uses his fifth year. It's a legit concern so perhaps the best option is to leave a fifth year open at the discretion of the school.
Only because Greg transferred correct?
-
Only because Greg transferred correct?
No, if for whatever reason Greg stuck around MU, he would have counted against Marquette's cap. The roster exception was for 2021-22 only.
-
But Greg Elliott will count against someone's scholarship cap next year when he uses his fifth year. It's a legit concern so perhaps the best option is to leave a fifth year open at the discretion of the school.
It is a legit concern...though I'm not sure how big of one. While many seemed to take advantage of it last year, it seems like very few are taking advantage of it this year, at least at the high major level. I could see more mid or low majors taking advantage.
-
Or we could stop pretending that these are "student athletes" and not "athletes who may possibly go to school" and do away with all these dumb requirements.
Along the lines of what I mentioned in my post, this focuses on the major money sports. The large majority of NCAA student athletes that I actually have first hand knowledge of (as opposed to watching them on TV) are "student athletes" who are fortunate enough to parlay their athletic ability into a scholarship. I think one of the problems is that we have one set of rules that applies to both revenue producing sports and non-revenue sports. I think it would probably make sense to have different rules.
"The NCAA's announcement said seniors student-athletes who take advantage of the additional year of eligibility will not count against team scholarship limits in 2021-22."
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-approves-blanket-waiver-for-2020-fall-sports-athletes-to-retain-year-of-eligibility/
Thank you for posting that. I was not aware of that. In light of that, I suspect that my experience was based in large part on the fact that the situations I was familiar with were in non-revenue sports where the number of kids on a roster is more a function of budget than NCAA regulations. But, as illustrated by the link you provided, I was incorrect on the cause of the issues. I'm all for letting these kids finish their degrees.