CBS: Could Dan Mullen's extra eligibility idea really work for college football?

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
63,051
Reaction score
20,732
Points
113
per CBS:

Dan Mullen admitted to al.com on Tuesday that he does not (as of yet) have any support for his proposal that would dramatically alter the college football eligibility landscape. But it's likely to kickstart some spirited discussion all the same -- and while far from perfect, his argument that players who excel academically deserve greater rewards is one that merits it.

Mullen currently isn't happy with the NCAA's new academic standards, which starting in August 2016 will require first-year student-athletes to graduate high school with a 2.3 GPA to receive freshman eligibility. Players who pass the NCAA's qualification standards but fall short of the benchmark will be forced to take an academic redshirt.

"I think it's a tough approach [for those players] because you come in, and you know already you can't play," he says. "It messes with academics and other things. It messes with your mindset a little bit."

Mullen's also unhappy that with larger numbers of players unable to play as freshmen, those who are immediately eligible will be forced into active roles with their teams ... whether they're ready for those roles or not.

His counter-proposal: allow those players who enroll with the 2.3 GPA or better to have five years of eligibility rather than four, so there's no lasting damage from being rushed onto the field in what should, he argues, have been a redshirt season.

"Why punish someone who might be forced to have to play?" he told al.com. "Instead of punishing guys for doing bad, why not reward guys for doing good?"

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...of-eligibility-idea-work-for-college-football

Go Gophers!!
 

It really isn't that hard to get a 2.3 in a Mississippi or Alabama high school
 

By "messing with academics" he means its not fair that kids who might be below average students would have to focus on school.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk
 


Does he realize that allowing a lot of players five years of eligibility will mean less opportunities? There will be less open scholarships for everyone across the board. I'm not sure that helps a whole lot.
 


Do players have to be forced to play as freshmen? I thought they were pretty eager to play as freshmen.

Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk
 

If a kid isn't studying and getting a C+ average in high school, his/her chance of succeeding at the University level are low. Student Athlete in that order if you ask me.
 

A GPA of 2.3 is a ridiculously easy bar to clear. If a student can't manage that, they either have a learning disability or (far more likely) are lazy or lacking in requisite intelligence to be a college student. If they fall into one of those buckets, they shouldn't be playing college football anyway. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this population missing out on a free college education.
 




A GPA of 2.3 is a ridiculously easy bar to clear. If a student can't manage that, they either have a learning disability or (far more likely) are lazy or lacking in requisite intelligence to be a college student. If they fall into one of those buckets, they shouldn't be playing college football anyway. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this population missing out on a free college education.

Wouldn't they still be on scholarship their freshman year? Or did I miss that somewhere? (No sarcasm - real question).

My counter proposal would be if a player enrolls early (which would be doubtful with that low of a GPA) or enrolls in summer school and completes X credits at Y GPA and stays in good standing, then they could play as freshmen. Gives a kid a chance to redeem himself.

Of course, the other question is how many schools really enroll kids with that low of a GPA. I don't believe you can get into any B1G school, can you? Even if you ace the ACT/SAT?
 




Top Bottom