I’ve mocked one AD this morning for general dumbassery, so it only seems fair to praise another for coming up with something smart. And this qualifies.
Man, this clicks on so many levels, I hardly know where to start. It walks away from the stupidity of blanket freshman ineligibility and provides a brilliant incentive for high school athletes to put the effort in on their academics.
Alternatively, the five-year eligibility rule is one I think that college athletics is long past accepting.
Honestly, I can’t pick a hole in what Stricklin is suggesting. It’s good for the coaches and it’s good for the kids. Which means it’s got no chance, right?
Get The Picture 
Right
LikeLike
Well, five years of providing education and all that goes with it going to put a hole in Greg McGarity’s budget. We may never get the ipf. 😦
LikeLike
The school does that now. There’s no financial impact of the 5th year. It only adds eligibility for a kid who meets academic targets.
LikeLike
An investigation by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) released in July 2011 found that 44 out of 56 schools cheated on the 2009 CRCT.[2] 178 teachers and principals were found to have fixed incorrect answers entered by students.[3] The size of the scandal has been described as one of the largest in United States history.[3][4][5]
LikeLike
Can we bring Aaron Murray back?
LikeLike
Would Mr. Walker have 2 yrs?
LikeLike
If you know you’ll have more time to develop them maybe you take a few more smart kids over a dumb, three and done kid. I could see such a policy being a real plus on the offensive line. Three years of preparation and two years of deployment could be effective. It would also flatten the advantage that the top recruiters have. Instead of having 5 to 6 teams that have a legit shot at the big enchilada every year it could expand to 15 or 20 just because some teams would be older and more mature. You could see the same effect that the one and dones have had on college BB. The teams that have 4 senior starters can be tough outs even for a UK to beat. Can’t see a down side to this suggestion.
LikeLike
Didn’t Mark Richt suggest a long time ago the 5-year eligibility thing
LikeLike
I love this idea. That means the NCAA will never let it happen.
LikeLike
Obviously I’m missing something. I read the majority of the CBS article, so maybe that’s where the gap is coming from. From the article:
“7. Address the “one and done” phenomenon in men’s basketball. If the National Basketball Association and its Players Association are unable to agree on raising the age limit for players, consider restoring the freshman ineligibility rule in men’s basketball…”
So let me get this straight? Their idea of the best way to get rid of the “one & done” is to have a kid only practice for a year, then play in live games for one year only to be done after that. Isn’t that still one & done? That literally makes (for example) 2016 happen in 2017, 2017 in 2018, 2018 in 2019, etc. Again, surely I’m missing something. Someone please make sense of this for me.
LikeLike
Show them how to make money on 5 years eligibility, then it gets done. Otherwise, it makes too much sense and aint gonna happen.
LikeLike
How will they afford to pay them for 5 years?
LikeLike
More airplane flights to away games?
LikeLike
“and provides a brilliant incentive for high school athletes to put the effort in on their academics.”
It’s an incentive for something else, though, too.
LikeLike
“Or, all freshmen are ineligible unless they reach certain HS academic standards.”
Isn’t this the case now?
LikeLike
I wouldike to see them move to 95 Scholarships with that move.
LikeLike
This…this is making way too much sense.
LikeLike