Big Loss for Villanova

[GGGG]

Due to an inane eligibility ruling around when he was freshman, 5 star center Omari Spellman is a "academic redshirt" for the upcoming year.

[Jay Bee]

The new rules (eff this year) are simple and were announced years ago. His fault.

[Nukem2]

The new rules (eff this year) are simple and were announced years ago. His fault.

What are the "new" rules?

[GGGG]

The new rules (eff this year) are simple and were announced years ago. His fault.

NCAA should have nothing to do with eligibility.

[Jay Bee]

What are the "new" rules?

Among others, there is a 10/7 progression rule. 10 of your "core classes" (16 total) must be completed before you start your 7th semester of HS

[Herman Cain]

Obviously not helpful for Villanova this year.

The good news for Villanova is Eric Paschall, who was the Atlantic -10 rookie of the year for Fordham (15.9 ppg and 5.5 rpg) will now be eligible after sitting out a year.  I think Paschall will have a very big impact and easily soak up the minutes .

Spellman will be able to work on academics and further develop his game while sitting out. So in the long run it may ultimately be a good thing for both Spellman and Villanova.

[wadesworld]

Is this kid a potential 1 and done?  Will he ever play for Nova?

[forgetful]

NCAA should have nothing to do with eligibility.

I could not possibly disagree more.  The Universities themselves have shown no willingness to police themselves and minus eligibility concerns, there is zero penalty for a university cheating and enrolling anyone, and ensuring that grades are maintained.

[jsglow]

NCAA should have nothing to do with eligibility.

Disagree vehemently.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Nova is still beastly but they are going to be very small.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Is this kid a potential 1 and done?  Will he ever play for Nova?

I would guess that he plays for Nova next season but him declaring is not outside the realm of possibility

[🏀]

I could not possibly disagree more.  The Universities themselves have shown no willingness to police themselves and minus eligibility concerns, there is zero penalty for a university cheating and enrolling anyone, and ensuring that grades are maintained.

The NCAA hasn't done much better either.

[Galway Eagle]

The NCAA hasn't done much better either.

But they have done better

[forgetful]

The NCAA hasn't done much better either.

Agreed, but as Bagpipes says, they have done better and do better than nothing at all.

[mu03eng]

Guys this is the NCAA reaching down into high school to rule ineligibility. He should know the rules so no sympathy but that doesn't mean the NCAA can't be pathetic at the same time

[muwarrior69]

Among others, there is a 10/7 progression rule. 10 of your "core classes" (16 total) must be completed before you start your 7th semester of HS

Define core courses; and when did high schools go on the semester system?

[#UnleashSean]

Define core courses; and when did high schools go on the semester system?

Ummm, since at least the 90's?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Define core courses; and when did high schools go on the semester system?

When were they not?

[Jay Bee]

Define core courses; and when did high schools go on the semester system?

Core courses are defined by the NCAA. See http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/future/core-courses for details

Many high schools have been on semester systems for decades; the NCAA refers to "the Xth semester (or equivalent)"

[muwarrior69]

Core courses are defined by the NCAA. See http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/future/core-courses for details

Many high schools have been on semester systems for decades; the NCAA refers to "the Xth semester (or equivalent)"

Look, I,m an old fart, graduated HS in '65. We were not on a semester system as our grading periods were every 30 class days ending with final exams in June. I guess if you decided to take French, German, Russian, or any other foreign language other than Spanish it would not count as a core course for the NCAA. Why limit it to just Spanish, how bizarre?

[forgetful]

Guys this is the NCAA reaching down into high school to rule ineligibility. He should know the rules so no sympathy but that doesn't mean the NCAA can't be pathetic at the same time

Funny thing is that I think the NCAA should regulate eligibility, but I think they got it wrong here. 

The problem stems from him starting public high school before transferring to a private high school.  The private high school after assessing him, decided he should move back down to 8th grade (he spend 2 months in 9th grade in high-school), for academic reasons.

The NCAA counts those 2 months as the start of his HS, so he lost an entire year of time to complete the course requirements.  When he started 9th grade a year later, he only had 4 semesters left to complete the 10 core courses necessary by the 7th semester.  That is essentially not possible in most schools.

He got screwed because the private school thought it was in his best academic long term interest to repeat 8th grade, likely because the public school system did not adequately prepare him for a normal high school.

[Newsdreams]

Look, I,m an old fart, graduated HS in '65. We were not on a semester system as our grading periods were every 30 class days ending with final exams in June. I guess if you decided to take French, German, Russian, or any other foreign language other than Spanish it would not count as a core course for the NCAA. Why limit it to just Spanish, how bizarre?

Not only Spanish that is basically an example, read above it says foreign language.

[GGGG]

The schools should police themselves. If they want to admit morons who can't read, that's their deal. Get out of eligibility because you create too many dumb decisions like these.

[forgetful]

The schools should police themselves. If they want to admit morons who can't read, that's their deal. Get out of eligibility because you create too many dumb decisions like these.

Yeah, why should the kids even worry about high school.  Screw going to classes in high-school. 

They should just focus 100% on basketball to prepare themselves for college.  I mean, really, why go to class ever, focus on B-ball, go to college to get exposure and then go to the pros, or take your token degree and try to find a job.

[GGGG]

Yeah, why should the kids even worry about high school.  Screw going to classes in high-school. 

They should just focus 100% on basketball to prepare themselves for college.  I mean, really, why go to class ever, focus on B-ball, go to college to get exposure and then go to the pros, or take your token degree and try to find a job.

You have a very paternalistic attitude. I'm glad you think the NCAA is protecting the students here.

[jsglow]

Sultan, I believe many here are surprised by your viewpoint on this.  No doubt the NCAA is self interested.  But do you really think there shouldn't be academic standards that all student athletes must maintain both for eligible admission and while in college as governed by the NCAA?

[Babybluejeans]

Sultan, I believe many here are surprised by your viewpoint on this.  No doubt the NCAA is self interested.  But do you really think there shouldn't be academic standards that all student athletes must maintain both for eligible admission and while in college as governed by the NCAA?

I'm surprised that people are surprised. Why do we keep up the charade that the NCAA gives a crap about the "student athlete" for revenue sports? UNC took a healthy dump over all of the NCAA's academic rules, EVERYONE KNOWS THIS, and there they were playing for the national championship last year (with a full roster of "student athletes").

Self-enforcement doesn't seem crazy to me at all--if you want to establish some integrity as a school, demand your players meet certain criteria. If you don't, then, well, that path has already been cleared by the Heels.

[GGGG]

Sultan, I believe many here are surprised by your viewpoint on this.  No doubt the NCAA is self interested.  But do you really think there shouldn't be academic standards that all student athletes must maintain both for eligible admission and while in college as governed by the NCAA?

I think admission and eligibility standards should be left up to the schools. In general I think the NCAA is an overly regulated organization and this is one of the areas in which it shouldn't be involved. (It isn't at the D2 or D3 levels.) 

This case is a typical example of the stupidity on the NCAA rules. Ditto Buycks case. The idea that this will open the doors to a bunch of players who wouldn't otherwise get chewed up and abused by the system is typical hyperbole.

[GGGG]

I'm surprised that people are surprised. Why do we keep up the charade that the NCAA gives a crap about the "student athlete" for revenue sports? UNC took a healthy dump over all of the NCAA's academic rules, EVERYONE KNOWS THIS, and there they were playing for the national championship last year (with a full roster of "student athletes").

Self-enforcement doesn't seem crazy to me at all--if you want to establish some integrity as a school, demand your players meet certain criteria. If you don't, then, well, that path has already been cleared by the Heels.

Right. If schools want to sell their soul, that's their deal.

[cheebs09]

The NCAA doesn't even have enough staff to carry out their eligibility. Cheatham missed playing on the Europe trip. We had issues with Lazar as well. I wonder how many of the players not cleared right away are actually found ineligible. I'm going to guess a low percentage.

[forgetful]

Right. If schools want to sell their soul, that's their deal.

And then everyone of the BCS schools will do so.  Followed not too long after by student protests that athletes are being treated unfairly and being given a free degree without having to do any work or have the intelligence to complete the course work.  The Big schools that care will want to do something to put in standards, but won't be able to because of the SEC schools of the world.

There will then be national calls for a unbiased governing body to regulate sports and the NCAA2 would be born. 

[GGGG]

Yep. That's the hyperbole I mention. Right on cue.

[forgetful]

Yep. That's the hyperbole I mention. Right on cue.

Except in this case it is exactly what would happen, which is why the NCAA is not going away.  They are there for a reason.  People forget the reason they are there to begin with, want them gone, then a short time later clamor for them to come back.

[GGGG]

I want them to stage championships, put regulations on recruiting activity and to set competition rules. Not to deal with eligibility.

[jsglow]

I want them to stage championships, put regulations on recruiting activity and to set competition rules. Not to deal with eligibility.

And that's perfectly fine as long as you appreciate that there are folks who disagree with you for well though out reasons.

[real chili 83]

Trouble is, the NCAA is the fox watching the hen house. 

[GGGG]

And that's perfectly fine as long as you appreciate that there are folks who disagree with you for well though out reasons.

Haven't read one yet.

[rocket surgeon]

The bondsman lives vicariously, aaaayna?

[Nukem2]

Haven't read one yet.

perhaps it's just you not bothering to read?   

[GGGG]

perhaps it's just you not bothering to read?   

Lol. Very well could be.

[mu03eng]

I'm with sultan here, the NCAA being involved with eligibility at the college, let alone the high school level is stupid. People seem to think because the NCAA is involved that academics are somehow sacrosanct, but clearly it is just window dressing so everyone can feel better about throwing so much money at D1 football and basketball.

If the NCAA wasn't involved in eligibility standards, the system wouldn't fall apart, it would just be more honest and then us as fans would have to deal with the fact that we are extorting the athletes. I'm comfortable with the "work" the student-athletes provide in exchange for the "salary" they get but I think a lot of people wouldn't be able to come to terms with it if all this stuff was on the surface.

[MuMark]

The member institutions obviously want the NCAA to regulate academic issues since the schools control what the NCAA does and doesn't do.

I mean if enough schools wanted no enforcement as far as academics then they would just vote to change it.......or is my understanding of how the NCAA functions incorrect?

[GGGG]

You are correct. 

[Jay Bee]

What we have here is people who complain the NCAA exploits athletes for money now saying the NCAA unfairly stops athletes who don't go through a reasonable HS progression from playing immediately, rather they create an academic redshirt, allowing them to focus on academics first

Smh

[GGGG]

What we have here is people who complain the NCAA exploits athletes for money now saying the NCAA unfairly stops athletes who don't go through a reasonable HS progression from playing immediately, rather they create an academic redshirt, allowing them to focus on academics first

Smh

I never said the former.

And this NCAA regulation has nothing to do with "reasonable HS progression." 

smh.

[Jay Bee]

I never said the former.

And this NCAA regulation has nothing to do with "reasonable HS progression." 

smh.

Yes, it does

[forgetful]

The member institutions obviously want the NCAA to regulate academic issues since the schools control what the NCAA does and doesn't do.

I mean if enough schools wanted no enforcement as far as academics then they would just vote to change it.......or is my understanding of how the NCAA functions incorrect?

This is exactly the case.  The NCAA does this, because member schools, particularly the big 5 conferences know that without this regulation, schools will admit anyone and everyone if they are a good enough athlete.  They don't trust their peer institutions.  They want this regulation, because it is necessary.

As I said before, get rid of NCAA regulations in admission/progression and athletes do not have to worry about academics at all, because the colleges will admit them for athletic purposes only regardless of academic ability.  This would lead quickly to massive calls to reinstitute a governing body to regulate admissions/eligibility. 

Schools bend the rules as much as possible as it is...see UNC or schools like UW that start an agricultural journalism or "life science communication" degree for the sole purpose of maintaining eligibility of the athletes.  Without the NCAA, even these token efforts go away.

If you don't believe that would happen, ask yourself, why do the member schools want the NCAA dictating eligibility? 

[Herman Cain]

NCAA is an institutionally created self regulatory organization. Like all SRO's the intent is good, but the execution usually leaves a lot to be desired.

Often times, the problem lies in the one size fits all approach .   NCAA wants kids to have a certain baseline of classes. Unfortunately their approved class list does not include many of the types of classes that actually have value to kids in a modern society such as graphic arts, web design etc. It is easy to get tripped up.

[GGGG]

This is exactly the case.  The NCAA does this, because member schools, particularly the big 5 conferences know that without this regulation, schools will admit anyone and everyone if they are a good enough athlete.  They don't trust their peer institutions.  They want this regulation, because it is necessary.

As I said before, get rid of NCAA regulations in admission/progression and athletes do not have to worry about academics at all, because the colleges will admit them for athletic purposes only regardless of academic ability.  This would lead quickly to massive calls to reinstitute a governing body to regulate admissions/eligibility. 

Schools bend the rules as much as possible as it is...see UNC or schools like UW that start an agricultural journalism or "life science communication" degree for the sole purpose of maintaining eligibility of the athletes.  Without the NCAA, even these token efforts go away.

If you don't believe that would happen, ask yourself, why do the member schools want the NCAA dictating eligibility? 

More hyperbole.

They want to dictate eligibility for PR reasons. Pure and simple.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The only thing a player gets in exchange for their services is an education. A player cannot receive an education if s/he  isn't academically ready to benefit from it. If schools are allowed to "admit players who can't read" than the university is taking advantage of the players and paying them nothing for their services. That cannot be allowed.

I don't care if the NCAA does it for PR. They still keep schools from taking advantage of these students. NCAA managing eligibility is a necessity. Does it lead to some dumb decisions? Yes. Does that mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

[Nukem2]

More hyperbole.

They want to dictate eligibility for PR reasons. Pure and simple.

I doubt that.

[MU82]

The only thing a player gets in exchange for their services is an education.

I would argue this is not true for the top players, most of whom regard an education as a secondary reason for going to college.

Here's what Henry Ellenson received in exchange for his services:

1. Exposure - The media was calling him a top NBA prospect before he ever stepped on campus, and such talk only intensified during his brief time in blue and gold. In addition to being exposed to the public and the media, he was exposed to scouts, dozens of them, game after game after game.

2. Top-tier Competition - Henry got to play against great teams, including twice against the eventual national champions, and great players, including the No. 1 pick in the draft. Even games against less-talented teams and individuals game him opportunities to face all kinds of opponents and defenses.

3. Coaching - It's too early to say how good Wojo and his staff are at player development. I believe there are many positive signs, but others might argue differently. Regardless of where one falls on that, however, it would be hard to argue that daily work with experienced coaches did not help Henry improve as a basketball player.

4. Maturity - It's unlikely that an athlete spends a year at an academic institution and as part of a team without growing up some as an individual.

5. Camaraderie - Henry got to play alongside his brother and also seemed to very much enjoy his other teammates.

6. Education - I don't know what kind of student Henry was. If he took it seriously, he definitely benefited from intellectual stimulation. Even those that mostly blow it off get some schooling by "osmosis." One could argue quite convincingly that the main education top athletes get at college has little (or nothing) to do with books or lectures or tests; it is the education associated with "life lessons."

I'm not necessarily saying Education was last on Henry's list (and on the list of many other star players), but I definitely don't think it was first - and absolutely not "the only thing a player gets in exchange for their services."

For many of these kids, the education part of it is a sham. The schools use the athletes, and the athletes use the schools. Derrick Rose attended college for one reason and one reason only - because NBA rules mandated it (and he didn't want to go play in China or someplace for a year). The same is true of many others, possibly including Henry.

[mu03eng]

The only thing a player gets in exchange for their services is an education. A player cannot receive an education if s/he  isn't academically ready to benefit from it. If schools are allowed to "admit players who can't read" than the university is taking advantage of the players and paying them nothing for their services. That cannot be allowed.

I don't care if the NCAA does it for PR. They still keep schools from taking advantage of these students. NCAA managing eligibility is a necessity. Does it lead to some dumb decisions? Yes. Does that mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

If I pay an NFL player and he doesn't cash his game checks or know how a bank works, is that on the NFL player or the team?

Plus as MU82 points out, there are a lot of other benefits players get even if they don't get an education.

[mu03eng]

I would argue this is not true for the top players, most of whom regard an education as a secondary reason for going to college.

Here's what Henry Ellenson received in exchange for his services:

1. Exposure - The media was calling him a top NBA prospect before he ever stepped on campus, and such talk only intensified during his brief time in blue and gold. In addition to being exposed to the public and the media, he was exposed to scouts, dozens of them, game after game after game.

2. Top-tier Competition - Henry got to play against great teams, including twice against the eventual national champions, and great players, including the No. 1 pick in the draft. Even games against less-talented teams and individuals game him opportunities to face all kinds of opponents and defenses.

3. Coaching - It's too early to say how good Wojo and his staff are at player development. I believe there are many positive signs, but others might argue differently. Regardless of where one falls on that, however, it would be hard to argue that daily work with experienced coaches did not help Henry improve as a basketball player.

4. Maturity - It's unlikely that an athlete spends a year at an academic institution and as part of a team without growing up some as an individual.

5. Camaraderie - Henry got to play alongside his brother and also seemed to very much enjoy his other teammates.

6. Education - I don't know what kind of student Henry was. If he took it seriously, he definitely benefited from intellectual stimulation. Even those that mostly blow it off get some schooling by "osmosis." One could argue quite convincingly that the main education top athletes get at college has little (or nothing) to do with books or lectures or tests; it is the education associated with "life lessons."

I'm not necessarily saying Education was last on Henry's list (and on the list of many other star players), but I definitely don't think it was first - and absolutely not "the only thing a player gets in exchange for their services."

For many of these kids, the education part of it is a sham. The schools use the athletes, and the athletes use the schools. Derrick Rose attended college for one reason and one reason only - because NBA rules mandated it (and he didn't want to go play in China or someplace for a year). The same is true of many others, possibly including Henry.

I'd also add free food, clothing, lodging, and a lot of experiences (Italy, NYC, etc)

[forgetful]

More hyperbole.

They want to dictate eligibility for PR reasons. Pure and simple.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

And the NCAA does it only for PR??? 

That is inane.  Your bias against the NCAA as some secret organization bent on taking advantage of athletes is showing. 

The one good thing the NCAA does is ensure athletes are prepared for a college education and are not purely being exploited as an athlete while stashed in some crap hole of a made up degree.

[mu03eng]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

And the NCAA does it only for PR??? 

That is inane.  Your bias against the NCAA as some secret organization bent on taking advantage of athletes is showing. 

The one good thing the NCAA does is ensure athletes are prepared for a college education and are not purely being exploited as an athlete while stashed in some crap hole of a made up degree.

Tell me again how that worked out for all those kids at North Carolina?

[Nukem2]

Tell me again how that worked out for all those kids at North Carolina?

Hmmm .... they seemed to do ok?

[mu03eng]

Hmmm .... they seemed to do ok?

and did they they get a legitimate education?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If I pay an NFL player and he doesn't cash his game checks or know how a bank works, is that on the NFL player or the team?

Plus as MU82 points out, there are a lot of other benefits players get even if they don't get an education.

You're comparing the wrong things. An NFL player not cashing checks still gets paid. That would be like a former college athlete getting an education but choosing not to use it and work at McDonald's instead. This is closer to an NFL player getting paid in monopoly money, something useless and without value to them.

I do agree about the other benefits that MU82 mentioned, that should absolutely be counted. However, without the education, the other benefits are not enough to justify fair compensation.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Tell me again how that worked out for all those kids at North Carolina?

Exactly why the NCAA needs to manage academics. Schools can't be trusted to do it themselves. Now the NCAA is dragging it's heels and in all likelihood will pass the buck in order to protect unc. NCAA is far from perfect. But the answer is to improve the NCAA, not to blow it up.

[Lennys Tap]

The only thing a player gets in exchange for their services is an education. A player cannot receive an education if s/he  isn't academically ready to benefit from it. If schools are allowed to "admit players who can't read" than the university is taking advantage of the players and paying them nothing for their services. That cannot be allowed.

I don't care if the NCAA does it for PR. They still keep schools from taking advantage of these students. NCAA managing eligibility is a necessity. Does it lead to some dumb decisions? Yes. Does that mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

18 year old young men who can't read are basically unemployable. Saying a school who gives them room, board, coaching, medical, exposure and an environment where they can mature, hone their game, meet successful alums, etc. is taking advantage of them is a bit of a stretch. I'd bet most 18 year olds who can't read would agree.

[mu03eng]

You're comparing the wrong things. An NFL player not cashing checks still gets paid. That would be like a former college athlete getting an education but choosing not to use it and work at McDonald's instead. This is closer to an NFL player getting paid in monopoly money, something useless and without value to them.

I do agree about the other benefits that MU82 mentioned, that should absolutely be counted. However, without the education, the other benefits are not enough to justify fair compensation.

I disagree with your disagreement. It's not as if the academic institutions wouldn't let them attend class, they would have full access to all of the services and classes that all student athletes are afforded. If they are not able or unwilling to put themselves in a position to take advantage of that opportunity that's on society, not the academic institution which is providing them the opportunity in exchange for the play on the field.

[Herman Cain]

and did they they get a legitimate education?

Most did.

[CTWarrior]

I disagree with your disagreement. It's not as if the academic institutions wouldn't let them attend class, they would have full access to all of the services and classes that all student athletes are afforded. If they are not able or unwilling to put themselves in a position to take advantage of that opportunity that's on society, not the academic institution which is providing them the opportunity in exchange for the play on the field.

UNC did prohibit some athletes from attending real classes and forced them to take the African Studies program.  At least that is what some former players are alleging.

[mu03eng]

Most did.

How do you define that....players were directed to classes where there were no expectations for course work or tests and seemingly no requirement to attend class....what did they learn in those classes?

[forgetful]

Exactly why the NCAA needs to manage academics. Schools can't be trusted to do it themselves. Now the NCAA is dragging it's heels and in all likelihood will pass the buck in order to protect unc. NCAA is far from perfect. But the answer is to improve the NCAA, not to blow it up.

+1

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

18 year old young men who can't read are basically unemployable. Saying a school who gives them room, board, coaching, medical, exposure and an environment where they can mature, hone their game, meet successful alums, etc. is taking advantage of them is a bit of a stretch. I'd bet most 18 year olds who can't read would agree.

It is taking advantage. The schools isn't giving the students adequate compensation for the services they are receiving. Yes it is great help to the student for four years but once their scholarship runs out they are on the streets again with no degree, no job experience, and an education they learned nothing from because it was too far beyond their current learning level and they were too busy playing sports to ever come close to catching up. Better to go to a juco first or play professionally if basketball is truly going to be their career.

[GGGG]

The only thing a player gets in exchange for their services is an education. A player cannot receive an education if s/he  isn't academically ready to benefit from it. If schools are allowed to "admit players who can't read" than the university is taking advantage of the players and paying them nothing for their services. That cannot be allowed.

I don't care if the NCAA does it for PR. They still keep schools from taking advantage of these students. NCAA managing eligibility is a necessity. Does it lead to some dumb decisions? Yes. Does that mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

To answer your final question...yes.

Bucha chicken littles. 

[Herman Cain]

How do you define that....players were directed to classes where there were no expectations for course work or tests and seemingly no requirement to attend class....what did they learn in those classes?

The kids who actually wanted an education at UNC got a good one. No one was forced to take the easy courses. Word got around over a long period of time and kids being kids gravitated to those courses. UNC athletic department had benign neglect to what was happening, which when discovered was highly embarrassing for them.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I disagree with your disagreement. It's not as if the academic institutions wouldn't let them attend class, they would have full access to all of the services and classes that all student athletes are afforded. If they are not able or unwilling to put themselves in a position to take advantage of that opportunity that's on society, not the academic institution which is providing them the opportunity in exchange for the play on the field.

They are providing them with an opportunity that is above their ability to succeed in. A college education is worthless if the person receiving it couldn't even succeed in high school. They have other options. Go to prep school. Go to a juco. Go play professionally if sports are truly going to be your career. I'll hear arguments about lowering the NCAA's standards. I'd be fine with giving more opportunities to students who maybe struggled in high school. But there needs to be some standards.

What do you think should be done in the North Carolina case? Nothing?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

To answer your final question...yes.

Bucha chicken littles.

I don't see anything statement that indicates a chicken little mindset. Its simple, schools pay students X, students provide Y to the schools, NCAA is there to make sure schools actually pay students X. This isn't a "the sky is falling" outlook, its how things currently are and IMHO how things should remain. I think the NCAA could be better at their job but that doesn't mean I want to fire them from said job.

[GGGG]

It is taking advantage. The schools isn't giving the students adequate compensation for the services they are receiving. Yes it is great help to the student for four years but once their scholarship runs out they are on the streets again with no degree, no job experience, and an education they learned nothing from because it was too far beyond their current learning level and they were too busy playing sports to ever come close to catching up. Better to go to a juco first or play professionally if basketball is truly going to be their career.

Or let the college decide if the student should be enrolled.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Or let the college decide if the student should be enrolled.

You could. Of course the college is most likely very self interested in having successful athletic teams. And the impact one player could have on their athletic team is exponentially higher than the impact one "kid who can't read" will have on their academic standing. So it is within the realm of possibility to assume that the college might not care if the student won't receive an education. So maybe having a neutral...er...closer to neutral 3rd party moderate isn't the worst thing.

Really this comes down to whether or not you are ok with schools profiting off of athletes who aren't benefiting from the education they are receiving. I'm not. Others are. Nothing wrong with that.

[mu03eng]

You could. Of course the college is most likely very self interested in having successful athletic teams. And the impact one player could have on their athletic team is exponentially higher than the impact one "kid who can't read" will have on their academic standing. So it is within the realm of possibility to assume that the college might not care if the student won't receive an education. So maybe having a neutral...er...closer to neutral 3rd party moderate isn't the worst thing.

Really this comes down to whether or not you are ok with schools profiting off of athletes who aren't benefiting from the education they are receiving. I'm not. Others are. Nothing wrong with that.

Which group do you think is larger: number of kids who don't have enough education to take advantage of college opportunity or students that are denied college opportunities because of onerous NCAA regulation? I don't think either group is significantly larger than the other so your probably right it's probably where you stand depends on where you are.

I will say though, the cost of NCAA compliance at the college level would easily support at least 5 more scholarship opportunities at each university alone.

[MuMark]

You could. Of course the college is most likely very self interested in having successful athletic teams. And the impact one player could have on their athletic team is exponentially higher than the impact one "kid who can't read" will have on their academic standing. So it is within the realm of possibility to assume that the college might not care if the student won't receive an education. So maybe having a neutral...er...closer to neutral 3rd party moderate isn't the worst thing.

Really this comes down to whether or not you are ok with schools profiting off of athletes who aren't benefiting from the education they are receiving. I'm not. Others are. Nothing wrong with that.

The colleges have decided......they don't want to do it your way. As a group they have decided that they want an enforcement agency.

[Lennys Tap]

It is taking advantage. The schools isn't giving the students adequate compensation for the services they are receiving. Yes it is great help to the student for four years but once their scholarship runs out they are on the streets again with no degree, no job experience, and an education they learned nothing from because it was too far beyond their current learning level and they were too busy playing sports to ever come close to catching up. Better to go to a juco first or play professionally if basketball is truly going to be their career.

For the vast majority, professional basketball at 18 isn't an option. So the only two real options are 1) hang out on the street corner or 2) go to college. My guess is those who get "exploited" by the colleges have a better shot at a productive life than those who choose option #1. Regarding Juco vs 4 year school, what's the difference? If anything, it's likely you'll meet more alums who will be of future help at 4 year schools.