collapse

* Stud of Colorado Game

Tyler Kolek

21 points, 5 rebounds,
11 assists, 1 steal,
40 minutes

2023-24 Season SoG Tally
Kolek11
Ighodaro6
Jones, K.6
Mitchell2
Jones, S.1
Joplin1

'22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: NC State

Marquette
81
Marquette vs

NC State

Date/Time: Mar 29, 2024, 6:09 pm
TV: CBS
Schedule for 2023-24
Colorado
77

Author Topic: Big Loss for Villanova  (Read 14961 times)

jsglow

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7378
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2016, 07:56:05 AM »
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

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 390
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2016, 08:18:53 AM »
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

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2016, 08:23:16 AM »
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

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #28 on: September 24, 2016, 08:24:03 AM »
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

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4522
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #29 on: September 24, 2016, 08:25:09 AM »
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

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2016, 11:55:47 AM »
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

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2016, 12:04:26 PM »
Yep. That's the hyperbole I mention. Right on cue.

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2016, 12:39:07 PM »
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

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2016, 12:41:59 PM »
I want them to stage championships, put regulations on recruiting activity and to set competition rules. Not to deal with eligibility.

jsglow

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 7378
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2016, 12:44:07 PM »
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

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8654
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2016, 01:44:24 PM »
Trouble is, the NCAA is the fox watching the hen house. 

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #36 on: September 24, 2016, 02:16:25 PM »
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

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • NA of course
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #37 on: September 24, 2016, 02:38:10 PM »
The bondsman lives vicariously, aaaayna?
don't...don't don't don't don't

Nukem2

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4973
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #38 on: September 24, 2016, 03:08:19 PM »
Haven't read one yet.
perhaps it's just you not bothering to read?   ;)

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #39 on: September 24, 2016, 03:19:49 PM »
perhaps it's just you not bothering to read?   ;)

Lol. Very well could be.

mu03eng

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5049
    • Scrambled Eggs Podcast
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #40 on: September 25, 2016, 08:09:54 PM »
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.
"A Plan? Oh man, I hate plans. That means were gonna have to do stuff. Can't we just have a strategy......or a mission statement."

MuMark

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4300
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #41 on: September 25, 2016, 08:38:37 PM »
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

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #42 on: September 25, 2016, 08:43:40 PM »
You are correct. 

Jay Bee

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9023
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #43 on: September 25, 2016, 08:47:21 PM »
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
Thanks for ruining summer, Canada.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #44 on: September 25, 2016, 09:03:53 PM »
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

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9023
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #45 on: September 25, 2016, 09:10:19 PM »
I never said the former.

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

smh.

Yes, it does
Thanks for ruining summer, Canada.

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #46 on: September 25, 2016, 10:18:32 PM »
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

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12801
  • 9-9-9
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #47 on: September 25, 2016, 11:05:48 PM »
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.
Winning is overrated. The only time it is really important is in surgery and war.
                       ---Al McGuire

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #48 on: September 26, 2016, 08:25:08 AM »
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

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22058
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: Big Loss for Villanova
« Reply #49 on: September 26, 2016, 08:48:16 AM »
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?
TAMU

I do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.


 

feedback