New 2016 academic eligibility standards

Submitted by docwhoblocked on

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/eligibility_center/Quick_Reference_Sheet.pdf

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

Don

March 22nd, 2015 at 9:05 PM ^

It might put more pressure on teachers and administrators in sports-centric high schools to bend the rules for high-profile student athletes and will increase the incentives for student cheating, but it's a good move regardless.

OccaM

March 22nd, 2015 at 9:45 PM ^

I just can't fathom how some people can get below a 2.0 GPA in high school athlete or not. Unless there are very extraneous or impovershed circumstances involved, there shouldn't really be problems with getting a GPA higher than 2.0. 

Meh idk. It's just odd for me personally. Is this where I should check my privilege? 

Don

March 22nd, 2015 at 10:20 PM ^

C'mon, you have to know that there are unfortunately many thousands of kids in school districts all over the country with extremely poor reading and writing abilities, and if you're behind in those two, you're going to struggle to get C's. I don't know if I'd use the word "privilege" as much as I'd use the word "fortunate"—you probably grew up in a household where reading matter was present, with parents who talked to you constantly from your first days on the earth, and who were intimately involved with your schooling all the way through high school. Kids who don't have those things are statistically going to struggle by comparison.

My late sister taught first and second grade for three decades in the St. Louis area, including, ironically, in the Ferguson school district, and she always said that every year she had kids who appeared to have spent the first six years of their lives in a closet—they came to her class not knowing how to hold a crayon, much less have any inkling about what words or letters were in books. They'd never been read to by their parents, who pretty much just ignored their cognitive development. That's a huge thing for any child of any race to overcome without specific and targeted intervention by teachers and parents.

OccaM

March 22nd, 2015 at 10:31 PM ^

Yeah I mentioned that. I'm not expecting 4.0s out of areas like where your sister taught. Hence the "impoverished and extraneous" part of my comment. 

But I'm also not going to assume most athletes come from impoverished homes or have learning disabilities. Many times it's just the parents not caring about education leading to the kids not caring regardless of economic situation which I guess is a bigger indictment on America's priorities. 

Bleh. 

 

iamtjeff

March 22nd, 2015 at 11:03 PM ^

Probably a bit more nuanced than that. I think you'll find that those kids are often raised in single parent homes. Mom usually works multiple jobs just to make ends meet. There's a strong likelihood that mom came from similar circumstances. End result? Some slightly older sibling watching after their younger sibling(s) and nan one adult around to encourage education or enforce a structure that supports education. Crazy cycle.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

JOHNNAVARREISMYHERO

March 22nd, 2015 at 9:08 PM ^

Its really crazy how low a GPA is acceptable.   

I know everyone is blessed with different academic chops, but for someone taking basic level classes (as opposed to AP and Honors) - that low a GPA is insane.

All the kids I knew back in the day that were in that range did absolutely nothing schoolwise.

Even with the slighest effort, one should be able to be in the 2.5-3.0 in high school.  

bluebyyou

March 22nd, 2015 at 9:28 PM ^

The GPA and SAT scores required for admission for the football team are not the same as on the academic side.  A few years ago (2008), an Atlanta paper did a study of average SAT scores. Michigan was third highest among the schools that submitted data, and the average was 997 out of 1600.

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-trail/2008/12/30/athletes-s…

ThadMattasagoblin

March 22nd, 2015 at 9:23 PM ^

A 3.0 is a B average which isn't hard to do if you mess up/don't take it seriously when you're younger. I'm more interested in the character of the kid unless they truly are slacking which can be a sign of character. I got a 3.8 with no honors classes but my brother got a 2.6. I don't know how he did that but he didn't smoke, drink, etc. in high school and was truly a good guy and somebody you'd want on a football team. Grades can improve as one enters college especially with Harbaugh but character tends to stay with you.

Achilles

March 22nd, 2015 at 10:13 PM ^

"academic red shirt"

That just tells everyone that anyone who had that is not very smart. Pretty degrading, if you ask me. Why not just call it a normal red shirt? I hope coaches who give academic red shirts keep that on the inside and tell everyone else on the outside that it is just a normal red shirt. They do not have to give a reason why and if they want to, they can just lie and say the guy just is not ready to play just yet.

ghostofhoke

March 22nd, 2015 at 10:14 PM ^

In this day and age of teachers inflating grades because of direct pressure from individual parents (if you don't think it's actually an issue you are either misinformed, crazy or don't live in an area of the country with a competitive college going culture)--what teachers would actually give a kid with strong athletic potential failing grades if they simply put forth some real effort in the classroom regardless of performance?



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

MgoRayO3313

March 22nd, 2015 at 10:37 PM ^

Parents and school districts. Fr every kid I fail (because they did not earn the right to pass based on the syllabi an curriculum) it's another eye watching over me from administration. Today when kids fail few seem to ask the kid why the issue is. Instead they turn to me and ask why they are failing... Data and constant measurement tools protect you to a certain extent, but failing kids consistently causes extra pressure on the teachers.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

bmacdude

March 22nd, 2015 at 10:51 PM ^

route has been altered. After their Junior Year, students must lock in 10 of the 16 core credits. That means those 10 can't be changed by retaking the course. It definitely made it more difficult.

CoachBP6

March 22nd, 2015 at 11:17 PM ^

I like this. I just wish there was more accountability as far as colleges are concerned. People that think that UNC is the only school letting athletes skate by are delusional. Some of these kids playing football / basketball can't even finish a sentence. Academics should never be a joke bc 99% of these kids are going out in the real world after college instead of going pro. The NCAA is a joke and so are many institutions who choose success on the field over success in the classroom.

MichiganMAN47

March 23rd, 2015 at 2:06 AM ^

This will benefit schools like U of M, and harm schools who take marginal students. It will be harder to squeeze recruits with marginal academics into schools like MSU. We don't have to worry nearly as much since we tend to target kids who are well above that threshold. MSU on the other hand will likely lose a few recruits because of this standard.