The NCAA Committee on Academics has passed along to the Division I Council for a final vote, a resolution that says that an athlete that does not meet "progress toward degree" requirements at their current school, including a third-year athlete not
having at least 40% of the courses completed and a fourth-year not having at least 60% (and remember this is counting years in college, not years at the school or years playing the sport), has to sit out a year if they transfer, unless they meet some
other "play right away" requirement.

For example...the NCAA is reinstating in the 2024-25 year, much to the dismay of HBCUs that feel that they are being targeted by this, the "if your APR is not at least 930, one-year postseason ban for you" rule. The NCAA normally gives "you can transfer
without sitting out a year" waivers to athletes leaving schools with a postseason ban if the ban extends for the remainder of their eligibility.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:17:04 PM UTC-6, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

The NCAA Committee on Academics has passed along to the Division I Council for a final vote, a resolution that says that an athlete that does not meet "progress toward degree" requirements at their current school, including a third-year athlete not

having at least 40% of the courses completed and a fourth-year not having at least 60% (and remember this is counting years in college, not years at the school or years playing the sport), has to sit out a year if they transfer, unless they meet some
other "play right away" requirement.

For example...the NCAA is reinstating in the 2024-25 year, much to the dismay of HBCUs that feel that they are being targeted by this, the "if your APR is not at least 930, one-year postseason ban for you" rule. The NCAA normally gives "you can

transfer without sitting out a year" waivers to athletes leaving schools with a postseason ban if the ban extends for the remainder of their eligibility.

you have to remember that most all the system is a joke for athletes in power 5 schools, so that involves
them mostly piggybacking into easy sets of classes that will make progress towards that major. So this is an obstacle that will be easily gotten around.

The ncaa has no power going forward for football basically lol....which is as it should be.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The NCAA Committee on Academics has passed along to the Division I Council for a final vote, a resolution that says that an athlete that does not meet "progress toward degree" requirements at their current school, including a third-year athlete not

having at least 40% of the courses completed and a fourth-year not having at least 60% (and remember this is counting years in college, not years at the school or years playing the sport), has to sit out a year if they transfer, unless they meet some
other "play right away" requirement.

you have to remember that most all the system is a joke for athletes in power 5 schools, so that involves
them mostly piggybacking into easy sets of classes that will make progress towards that major. So this is an obstacle that will be easily gotten around.

The only error you made in that statement is, you limit this to the Power 5 schools. Funneling athletes through easy courses has been around for decades (and it's not just college, either - ever come across an occasional story about a high school athlete
who graduates despite not being able to read?). Remember the Army cheating scandal of 1950?

The ncaa has no power going forward for football basically lol....which is as it should be.

As opposed to the power that it has now? For that matter, what money does the NCAA get from FBS football? Well, there's the money from the tournam-oh, wait, it doesn't have one. Of course, there's the money from the TV contrac-no, the NCAA said that the
contract was unconstitutional, and each team/conference can make its own deals and pocket all of the money. I think the only money is from bowl licensing - and people wonder why there are so many bowls.

It does have one power: telling teams they can't be in the playoff. Of course, usually they do this long after pretty much everybody involved in whatever caused the punishment have left the school, and whoever is left whines, "It's not fair - you're
punishing innocent kids!" ("No, we're punishing the school - besides, if you won't have any eligibility left when the ban ends, you get a transfer that doesn't count as your one free one.")

Of course, the bigger schools have a power of their own - the power to band together and say, "We don't need this; we're cutting our football programs. Coincidentally, there are going to be 'professional club teams' that just happen to form in our cities,
which can pay us to license our names / nicknames / mascots / colors and rent out our stadiums for home games, and since they aren't directly associated with the school and don't accept federal funding, the athletes don't have to worrry about this '
attending classes' nonsense and the players can be paid without any Title IX problems." That's probably why Power 5 college football gets pretty much free reign.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)