Peppers at 10, which seems low.
A few days ago some MGoPosters wondered how it was permissible for the MSU hoops team to fly to Dallas for the Cotton Bowl. The answer is apparently a change to NCAA Bylaw 16:7, which allows for "reasonable entertainment in conjuction with practice or competition".
“It’s part of the movement of, if your school can afford it, you can do it,” said Smith, a senior associate athletic director on Hollis’ staff.
For example, Izzo’s team also has traveled to Cleveland for a leadership session with Cleveland Cavaliers owner and MSU alum Dan Gilbert. Schools can now pay for a team on the road to attend an amusement park. A golf team from the north can travel to Florida to practice – previously, such a trip would only be allowed for competition.
Apparently spending 40k fflying from Iowa to Texas, unrelated to any hoops competition (but practicing in Dallas) qualifies as both reasonable and in conjunction with practice - the article (Freep, sorry) states that the B1G cleared the trip.
I'm all for the student athletes having some fun, but perhaps it's time to just get rid of the rule altogether if it is going to be interpreted so liberally.
I was at the UM coaches clinic and this was brought up. I thought that the high school coaches on the blog ought to know about this as well as any of you that are parents of high school athletes.
The new eligibility standards have moved the GPA up from 2.0 to 2.3 for the core high school courses of English Math and Science and the lower the GPA the higher the ACT or SAT must be. You cannot repeat courses for a better grade after the 7th semester. You can have a GPA of 2.0 but you will not be able to compete freshman year (academic redshirt). The coaches, kids and their parents had best be thinking about these standards when they set their courses for their freshman year of high school. There may be no way to ever be eligible if you mess up your course requirements and your grades from your freshman year of high school
Florida State University, via its "Student Assistant Fund," is paying for an insurance policy for Jameis Winston on which he can collect if he is injured in a way that hurts his NFL value. The article linked below says that it's up to the conferences to determine how such student assistant funds can be used. Am I missing something here? This seems like the school is giving Winston a direct monetary benefit to play there. Just to clarify - I'm not making an argument that athletes should or should not be paid; I'm just wondering how FSU can get away with this under the current rules. Does Michigan or any Big 10 school ever pay for such insurance policies for their players? Anybody know?
Today, the Big 10 issued a statement opposing the changes in recruiting rules scheduled to go into effect in July, reading in part:
We have serious concerns whether these proposals, as currently written, are in the best interest of high school student-athletes, their families and their coaches. We are also concerned about the adverse effect they would have on college coaches, administrators and university resources. We look forward to working with the NCAA toward improving the game, the recruiting process and the overall college football experience for all student-athletes.
Personally, I hope this provokes the NCAA to respond to increasing levels of criticism about the upcoming changes. The changes are going to do nothing but eliminate any down time for recruits and the coaches who recruit them.
Stumbled across this while perusing the interwebs this morning. Any merit to what this guy is saying?
Say it isn't so.
Please say that after what happened at Ohio State, the University of Michigan isn't letting its football players keep the throwback jerseys worn in the Wolverines' last-second victory over Notre Dame.
No athletic director who pays attention to the world, and conference, around him would say "yes" to such a request.
And yet, Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon, after checking with his NCAA compliance officer, acceded to the players' wishes. They get to keep the jerseys.
While this is not a violation of NCAA rules, it is a violation of common sense.
Don't people learn?
The mess at Ohio State, which cost football coach Jim Tressel his job and seems likely to put the Buckeyes on probation, began with players trading memorabilia for tattoos.
Several Michigan players say nothing untoward is going to happen, that they will keep the jerseys forever in order to preserve the memory of their victory.
OK. That's a nice thought. But why put temptation in front of players?
Does anyone think well-heeled Wolverines boosters will resist the urge to line players' pockets with cash while getting a "legacy" jersey to frame and hang on their den walls?
Even if you believe players have the right to sell whatever they are given, the NCAA disagrees. If you want players to avoid violating rules by selling jerseys, don't give them jerseys to sell.
Click HERE to read the rest of the column.