I came across this bit buried in a Wisconsin press release…
Other view of rule
The NCAA passed a new rule stiffening academic requirements, which the Big Ten Conference attempted to appeal.
The new rule for football requires players who don’t pass nine credits in the fall semester to sit out four games the following season. If the player passes 27 credits by the end of the summer, the suspension will be reduced to two games. But players can only get the reduction once in their college careers.
The NCAA wants to limit the practice of football players taking fewer hours during the season and loading up on extra classes in the spring and summer to stay eligible.
Alvarez served on the Big Ten committee that he said attempted to appeal the new rule. He didn’t like that it singled out football players.
“Why separate football eligibility rules from everyone else?” he said.
Normally, athletes have to pass 24 credits in a year to remain eligible. Alvarez thinks that should be the standard for regaining two of the lost games.
Finally, he thinks it will encourage athletes to take easier classes, especially early in college.
“People will be more worried about being eligible, instead of maybe going into a curriculum they want to study — especially early on,” he said.
Am I reading this correctly? The old standard for academic eligibility was 24 credits in a year? What degree program can be finished in four years with only 96 credits? Last time I checked, there wasn’t a single Baccalaureate Degree at Penn State that wasn’t at least 120 credits, or five years according NCAA standards.
I’ve never liked the allowance for football players to take less than the minimum credits for a full time student while on scholarship. Even if they are a RS Senior only need one gym class to graduate. If you’re not taking 12 credits, you’re not a full time student & you shouldn’t be on the team.