MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: keefe on April 05, 2016, 10:58:30 PM
-
I was in Seattle today and ran into a friend who is on the Duke Law Board of Visitors and a major Duke hoops booster. He mentioned he shared my delight in Nova's win but also offered insight on the UNC academic fraud scandal. (He is also a big Marquette fan because of Wojo.)
According to him, the NCAA has characterized the UNC scandal as one of the very worst in its history and that the discussion is focused now on penalties. The problem is that this will destroy Dean Smith's legacy and the NCAA is hung up on how to address that.
For what it's worth, my friend also said that if Wojo does reasonably well at MU the word is he gets the Duke job.
-
I was in Seattle today and ran into a friend who is on the Duke Law Board of Visitors and a major Duke hoops booster. He mentioned he shared my delight in Nova's win but also offered insight on the UNC academic fraud scandal. (He is also a big Marquette fan because of Wojo.)
According to him, the NCAA has characterized the UNC scandal as one of the very worst in its history and that the discussion is focused now on penalties. The problem is that this will destroy Dean Smith's legacy and the NCAA is hung up on how to address that.
Well they've protected Wooden's legacy for decades now so have to imagine this "investigation" will be pretty drawn out.
-
Well they've protected Wooden's legacy for decades now so have to imagine this "investigation" will be pretty drawn out.
You are probably referring to Sam Gilbert. Let me put it this way - Marquette had its own Sam Gilberts during Al's time.
To compare UCLA to UNC is specious because UNC's crime was academic fraud. And it went on for decades. UCLA and Marquette players actually went to class.
-
I was in Seattle today and ran into a friend who is on the Duke Law Board of Visitors and a major Duke hoops booster. He mentioned he shared my delight in Nova's win but also offered insight on the UNC academic fraud scandal. (He is also a big Marquette fan because of Wojo.)
According to him, the NCAA has characterized the UNC scandal as one of the very worst in its history and that the discussion is focused now on penalties. The problem is that this will destroy Dean Smith's legacy and the NCAA is hung up on how to address that.
For what it's worth, my friend also said that if Wojo does reasonably well at MU the word is he gets the Duke job.
Why should the NCAA care? It should be part of his legacy if true (i.e. Joe Paterno)
-
For what it's worth, my friend also said that if Wojo does reasonably well at MU the word is he gets the Duke job.
Define reasonably well. 2 or 3 national championships?
The worst job in the history of college basketball will be the job following Coach K at Duke. Ask Mike Davis (followed Bobby Knight). Ask Gene Bartow (followed John Wooden). Ask Bill Guthridge (followed Dean Smith). If you could, ask Hank Raymonds.
Wojo would be better off being the guy that follows the guy that followed coach K. Or even the guy that follows the guy that follows the guy that follows Coach K.
-
Define reasonably well. 2 or 3 national championships?
The worst job in the history of college basketball will be the job following Coach K at Duke. Ask Mike Davis (followed Bobby Knight). Ask Gene Bartow (followed John Wooden). Ask Bill Guthridge (followed Dean Smith). If you could, ask Hank Raymonds.
Wojo would be better off being the guy that follows the guy that followed coach K. Or even the guy that follows the guy that follows the guy that follows Coach K.
This. Want to be the guy that follows Warren Buffett?
Ask Tim Cook, Jeff Immelt, etc... Don't follow a legend.
-
Well with the results Wojo has delivered at MU so far, I don't think he has to worry about being the next guy at Duke, nor should Duke realistically consider him either. Wojo needs to worry about figuring out how to get his teams to win games at home again(or at all), before he can even think about being the next guy at Duke. He's got a long, LONG LONG way to go. From what i have seen so far, he seems in over his head to be quite honest.
-
You are probably referring to Sam Gilbert. Let me put it this way - Marquette had its own Sam Gilberts during Al's time.
To compare UCLA to UNC is specious because UNC's crime was academic fraud. And it went on for decades. UCLA and Marquette players actually went to class.
As the father of a female Viking ESP -3 pilot (USNA '90), I thank you for your dogged pursuit of the academic impropiety at UNC.
-
Well with the results Wojo has delivered at MU so far, I don't think he has to worry about being the next guy at Duke, nor should Duke realistically consider him either. Wojo needs to worry about figuring out how to get his teams to win games at home again(or at all), before he can even think about being the next guy at Duke. He's got a long, LONG LONG way to go. From what i have seen so far, he seems in over his head to be quite honest.
+1
-
I was in Seattle today and ran into a friend who is on the Duke Law Board of Visitors and a major Duke hoops booster. He mentioned he shared my delight in Nova's win but also offered insight on the UNC academic fraud scandal. (He is also a big Marquette fan because of Wojo.)
According to him, the NCAA has characterized the UNC scandal as one of the very worst in its history and that the discussion is focused now on penalties. The problem is that this will destroy Dean Smith's legacy and the NCAA is hung up on how to address that.
The problem with this scandal is that it is really bigger than the NCAA. I am interested to see how they handle a case of systematic academic fraud, effecting both athletes and non-athletes, that goes back years.
-
The problem with this scandal is that it is really bigger than the NCAA. I am interested to see how they handle a case of systematic academic fraud, effecting both athletes and non-athletes, that goes back years.
The reference in your post to non-athletes made me wonder if they shouldn't be in trouble with whomever provides the school with academic accreditation.
I found the following article.
http://college.usatoday.com/2015/06/11/unc-probation-accreditation-agency/ (http://college.usatoday.com/2015/06/11/unc-probation-accreditation-agency/)
I'm glad to see that this is hitting them where it should hurt a school the most - on the academic side.
-
Details on the investigation... Five severe charges.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/acc/2015/06/04/north-carolina-tar-heels-ncaa-notice-allegations-football-basketball/28474945/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/acc/2015/06/04/north-carolina-tar-heels-ncaa-notice-allegations-football-basketball/28474945/)
-
The problem with this scandal is that it is really bigger than the NCAA. I am interested to see how they handle a case of systematic academic fraud, effecting both athletes and non-athletes, that goes back years.
Excellent point, Sultan. I believe only about half of those who took the fake courses were athletes.
There have been some resignations and punishments regarding those involved and those who should have known better, but the athletic department hasn't been hit very hard yet.
-
Well with the results Wojo has delivered at MU so far, I don't think he has to worry about being the next guy at Duke, nor should Duke realistically consider him either. Wojo needs to worry about figuring out how to get his teams to win games at home again(or at all), before he can even think about being the next guy at Duke. He's got a long, LONG LONG way to go. From what i have seen so far, he seems in over his head to be quite honest.
Wojo only gets the easy wins
-
I really hope the come down hard on UNC. I'm no UNC-hater or anything, but their violations are of the worst kind. Far worse than Uncle Luke taking athletes to clubs, boat rides, and hookers.
If some people feel that it is not fair to the kids who are currently there, then let those kids transfer without losing a year like the NCAA did with PSU football.
-
If some people feel that it is not fair to the kids who are currently there, then let those kids transfer without losing a year like the NCAA did with PSU football.
They have any PFs we should be talking to?
-
Why should the NCAA care? It should be part of his legacy if true (i.e. Joe Paterno)
We did not discuss Paterno but from what I was told Smith not only knew about the fraud but was an active participant.
I think, and this is just my unlearned opinion, is that Paterno looked the other way in a perverted sin of omission while Smith's was as a willing participant in a sin of commission.
-
The problem with this scandal is that it is really bigger than the NCAA. I am interested to see how they handle a case of systematic academic fraud, effecting both athletes and non-athletes, that goes back years.
That will be the NCAA's out. Because it involves athletes and non-athletes, they will use that rationale to stick it to the school in general with big penalties and water down the penalties to the basketball program--because after all, it's UNC, it's UNC! In fact, if it is a school wide deal, should not a different governing body be involved?
Just having a big problem believing the NCAA will give anything out to the basketball program other than loss of a few scholarships. So then they can only bring in 1 or 2 top 20 types per year instead of their usual 3.
-
Define reasonably well. 2 or 3 national championships?
The worst job in the history of college basketball will be the job following Coach K at Duke. Ask Mike Davis (followed Bobby Knight). Ask Gene Bartow (followed John Wooden). Ask Bill Guthridge (followed Dean Smith). If you could, ask Hank Raymonds.
Wojo would be better off being the guy that follows the guy that followed coach K. Or even the guy that follows the guy that follows the guy that follows Coach K.
I think my friend's point is that Wojo is very highly regarded by Duke's power elite and, more than any other K assistant, is considered the heir apparent.
Duke is like Michigan - they want a Duke man.
My friend's point is that Wojo doesn't need to rub the table at Marquette. Prove he can run a clean, winning program at Marquette. If you look at Wojo's track record thus far he has proven he can recruit, is a good citizen, his players and assistants are good citizens, his kids go to class and graduate, he plays well with others, and he can win.
From what I heard, Wojo needs to demonstrate he can run a program according to the Duke formula. I would say thus far he is following that script very well.
-
We did not discuss Paterno but from what I was told Smith not only knew about the fraud but was an active participant.
I think, and this is just my unlearned opinion, is that Paterno looked the other way in a perverted sin of omission while Smith's was as a willing participant in a sin of commission.
Did this go back 20 years? Cause Smith retired 20 years ago.
And Paterno was told from an eye witness than he had a child molester in Sandusky but still let him hang around the program.
-
That will be the NCAA's out. Because it involves athletes and non-athletes, they will use that rationale to stick it to the school in general with big penalties and water down the penalties to the basketball program--because after all, it's UNC, it's UNC! In fact, if it is a school wide deal, should not a different governing body be involved?
Just having a big problem believing the NCAA will give anything out to the basketball program other than loss of a few scholarships. So then they can only bring in 1 or 2 top 20 types per year instead of their usual 3.
I have a feeling you might be right.
-
I think my friend's point is that Wojo is very highly regarded by Duke's power elite and, more than any other K assistant, is considered the heir apparent.
Duke is like Michigan - they want a Duke man.
My friend's point is that Wojo doesn't need to rub the table at Marquette. Prove he can run a clean, winning program at Marquette. If you look at Wojo's track record thus far he has proven he can recruit, is a good citizen, his players and assistants are good citizens, his kids go to class and graduate, he plays well with others, and he can win.
From what I heard, Wojo needs to demonstrate he can run a program according to the Duke formula. I would say thus far he is following that script very well.
He is following the Duke formula in all but one way (and the most important way)...consistent success. He has not made the postseason, much less have any sort of sustained success in the NCAA tournament.
I am no Wojo critic. I am a firm believer that you need to give a college coach at least 4 years to have a full team of his recruits, and think he has done a reasonably ok job so far (B- or C+ if you had to push me for a grade), but to say he is heir apparent at Duke seems premature at best.
He may have a lower bar than other potential candidates. Perhaps he just has to make a few NCAA tournaments, make a run to the Sweet 16, and he'll be in, while others would have to have a Final Four on their resume. That could be the case. But he hasn't even come close to hitting that lower bar yet.
-
As the father of a female Viking ESP -3 pilot (USNA '90), I thank you for your dogged pursuit of the academic impropiety at UNC.
I have hitched a couple rides in Hoovers in my time. That unique vacuum cleaner sound they make is the same as the Warthog - they both use the GE TF 34 power plants that sip fuel and are very quiet.
Despite the grief we give Ring Knockers those guys and gals earned their seats at the table. I am sure you are very proud of your daughter and you should be.
-
The problem with this scandal is that it is really bigger than the NCAA. I am interested to see how they handle a case of systematic academic fraud, effecting both athletes and non-athletes, that goes back years.
Precisely. And this one required the active participation of not just supposed students but University Presidents, Academic Deans, faculty, administrators, coaches...
This wasn't paying students; this was manufacturing degrees.
And your point is spot on - UNC's status as a legitimate university is in play. You expect this from the on-line for profit "colleges" but not from a nationally respected university.
-
He is following the Duke formula in all but one way (and the most important way)...consistent success. He has not made the postseason, much less have any sort of sustained success in the NCAA tournament.
I am no Wojo critic. I am a firm believer that you need to give a college coach at least 4 years to have a full team of his recruits, and think he has done a reasonably ok job so far (B- or C+ if you had to push me for a grade), but to say he is heir apparent at Duke seems premature at best.
He may have a lower bar than other potential candidates. Perhaps he just has to make a few NCAA tournaments, make a run to the Sweet 16, and he'll be in, while others would have to have a Final Four on their resume. That could be the case. But he hasn't even come close to hitting that lower bar yet.
Right. There has been progress but results are needed. Coach K didn't get to the NCAAs until year four and had losing records in years two and three.
-
Precisely. And this one required the active participation of not just supposed students but University Presidents, Academic Deans, faculty, administrators, coaches...
This wasn't paying students; this was manufacturing degrees.
And your point is spot on - UNC's status as a legitimate university is in play. You expect this from the on-line for profit "colleges" but not from a nationally respected university.
(http://www.rmagency.com/rm2015/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Screen-Shot-2012-11-14-at-2.05.23-PM.png)
-
He is following the Duke formula in all but one way (and the most important way)...consistent success. He has not made the postseason, much less have any sort of sustained success in the NCAA tournament.
I am no Wojo critic. I am a firm believer that you need to give a college coach at least 4 years to have a full team of his recruits, and think he has done a reasonably ok job so far (B- or C+ if you had to push me for a grade), but to say he is heir apparent at Duke seems premature at best.
He may have a lower bar than other potential candidates. Perhaps he just has to make a few NCAA tournaments, make a run to the Sweet 16, and he'll be in, while others would have to have a Final Four on their resume. That could be the case. But he hasn't even come close to hitting that lower bar yet.
Wojo been a head coach for all of 2 seasons and Coach K isn't retiring tomorrow. I know that some fans aren't thrilled that the program hasn't turned around overnight, but Wojo has already landed a top 10 recruiting class led by a McD AA and has 3 more top 100 recruits committed to the program. Yes, he needs to show results on the court but MU basketball is trending in the right direction.
-
Did this go back 20 years? Cause Smith retired 20 years ago.
And Paterno was told from an eye witness than he had a child molester in Sandusky but still let him hang around the program.
I am told this went back more than three decades and that Dean was more involved in constructing the fraud than just a simple consumer.
My buddy is a Dookie, hell, he's on the Law School's Board of Visitors, but he is also a very rational, thoughtful lawyer and VC who isn't given to hyperbole.
If he says that Deano was actively involved in creating the fraud I would trust his intel because he is very well connected and speaks in the measured tenor and cadence of discerning counsel.
-
I am told this went back more than three decades and that Dean was more involved in constructing the fraud than just a simple consumer.
My buddy is a Dookie, hell, he's on the Law School's Board of Visitors, but he is also a very rational, thoughtful lawyer and VC who isn't given to hyperbole.
If he says that Deano was actively involved in creating the fraud I would trust his intel because he is very well connected and speaks in the measured tenor and cadence of discerning counsel.
March 28, 1977:
Marquette 67
Vacated 59
-
He is following the Duke formula in all but one way (and the most important way)...consistent success. He has not made the postseason, much less have any sort of sustained success in the NCAA tournament.
I am no Wojo critic. I am a firm believer that you need to give a college coach at least 4 years to have a full team of his recruits, and think he has done a reasonably ok job so far (B- or C+ if you had to push me for a grade), but to say he is heir apparent at Duke seems premature at best.
He may have a lower bar than other potential candidates. Perhaps he just has to make a few NCAA tournaments, make a run to the Sweet 16, and he'll be in, while others would have to have a Final Four on their resume. That could be the case. But he hasn't even come close to hitting that lower bar yet.
Coleman
Wojo inherited a sh1t burger from Bert. As I measure Wojo's progress I would say he has a plan, the Duke plan,and he is on track against it.
I think we all wanted to see faster results but, the more rational here, knew that 15-16 would be another building season.
What I heard yesterday is that K's tenure still has some legs to it, Wojo needs to show he can run a program that Duke would be proud of, and that the Duke community, most importantly K, want to see him come back to Durham.
I did not hear any specific heuristics mentioned in terms of on-court performance at Marquette. I think they are looking at the intangibles more than anything else.
-
The NCAA really wants UNC to help them out here and not just by sitting out an NCAA tournament like Syracuse and Louisville. But UNC isn't doing anything on the athletic side. And that is a larger damnation to me than anything. If you had basketball coaches willingly engaging in academic fraud, whether or not they are in the Hall of Fame, they should be fired for cause.
-
How pervasive is this in Basketball? I can't believe that this is specific to UNC.
What would happen if they looked at football? I think it would be worse.
-
Wojo been a head coach for all of 2 seasons and Coach K isn't retiring tomorrow. I know that some fans aren't thrilled that the program hasn't turned around overnight, but Wojo has already landed a top 10 recruiting class led by a McD AA and has 3 more top 100 recruits committed to the program. Yes, he needs to show results on the court but MU basketball is trending in the right direction.
No argument. But that wasn't the point of my post. I'm not calling for Wojo's head. I just think its incredibly early to be giving him dibs at the Duke job, regardless of when that happens to be.
But really, what do I care? I'm not a Dookie. If they want him regardless of any real sustained success, no sweat off my balls.
-
The NCAA really wants UNC to help them out here and not just by sitting out an NCAA tournament like Syracuse and Louisville. But UNC isn't doing anything on the athletic side. And that is a larger damnation to me than anything. If you had basketball coaches willingly engaging in academic fraud, whether or not they are in the Hall of Fame, they should be fired for cause.
What is interesting is that Paterno and Boeheim had wins vacated by the NCAA.
So what did the NCAA do in Paterno's case - vacate the wins, wait a couple years, then restore the wins. I fully expect Boeheim's wins to be restored as well.
If the NCAA can overlook tacit acceptance of pedophilia within a football program they will forgive Syracuse for not holding kids accountable for classroom performance and how they managed their substance abuse program.
Unlike at UNC the Syracuse kids actually went to a legitimate class and the professor gave them a bad grade!
I think the real end game here for Marquette sports fans is the legitimacy of the NCAA as the governor of collegiate sports.
-
I absolutely love that Emmert and the NCAA are having to deal with this. They, in part, created this monster both in their lack of compliance engagement and in choosing to go after matters that did not impact student athletics.
Legacy and Dean Smith's reputation should not matter one wink, certainly didn't in the Paterno case, why should it matter in UNC's case?
The question is for the NCAA whether they follow their precedent of punishing for things that are outside of the realm of the student-athlete. If so UNC might need the death penalty give the wide-spread nature and the length of time its been purported. The only thing that probably bails the NCAA out is the confusing and complex nature of what was going on, the public demand for "justice" probably won't be there.
-
The NCAAs members are the NCAA. They don't want strict compliance.
-
I think my friend's point is that Wojo is very highly regarded by Duke's power elite and, more than any other K assistant, is considered the heir apparent.
Duke is like Michigan - they want a Duke man.
This wanting a "Duke man" or a "Michigan man" or any other kind of "man" is a vanity of small thinkers IMO.
Fritz Crisler had the highest winning % of any Michigan coach (71-16-3, .805) and they named the basketball arena after him. He's not a "Michigan man" - he went to University of Chicago. Bo Shembechler was #1 in the modern era (194-48-5, .796) - Miami, O. man. Bump Elliot was from Purdue, Gary Moeller (shudder) was from Ohio State and Lloyd Carr went to Missouri for 3 years before finishing at Northern Michigan.
As for Duke, they've been to 16 Final Fours and won 5 national championships - none with a "Duke man" at the helm. Vic Bubas started at Illinois and transferred to (shudder) N.C. State. Bill Foster went to Elizabethtown College and Coach K was an Army man.
Jim Harbaugh will succeed at UM because he's a proven winner as a football coach. That he matriculated at the university may be a "feel good" story for the alumni but it's really beside the point. And if Duke puts one of their ex players/assistants ahead of guys like Brad Stevens (and lots of others) on their "wish list" because they are "Duke men" they will live to regret it.
-
Wojo only gets the easy wins
Yes Sir, I predicted 31 Wins last year he did not Deliver.
-
The NCAAs members are the NCAA. They don't want strict compliance.
While true, due to increased public awareness and NCAA mis-steps....that may no longer be a tenable position.
-
This wanting a "Duke man" or a "Michigan man" or any other kind of "man" is a vanity of small thinkers IMO.
Fritz Crisler had the highest winning % of any Michigan coach (71-16-3, .805) and they named the basketball arena after him. He's not a "Michigan man" - he went to University of Chicago. Bo Shembechler was #1 in the modern era (194-48-5, .796) - Miami, O. man. Bump Elliot was from Purdue, Gary Moeller (shudder) was from Ohio State and Lloyd Carr went to Missouri for 3 years before finishing at Northern Michigan.
As for Duke, they've been to 16 Final Fours and won 5 national championships - none with a "Duke man" at the helm. Vic Bubas started at Illinois and transferred to (shudder) N.C. State. Bill Foster went to Elizabethtown College and Coach K was an Army man.
Jim Harbaugh will succeed at UM because he's a proven winner as a football coach. That he matriculated at the university may be a "feel good" story for the alumni but it's really beside the point. And if Duke puts one of their ex players/assistants ahead of guys like Brad Stevens (and lots of others) on their "wish list" because they are "Duke men" they will live to regret it.
Very well put
-
While true, due to increased public awareness and NCAA mis-steps....that may no longer be a tenable position.
Especially in the era of budget shortfalls... no NCAA member wants the scrutiny of DC.
-
This wanting a "Duke man" or a "Michigan man" or any other kind of "man" is a vanity of small thinkers IMO.
Fritz Crisler had the highest winning % of any Michigan coach (71-16-3, .805) and they named the basketball arena after him. He's not a "Michigan man" - he went to University of Chicago. Bo Shembechler was #1 in the modern era (194-48-5, .796) - Miami, O. man. Bump Elliot was from Purdue, Gary Moeller (shudder) was from Ohio State and Lloyd Carr went to Missouri for 3 years before finishing at Northern Michigan.
As for Duke, they've been to 16 Final Fours and won 5 national championships - none with a "Duke man" at the helm. Vic Bubas started at Illinois and transferred to (shudder) N.C. State. Bill Foster went to Elizabethtown College and Coach K was an Army man.
Jim Harbaugh will succeed at UM because he's a proven winner as a football coach. That he matriculated at the university may be a "feel good" story for the alumni but it's really beside the point. And if Duke puts one of their ex players/assistants ahead of guys like Brad Stevens (and lots of others) on their "wish list" because they are "Duke men" they will live to regret it.
While I agree with the spirit (and most of the other stuff) in this post, we don't know yet that Wojo will still be a lesser coach than Stevens 5 years from now, or whenever K retires.
As for the claim (not by you but by others) that Wojo's building of Marquette's program is "not even close" to K's building of Duke's program ...
K's first three years at Duke produced records of 17–13, 10-17 and 11–17. He didn't make the tourney until his fourth season and didn't make the Final four until his sixth. Only then did his "legend" really begin.
The way I see it, Wojo's building of Marquette's program actually is ahead of K's pace, and he's doing it while facing stiffer competition for recruits.
I am not saying Wojo will surpass K -- that's silliness -- or even Stevens. Heck, I'm not even saying Wojo will turn out to be a good coach, though I hope he will and believe he has a chance to.
What I'm saying is that it does a disservice to him to dismiss him already as not being "great coach material" down the line. It's simply too early to tell.
If there had been a DukeScoop in 1983 and if those D-Scoopers had power to hire or fire coaches, there never would have been a fourth season and there never would have been a Coach K as we have come to know him.
-
Why should the NCAA care? It should be part of his legacy if true (i.e. Joe Paterno)
So they'll strike when he's dead?
-
I am told this went back more than three decades and that Dean was more involved in constructing the fraud than just a simple consumer.
My buddy is a Dookie, hell, he's on the Law School's Board of Visitors, but he is also a very rational, thoughtful lawyer and VC who isn't given to hyperbole.
If he says that Deano was actively involved in creating the fraud I would trust his intel because he is very well connected and speaks in the measured tenor and cadence of discerning counsel.
I am sure your friend is a good guy but as a lawyer he of all people knows that the details on this case are being held very close to the vest.
-
If there had been a DukeScoop in 1983 and if those D-Scoopers had power to hire or fire coaches, there never would have been a fourth season and there never would have been a Coach K as we have come to know him.
DukeScoop - Priceless!!!!
-
I am sure your friend is a good guy but as a lawyer he of all people knows that the details on this case are being held very close to the vest.
He related what he knows. The key point being this goes back to Smith and is a lot worse than what is being said.
He never claimed to have the full sight picture.
-
You are probably referring to Sam Gilbert. Let me put it this way - Marquette had its own Sam Gilberts during Al's time.
To compare UCLA to UNC is specious because UNC's crime was academic fraud. And it went on for decades. UCLA and Marquette players actually went to class.
You mean "Horton Roe" was a legitimate course? No wonder I got a "C" in it.
-
You mean "Horton Roe" was a legitimate course? No wonder I got a "C" in it.
You didn't...
-
You didn't...
Yes I did! Got kicked out of class one day playing "the name game" . The chick next to me started laughing at one of my answers. He came running up the aisle like a fat old nun and kicked us both out of class for the day. All the while his dog sat on the podium keeping an eye on the rest of the class!
-
You didn't...
My best semester (by far) at MU was straight As but for a B in a Horton Roe class - too many cut classes.
-
(http://www.rmagency.com/rm2015/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Screen-Shot-2012-11-14-at-2.05.23-PM.png)
Online MBA/PUA Negging degree?
-
This wanting a "Duke man" or a "Michigan man" or any other kind of "man" is a vanity of small thinkers IMO.
Fritz Crisler had the highest winning % of any Michigan coach (71-16-3, .805) and they named the basketball arena after him. He's not a "Michigan man" - he went to University of Chicago. Bo Shembechler was #1 in the modern era (194-48-5, .796) - Miami, O. man. Bump Elliot was from Purdue, Gary Moeller (shudder) was from Ohio State and Lloyd Carr went to Missouri for 3 years before finishing at Northern Michigan.
As for Duke, they've been to 16 Final Fours and won 5 national championships - none with a "Duke man" at the helm. Vic Bubas started at Illinois and transferred to (shudder) N.C. State. Bill Foster went to Elizabethtown College and Coach K was an Army man.
Jim Harbaugh will succeed at UM because he's a proven winner as a football coach. That he matriculated at the university may be a "feel good" story for the alumni but it's really beside the point. And if Duke puts one of their ex players/assistants ahead of guys like Brad Stevens (and lots of others) on their "wish list" because they are "Duke men" they will live to regret it.
Lenny
I saw first hand how silly the "Michigan Man" requirement has been for Ann Arbor. The fact that Harbaugh went to Michigan is immaterial to his success as a coach.
But the fact that he wore the Maize and Blue does make his return and eventual success all the better.
To make it a requirement is foolish. But if it is part of the narrative it is a great story.
-
And just like Stanford and the 49ers, the Maize and Bluers will be hating Harbaugh within 3 years. That is his pattern. He is an epic turd who even makes his orange tinted brother in law look good.
Now back to vacating a big portion of Dean Smith's wins...
-
How pervasive is this in Basketball? I can't believe that this is specific to UNC.
What would happen if they looked at football? I think it would be worse.
I don't think you have a full understanding of the allegations. This isn't athletes getting the benefit of the doubt or even having grad students write their papers--this was the establishment of an entire major course of study that did not exist, yet provided grades. Imagine getting a degree with a history major earning a qualifying grade point for attending classes that existed only in a catalog. That is what we are talking about. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bdavidridpath/2015/08/24/will-the-ncaa-punish-the-university-of-north-carolina-past-situational-ethics-say-otherwise/#597828b23bf2
-
This wanting a "Duke man" or a "Michigan man" or any other kind of "man" is a vanity of small thinkers IMO.
Fritz Crisler had the highest winning % of any Michigan coach (71-16-3, .805) and they named the basketball arena after him. He's not a "Michigan man" - he went to University of Chicago. Bo Shembechler was #1 in the modern era (194-48-5, .796) - Miami, O. man. Bump Elliot was from Purdue, Gary Moeller (shudder) was from Ohio State and Lloyd Carr went to Missouri for 3 years before finishing at Northern Michigan.
As for Duke, they've been to 16 Final Fours and won 5 national championships - none with a "Duke man" at the helm. Vic Bubas started at Illinois and transferred to (shudder) N.C. State. Bill Foster went to Elizabethtown College and Coach K was an Army man.
Jim Harbaugh will succeed at UM because he's a proven winner as a football coach. That he matriculated at the university may be a "feel good" story for the alumni but it's really beside the point. And if Duke puts one of their ex players/assistants ahead of guys like Brad Stevens (and lots of others) on their "wish list" because they are "Duke men" they will live to regret it.
One other thing to consider: There's no way Coach K won't be intimately involved in choosing his successor, whether he stays on at Duke in an administrative capacity or because of Duke's infinite reverence for the man they have already built a shrine for (seriously, take a visit to the Duke "basketball museum"). Given that, he's going to want one of his own. And why wouldn't it be Wojo? He was his guy for over 15 years.
I like Wojo and think he's capable of taking us to the land of Confetti and Shining Moments, but I won't be surprised in the least if Duke offers him a job in ~4 years and he takes it.
-
Brad Stevens
Jay Wright
Billy Donovan
Those are where Duke should be looking unless Wojo goes on a few deep runs at MU. The Duke job begins on third weekend in March.
-
UNC fans have created a petition on change.org to investigate the refs of the championship game.
They want the results overturned.
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/2016/4/7/11383118/petition-urges-ncaa-to-reverse-results-of-2016-ncaa-championship
No, this is not from the Onion.
-
Looks like the NCAA has already acted against NC. http://deadspin.com/man-southern-miss-was-flagrantly-breaking-ncaa-rules-1769899353
(with credit to Jerry Tarkanian)
-
UNC fans have created a petition on change.org to investigate the refs of the championship game.
They want the results overturned.
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/2016/4/7/11383118/petition-urges-ncaa-to-reverse-results-of-2016-ncaa-championship
No, this is not from the Onion.
Game was 20 fouls on UNC and 16 on Nova. And I would say 3 of those 20 was UNC purposefully fouling at the end.
Free throws were 17 attempts for Nova versus 13 for UNC, and Nova scored more field goals in the paint than UNC (thus you would except for them to get to the line more).
I do remember a couple of questionable fouls on UNC. But nothing you don't normally see in games.
-
Game was 20 fouls on UNC and 16 on Nova. And I would say 3 of those 20 was UNC purposefully fouling at the end.
Free throws were 17 attempts for Nova versus 13 for UNC, and Nova scored more field goals in the paint than UNC (thus you would except for them to get to the line more).
I do remember a couple of questionable fouls on UNC. But nothing you don't normally see in games.
Yep. The petition just makes them seem like a bunch of whiners.
-
Yep. The petition just makes them seem like a bunch of whiners.
FIFY
-
UNC fans have created a petition on change.org to investigate the refs of the championship game.
They want the results overturned.
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/2016/4/7/11383118/petition-urges-ncaa-to-reverse-results-of-2016-ncaa-championship
No, this is not from the Onion.
Yet where is the outrage for a university that endangers their degree from having manufactured diplomas for more than three decades?
-
If they had gone to actual classes, not imaginary ones, they would realize how dumb this makes them look.
-
Yet where is the outrage for a university that endangers their degree from having manufactured diplomas for more than three decades?
There is no outrage because they believe in the Al Davis mantra,"Just win baby". They don't give a rats ass about the cheating.
BTW, the way the NCAA President was kissing Jordan's ass last Monday make me believe this will not be a damaging punishment.
Would not be surprised to see the NCAA say Bruce Springsteen cancelling his show in North Carolina scheduled for Sunday is punishment enough.:)
-
All this uncertainty surrounds the future of UNC's program yet they have the #10 ranked recruiting class. Don't these recruits understand they may be signing with a program about to get whacked by the NCAA? Are they just verbally committing until the punishment comes down? Is there some sort of side agreement to let them out of the LOI if severe punishment? Are they counting on the NCAA releasing all UNC players once the punishment is handed down? Someone give me a clue here!
-
All this uncertainty surrounds the future of UNC's program yet they have the #10 ranked recruiting class. Don't these recruits understand they may be signing with a program about to get whacked by the NCAA? Are they just verbally committing until the punishment comes down? Is there some sort of side agreement to let them out of the LOI if severe punishment? Are they counting on the NCAA releasing all UNC players once the punishment is handed down? Someone give me a clue here!
I thought that letting recruits out often accompaniment heavy sanctions by the NCAA.
-
All this uncertainty surrounds the future of UNC's program yet they have the #10 ranked recruiting class. Don't these recruits understand they may be signing with a program about to get whacked by the NCAA? Are they just verbally committing until the punishment comes down? Is there some sort of side agreement to let them out of the LOI if severe punishment? Are they counting on the NCAA releasing all UNC players once the punishment is handed down? Someone give me a clue here!
My guess is that most top recruits pay attention to who plays in the Final Four and which schools get players to the NBA, but very few read the news.
-
My guess is that most top recruits pay attention to who plays in the Final Four and which schools get players to the NBA, but very few read the news.
Or UNC is telling them their version of the story.
-
Or UNC is telling them their version of the story.
To the extent questions come up, I'm sure that is the case.
-
To the extent questions come up, I'm sure that is the case.
But wouldn't competing schools make sure the recruits are aware of the UNC investigation and possible sanctions?
-
But wouldn't competing schools make sure the recruits are aware of the UNC investigation and possible sanctions?
Yes, without a single shred of doubt.
-
Or UNC is telling them their version of the story.
As of a few days ago, this was Ol' Roy's response to Katz...
When asked Sunday during an ESPN interview at the NCAA tournament's Final Four about the chances that North Carolina gets hit by NCAA sanctions, Williams said he would be speculating, but "I don't think we're going to get hit in any way at all. Hard to penalize somebody when you have no allegations against them.''
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15127691/roy-williams-expect-unc-hoops-get-hit-way-all-ncaa-sanctions
-
But wouldn't competing schools make sure the recruits are aware of the UNC investigation and possible sanctions?
Very likely...and as I said, to the extent questions come up when the recruit is at UNC, Roy will tell them his version of the story.
-
Very likely...and as I said, to the extent questions come up when the recruit is at UNC, Roy will tell them his version of the story.
So far his "version" is the Sgt. Shultz one: "I know nothing!"
-
You guys that don't like how the NCAA does this, start complaining to the right source....starting with Marquette...an actual member of the NCAA.
End of the day, it's a membership, with rules written by the membership. Etc, etc.
-
All this uncertainty surrounds the future of UNC's program yet they have the #10 ranked recruiting class. Don't these recruits understand they may be signing with a program about to get whacked by the NCAA? Are they just verbally committing until the punishment comes down? Is there some sort of side agreement to let them out of the LOI if severe punishment? Are they counting on the NCAA releasing all UNC players once the punishment is handed down? Someone give me a clue here!
Then we're all supposed to feel sorry for these guys when the hammer falls. Oh, it's so unfair...punishing the innocent...blah, blah, blah. These kids know exactly what they're walking into. This is not a surprise. You sign with UNC, you deal with the ramifications. Save your tears and go whine to someone else.
-
NCAA passed new rules on the Academic issues raised in the UNC case.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25547495/unc-scandal-forces-ncaa-to-redefine-its-academic-misconduct-policy
The real problem here is that if they come down hard on UNC, they will have to come down hard on everyone else's underwater basket weaving classes. UNC is the tip of the iceberg.
-
NCAA passed new rules on the Academic issues raised in the UNC case.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25547495/unc-scandal-forces-ncaa-to-redefine-its-academic-misconduct-policy
The real problem here is that if they come down hard on UNC, they will have to come down hard on everyone else's underwater basket weaving classes. UNC is the tip of the iceberg.
Again, I just don't believe this is true. All colleges have their "easy" classes. But they HAVE classes. Here, the University set up a system where there WAS NO CLASS. I challenge you to find another situation like this. They may be there, but I haven't seen anything approaching the breadth or scope of this academic fraud. Not that I have faith in the NCAA to do anything serious, but this turns the idea of "institutional control" on its head.
-
Again, I just don't believe this is true. All colleges have their "easy" classes. But they HAVE classes. Here, the University set up a system where there WAS NO CLASS. I challenge you to find another situation like this. They may be there, but I haven't seen anything approaching the breadth or scope of this academic fraud. Not that I have faith in the NCAA to do anything serious, but this turns the idea of "institutional control" on its head.
They had a class. I know lots of people who took it. The issue was there was no basis for the grades.
-
My best semester (by far) at MU was straight As but for a B in a Horton Roe class - too many cut classes.
The college I was in generally would not let us take Horton Roe. Something about academic integrity.
The only way you could get anything other than an "A" from ole Horton is to oversleep.
Somebody spent too much time at the 'Lanche!
-
The college I was in generally would not let us take Horton Roe. Something about academic integrity.
The only way you could get anything other than an "A" from ole Horton is to oversleep.
Somebody spent too much time at the 'Lanche!
The problem with Horton Roe was his classes were at 0800 and he actually took attendance. I mean, there were mornings where, after leaving Real Chili after a long night at the Lanche, it almost didn't make sense to hit the rack and just power through til 1000.
-
The college I was in generally would not let us take Horton Roe. Something about academic integrity.
The only way you could get anything other than an "A" from ole Horton is to oversleep.
Somebody spent too much time at the 'Lanche!
Guilty as charged.
-
Did this go back 20 years? Cause Smith retired 20 years ago.
And Paterno was told from an eye witness than he had a child molester in Sandusky but still let him hang around the program.
I think that you are being unfair to Paterno. IIRC, Paterno and Sandusky didn't see eye to eye on regarding the football team, but Sandusky was protected from dismissal by Paterno by higher ups at Penn State because of the success of Sandusky's defenses. When Paterno heard something, he reported it up the chain which was probably all he could do short of going public. There was a massive failure at Penn State, but I think it was higher up than Paterno and it involved Paterno having his hands tied.
-
I think that you are being unfair to Paterno. IIRC, Paterno and Sandusky didn't see eye to eye on regarding the football team, but Sandusky was protected from dismissal by Paterno by higher ups at Penn State because of the success of Sandusky's defenses. When Paterno heard something, he reported it up the chain which was probably all he could do short of going public. There was a massive failure at Penn State, but I think it was higher up than Paterno and it involved Paterno having his hands tied.
I think it's naive to think someone as powerful as Paterno could have his "hands tied" by anyone at PSU. When he learned that one of his coaches was doing something terribly wrong and immoral, telling an administrator and then just forgetting the issue was criminally negligent on his part.
-
I think it's naive to think someone as powerful as Paterno could have his "hands tied" by anyone at PSU. When he learned that one of his coaches was doing something terribly wrong and immoral, telling an administrator and then just forgetting the issue was criminally negligent on his part.
Yep, I don't know much of what happened, but I remember an investigator saying "W hen ever I start to feel sorry about them, I have this burned in vision of a boy 10 or 11 laying on the shower floor in the fetal position crying."
For all the years, this when on, I'm painting them all with a Broad Brush.
-
I think it's naive to think someone as powerful as Paterno could have his "hands tied" by anyone at PSU. When he learned that one of his coaches was doing something terribly wrong and immoral, telling an administrator and then just forgetting the issue was criminally negligent on his part.
Sorry, but the "Almighty Paterno" narrative just doesn't wash with reality. A) He was legally bared from taking further action once it was reported to his superiors and campus police, it would have been tampering to do otherwise. B) Spanier(university president) was actively reducing Paterno's power in the years leading up to 2012. Spanier in fact overruled Paterno on Sandusky's emeritus status, Paterno didn't see the point in him hanging around (at that point there were no known issues). C) Sandusky wasn't one of "his coaches" at the time or generally, it's well known that Paterno and Sandusky didn't see eye to eye on football and Sandusky was retired at the time Mike McQueary reported the incident.
-
I am positive that we are in agreement that destroying young lives through sexual abuse is a particularly heinous act. However, that does not mean that the facts regarding the limits on Paterno's options to deal with the situation should be ignored. Thank you for providing the specifics. Given the gravity of the offense, the importance of placing blame where it is most deserved is paramount.
Sorry, but the "Almighty Paterno" narrative just doesn't wash with reality. A) He was legally bared from taking further action once it was reported to his superiors and campus police, it would have been tampering to do otherwise. B) Spanier(university president) was actively reducing Paterno's power in the years leading up to 2012. Spanier in fact overruled Paterno on Sandusky's emeritus status, Paterno didn't see the point in him hanging around (at that point there were no known issues). C) Sandusky wasn't one of "his coaches" at the time or generally, it's well known that Paterno and Sandusky didn't see eye to eye on football and Sandusky was retired at the time Mike McQueary reported the incident.
-
I am positive that we are in agreement that destroying young lives through sexual abuse is a particularly heinous act. However, that does not mean that the facts regarding the limits on Paterno's options to deal with the situation should be ignored. Thank you for providing the specifics. Given the gravity of the offense, the importance of placing blame where it is most deserved is paramount.
Regardless of where the buck stopped if Paterno knew what was going on he had a moral responsibility to put an end to it. Kicking the ball upstairs then shrugging one's shoulders does not absolve one of their moral responsibility to address wrong. And in this case, it wasn't wrong - wrong is a speeding ticket - it was profound evil.
If Paterno knew what was happening at Penn State in the football facilities he had an ethical imperative to stop it.
-
Regardless of where the buck stopped if Paterno knew what was going on he had a moral responsibility to put an end to it. Kicking the ball upstairs then shrugging one's shoulders does not absolve one of their moral responsibility to address wrong. And in this case, it wasn't wrong - wrong is a speeding ticket - it was profound evil.
If Paterno knew what was happening at Penn State in the football facilities he had an ethical imperative to stop it.
This.
-
The idea that Paterno wasn't powerful enough to get rid of Sandusky is laughable. It is the line used by his apologists all the time. I have a (non-Kool Aid drinking) good friend who went to school there and then worked there for a bit. Paterno was the most powerful person at the University and in State College. If he wanted Sandusky gone, Sandusky would have been gone.
-
The idea that Paterno wasn't powerful enough to get rid of Sandusky is laughable. It is the line used by his apologists all the time. I have a (non-Kool Aid drinking) good friend who went to school there and then worked there for a bit. Paterno was the most powerful person at the University and in State College. If he wanted Sandusky gone, Sandusky would have been gone.
AMEN!
-
The idea that Paterno wasn't powerful enough to get rid of Sandusky is laughable. It is the line used by his apologists all the time. I have a (non-Kool Aid drinking) good friend who went to school there and then worked there for a bit. Paterno was the most powerful person at the University and in State College. If he wanted Sandusky gone, Sandusky would have been gone.
I have family that went to school there and were heavily involved in the alumni association and BoT, and on campus repeatedly....Paterno was revered and given wide power prior to the Spanier administration, that power became more reduced after 2008, in fact some on the BoT and the administration were working to get Paterno out as early as 2006.
It is documented that Paterno preferred Sandusky not be around the program after he retired (not for any suspicion but because they just didn't like each other). Spanier overrulled him, no idea why, but he did. Spanier granted Sandusky emeritus status which allowed him free reign, what was Paterno going to do exactly? Until McQueary reported the incident nobody had suspicions that would have triggered PSU to be worried. The Pennsylvania department of justice investigated an incident involving Sandusky and a boy from his charity, cleared him of wrong doing and never bothered to tell the university.
A lot of stuff went wrong with the whole incident, some probably that shouldn't have happened even at the time, some with the benefit of hindsight seem obvious. Paterno himself said he wishes he had done more in hindsight. Paterno had blame in not (despite it being illegal) following up and making sure something was done, but let's not act like he could be the judge, jury, and executioner in this situation. This was a legal matter and should have been handled through that process, it wasn't and people need to look at that as well.
I'd remind everyone that there was an issue at MU involving a basketball player and a sex crime allegation that Buzz got in the middle of that could have had serious consequences (still could) for the university. Case of the damned if you do, damned if you don'ts.
-
Regardless of where the buck stopped if Paterno knew what was going on he had a moral responsibility to put an end to it. Kicking the ball upstairs then shrugging one's shoulders does not absolve one of their moral responsibility to address wrong. And in this case, it wasn't wrong - wrong is a speeding ticket - it was profound evil.
If Paterno knew what was happening at Penn State in the football facilities he had an ethical imperative to stop it.
But he didn't know. Clearly this conduct by Sandusky was occurring when the facilities were not in use by the team or Sandusky would never have had the privacy he needed to act. Paterno witnessed nothing, he got a report which he passed on to the proper channels, his superiors and the campus police. Both of these channels had the ability and resources to both investigate the charge and - at least in the case of the Penn State administration - to deny Sandusky use of Penn State facilities until such an investigation was concluded. Paterno had already been overruled by the administration regarding giving Sandusky access to Penn State's athletic facilities. Further action by Paterno at this point would have been insubordinate and illegal by Paterno, and it would have required Paterno to make two assumptions which at the time must have seemed incredible:
1) that Sandusky a man who old enough to have reached retirement could do such a thing in spite of the fact that he had no record (known to Paterno) of such prior conduct, and 2) that the Penn State administration could choose to ignore such egregious conduct occurring in its athletic facilities.
Heinous acts of omission occurred here. I believe that they all occurred after Paterno did the right thing and passed on the information that he was given to (what should have been) the proper authorities.
-
Regardless of where the buck stopped if Paterno knew what was going on he had a moral responsibility to put an end to it. Kicking the ball upstairs then shrugging one's shoulders does not absolve one of their moral responsibility to address wrong. And in this case, it wasn't wrong - wrong is a speeding ticket - it was profound evil.
If Paterno knew what was happening at Penn State in the football facilities he had an ethical imperative to stop it.
+1,000,000
-
Regardless of where the buck stopped if Paterno knew what was going on he had a moral responsibility to put an end to it. Kicking the ball upstairs then shrugging one's shoulders does not absolve one of their moral responsibility to address wrong. And in this case, it wasn't wrong - wrong is a speeding ticket - it was profound evil.
If Paterno knew what was happening at Penn State in the football facilities he had an ethical imperative to stop it.
+1000000000000
If I think a co-worker is molesting kids in the shower, and I tell my superiors about it and they don't do anything...I'm going straight to the police. I don't care if Paterno was so powerless that he would have been fired the next day - he had a moral obligation to help these kids, and it was wrong of him to ignore it just because his superiors told him to.
-
If Paterno got word of this and he really believed it was happening, and if the university did nothing about it -- and barred him from doing anything about it -- all he had to do was go to the press as an anonymous source.
He could have gone to a reporter he respected at the Philly Inquirer or NY Times or ESPN or wherever and Sandusky would have been toast.
-
Having worked in the football offices 2009-2010 seasons. I can tell you sandusky wasn't welcome in the building and hadn't been since the allegations originally surfaced early 2000's.
Sandusky was an employee of the university (emritus status) but, was no longer a coach or involved with the football program
He had already been investigated in the early 2000's and the police/DA's has decided not to prosecute. Interesting side note the DA who made that decisions disappeared
Second, Paterno could have done more? Yes, for not doing so he is culpable. Did he do the legal minimum yes.
Did PSU football actually break any real NCAA rule not really thus, why the sanctions were walked back. Because powers that be at PSU were getting ready for a lawsuit they were most likely going to win with NCAA. I doubt anyone can argue PSU gained an advantage from what Sandusky did unlike UNC.
Did PSU football deserve to be punished under current NCAA rules No. Is what what happened morally and ethically horrible yes and there lies the contradiction and problem for most people.
Did UNC break ncaa rules and benefit directly yes. They should get at minimum what psu received.
-
+1000000000000
If I think a co-worker is molesting kids in the shower, and I tell my superiors about it and they don't do anything...I'm going straight to the police. I don't care if Paterno was so powerless that he would have been fired the next day - he had a moral obligation to help these kids, and it was wrong of him to ignore it just because his superiors told him to.
I would absolutely agree, except there is no evidence that what you say in the part of your post which I've bolded actually happened.
-
UNC has responded to the allegations. In short:
"Since only half the kids in this joke of an academic program were athletes, it really isn't an NCAA matter, so mind your own f*cking business."
http://deadspin.com/unc-response-to-ncaa-allegations-stick-to-sports-1784719614
-
UNC has responded to the allegations. In short:
"Since only half the kids in this joke of an academic program were athletes, it really isn't an NCAA matter, so mind your own f*cking business."
http://deadspin.com/unc-response-to-ncaa-allegations-stick-to-sports-1784719614
Which is exactly what I said the problem was going to be earlier in this topic. (See reply #9.) It is simply a bigger issue than the NCAA's scope.
-
Which is exactly what I said the problem was going to be earlier in this topic. (See reply #9.) It is simply a bigger issue than the NCAA's scope.
You aren't wrong, but it is pretty pathetic how the NCAA chooses to apply the involving athletics vs non-athletics standard.
-
This author took a very hard stance on the issue.
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article93352282.html
-
You aren't wrong, but it is pretty pathetic how the NCAA chooses to apply the involving athletics vs non-athletics standard.
It's a poorly run organization whose members are making out like bandits on television contracts. They have too broad a mission and too small a resource base to accomplish that mission.
-
I don't know how to feel. On one hand I hate UNC and really want to see them destroyed. On the other hand I hate the NCAA hypocrisy and really want to see UNC stick it to them.
-
The NCAA should respond:
You are right, how you provide a BS education to 50% of the individuals is none of our business. We will lead that to accreditors to rule on and the courts for any students that think that this cheapens their degree and that they should be financially compensated for any potential losses in academic value.
But it is our business to make sure the 50% of athletes are getting a proper education. Our response is to ban football and basketball from any competition for the next 3 years. All athletes can transfer immediately without penalty.
-
You aren't wrong, but it is pretty pathetic how the NCAA chooses to apply the involving athletics vs non-athletics standard.
I agree that the NCAA isn't in business to penalize UNC for having a bogus academic course of study. But can't they penalize UNC's athletic department for knowingly steering athletes toward those classes?
If the NCAA is looking for an out (as clearly they were in 2012), they got it. I wonder if the presence of non-athletes in these classes was orchestrated by UNC just for the purpose of giving them this out when the NCAA came calling. Shouldn't that make this even worse?
-
So less than 1% of UNC students are student-athletes, but they represented 47% of the students in these scam courses? It would seem that the NCAA should be interested in that ratio.
Let's face it, this is fraud and the defense is weak. If UNC skates, the NCAA is severely weakened morally, legally and as a governing body. Certainly, there is already a civil element to this case, but one could argue a criminal one revolving the university's charter. Will that happen? Not likely but the UNC defense could be perilous for other reasons than NCAA sanctions for the can of worms.
-
But it is our business to make sure the 50% of athletes are getting a proper education.
I'm not necessarily sure that I am comfortable giving the NCAA the authority to ensure that "athletes are getting a proper education."
-
I'm not necessarily sure that I am comfortable giving the NCAA the authority to ensure that "athletes are getting a proper education."
To be fair, I'm not comfortable giving the NCAA authority to do anything but we have to give them something to do and determining the basic academic requirements for student athletes has to be a relative layup compared to the rest of the stuff they bungle.
-
I view UNC's defense here much in the same way that Kentucky defends their basketball dorm (which, incidentally, has not been considered a violation): "it's not an impermissible benefit because it's open to non-basketball students." Right....
I'm guessing the percentage of non-athletes in these bogus classes is probably quite a bit higher than the percentage of non-athletes in that dorm.
-
To be fair, I'm not comfortable giving the NCAA authority to do anything but we have to give them something to do and determining the basic academic requirements for student athletes has to be a relative layup compared to the rest of the stuff they bungle.
Why? I am all about the NCAA setting up the rules of play, putting together championships, and ensuring that recruitment practices are as above board as possible.
I have never been all that comfortable with the NCAA having anything to do with academic eligibility or any notion of academic progress. That's for the schools to figure out. If a school wants to bastardize their academics for the sake of athletics, that's an issue for their governing board and their accreditation body to oversee.
Everything that the NCAA has done in this regard is simply a series of check-marks and hoops to jump through. I am not sure it has done the student athlete any good in the long run. Has it lead to more degree earners? Are those degree earners reaping the benefits of their degrees? It just seems like a lot of window dressing to me for the sake of public relations.
-
Why? I am all about the NCAA setting up the rules of play, putting together championships, and ensuring that recruitment practices are as above board as possible.
I have never been all that comfortable with the NCAA having anything to do with academic eligibility or any notion of academic progress. That's for the schools to figure out. If a school wants to bastardize their academics for the sake of athletics, that's an issue for their governing board and their accreditation body to oversee.
Everything that the NCAA has done in this regard is simply a series of check-marks and hoops to jump through. I am not sure it has done the student athlete any good in the long run. Has it lead to more degree earners? Are those degree earners reaping the benefits of their degrees? It just seems like a lot of window dressing to me for the sake of public relations.
Has UNC decided that any potential hits to their academic accreditation status is outweighed by the benefit to their athletic program?
-
I view UNC's defense here much in the same way that Kentucky defends their basketball dorm (which, incidentally, has not been considered a violation): "it's not an impermissible benefit because it's open to non-basketball students." Right....
I'm guessing the percentage of non-athletes in these bogus classes is probably quite a bit higher than the percentage of non-athletes in that dorm.
A bogus degree is not an "impermissable benefit".
-
Has UNC decided that any potential hits to their academic accreditation status is outweighed by the benefit to their athletic program?
I have no idea. Nor do I particularly care.
-
So less than 1% of UNC students are student-athletes, but they represented 47% of the students in these scam courses? It would seem that the NCAA should be interested in that ratio.
Let's face it, this is fraud and the defense is weak. If UNC skates, the NCAA is severely weakened morally, legally and as a governing body. Certainly, there is already a civil element to this case, but one could argue a criminal one revolving the university's charter. Will that happen? Not likely but the UNC defense could be perilous for other reasons than NCAA sanctions for the can of worms.
The reality is that the program was set up for athletes. If other students were stupid or naive enough to enroll in it, all the better (in the University's eyes).
-
A bogus degree is not an "impermissable benefit".
Not under the NCAA's rules -- or at least their rules before they made some changes earlier this year. As I understand it, the concept of "impermissible benefit" relates to whether athletes receive benefits that other students don't receive. UNC's defense in this case essentially boils down to, "all students were able to obtain a bogus degree, so this was not an impermissible benefit to our athletes."
You and I can be amazed that UNC has sold its soul as a degree-granting institution to this extent. But that's what the rule is about. It really does boggle the mind that a once-proud institution chose, "but we give out lots of bogus degrees" as its defense to protect its athletics program.
They already took the hit with their accrediting board. They were on probation for a year due to the fact that they were running a bogus program, but that probation has ended and they're in good standing now.
-
I agree that the NCAA isn't in business to penalize UNC for having a bogus academic course of study. But can't they penalize UNC's athletic department for knowingly steering athletes toward those classes?
This is the key for me. Its one thing if there were bogus classes and some athletes found out about it and took them, because why wouldn't you.
But as others have pointed out with the extremely high ratios of athletes attending these classes compared to the ratio of athletes on campus, if the athletic dept steered athletes to these courses, then I think thats where it becomes a big issue.
-
Then the question becomes...did the athletic department know they were "bogus?" Or simply that they were easier and worked well with athletes? Because if it was simply the latter, every school has programs like that including my beloved alma mater.
-
The reality is that the program was set up for athletes. If other students were stupid or naive enough to enroll in it, all the better (in the University's eyes).
Not only was it, "all the better," but it was absolutely vital to the defense that UNC is putting forward. One wonders if that was the plan all along or whether it was just a "happy accident" for UNC.
Again, it's like the Kentucky basketball dorm. Everyone knows that the over-the-top facility was constructed for the basketball team. But since a very limited number of non-athletes (i.e., 16 - of an enrollment of 30,000+) get to live there with the basketball team, it's not an impermissible benefit under NCAA rules.
-
Why? I am all about the NCAA setting up the rules of play, putting together championships, and ensuring that recruitment practices are as above board as possible.
I have never been all that comfortable with the NCAA having anything to do with academic eligibility or any notion of academic progress. That's for the schools to figure out. If a school wants to bastardize their academics for the sake of athletics, that's an issue for their governing board and their accreditation body to oversee.
Everything that the NCAA has done in this regard is simply a series of check-marks and hoops to jump through. I am not sure it has done the student athlete any good in the long run. Has it lead to more degree earners? Are those degree earners reaping the benefits of their degrees? It just seems like a lot of window dressing to me for the sake of public relations.
Take a look at the crap around the remote camps that went on this summer. We're banning them because the $EC doesn't like them, oh wait Jim Harbaugh is upset well then I guess they are ok....wait small conferences don't like them, well maybe we should reconsider.
The NCAA is a $hit$how of an organization that has a myriad of conflicting directives, constituencies, and competency levels. The ultimate goal for them is to keep the money rolling in, which ultimately I don't have any issue with, just don't cloak yourself in the auspices of wanting to promote the student in student-athlete.
-
Take a look at the crap around the remote camps that went on this summer. We're banning them because the $EC doesn't like them, oh wait Jim Harbaugh is upset well then I guess they are ok....wait small conferences don't like them, well maybe we should reconsider.
The NCAA is a $hit$how of an organization that has a myriad of conflicting directives, constituencies, and competency levels. The ultimate goal for them is to keep the money rolling in, which ultimately I don't have any issue with, just don't cloak yourself in the auspices of wanting to promote the student in student-athlete.
Right. That's kind of my point here. I don't think the academic eligibility or progress issue has lead to much of anything other than a mentality that college admission and progress is a series of low hurdles that athletes have to jump to retain eligibility. And at the end they are left with...what exactly? Yeah a degree, but one without many of the soft skills they really need to utilize it in the end.
So instead of having a bunch of rules with questionable value, I would rather have less and live with the results. Of course I have always been kind of an anarchist in that way.
-
Right. That's kind of my point here. I don't think the academic eligibility or progress issue has lead to much of anything other than a mentality that college admission and progress is a series of low hurdles that athletes have to jump to retain eligibility. And at the end they are left with...what exactly? Yeah a degree, but one without many of the soft skills they really need to utilize it in the end.
So instead of having a bunch of rules with questionable value, I would rather have less and live with the results. Of course I have always been kind of an anarchist in that way.
Listen, no one hates bureaucracy more than me. If the argument is to get the NCAA out of all of this crap, you and I are in violent agreement. The issue though is the NCAA has inserted itself into all of this academic stuff but then decides not to engage on an obvious issues in their assumed scope of oversite....they need to be called on their hypocrisy.
-
Listen, no one hates bureaucracy more than me. If the argument is to get the NCAA out of all of this crap, you and I are in violent agreement. The issue though is the NCAA has inserted itself into all of this academic stuff but then decides not to engage on an obvious issues in their assumed scope of oversite....they need to be called on their hypocrisy.
What is the NCAA? Among other things, it is an organization set up by members to police its members. (And then not really given the resources necessary to do a competent job.) So while we can point out the hypocrisy of UNC getting away with something, while they hypothetically throw the book at North Carolina A&T, the fact is that the people who created this mess don't seem to be particularly concerned. And the reason they aren't concerned is that they know we will still have our television sets on, that we will still buy the tickets, and still purchased the licensed clothing.
I guess I'm just over the whole NCAA criticism. We can criticize them all we want but it's not going to make much of a difference because the members, especially those who control most of the resources, are by and large getting off scott free.
-
Don't forget that the NCAA is facing a lawsuit concerning paying athletes and has always claimed that an education is part of the bargain. I think if they let UNC skate on a technicality it's going to really hurt them in that court case.
-
What is the NCAA? Among other things, it is an organization set up by members to police its members. (And then not really given the resources necessary to do a competent job.) So while we can point out the hypocrisy of UNC getting away with something, while they hypothetically throw the book at North Carolina A&T, the fact is that the people who created this mess don't seem to be particularly concerned. And the reason they aren't concerned is that they know we will still have our television sets on, that we will still buy the tickets, and still purchased the licensed clothing.
I guess I'm just over the whole NCAA criticism. We can criticize them all we want but it's not going to make much of a difference because the members, especially those who control most of the resources, are by and large getting off scott free.
Entirely fair, if we continue to pump money into the NCAA by watching their "product" we get the organization we deserve.
-
I think this is a case that the NCAA does not necessarily want to win as it will open a can of worms with other schools.
-
I think this is a case that the NCAA does not necessarily want to win as it will open a can of worms with other schools.
I agree with this analysis.
-
Why? I am all about the NCAA setting up the rules of play, putting together championships, and ensuring that recruitment practices are as above board as possible.
I have never been all that comfortable with the NCAA having anything to do with academic eligibility or any notion of academic progress. That's for the schools to figure out. If a school wants to bastardize their academics for the sake of athletics, that's an issue for their governing board and their accreditation body to oversee.
Everything that the NCAA has done in this regard is simply a series of check-marks and hoops to jump through. I am not sure it has done the student athlete any good in the long run. Has it lead to more degree earners? Are those degree earners reaping the benefits of their degrees? It just seems like a lot of window dressing to me for the sake of public relations.
No! Absolutely No! to the schools determining this for themselves. Athletes won't even be going to class anymore they will just be athletes.
-
No! Absolutely No! to the schools determining this for themselves. Athletes won't even be going to class anymore they will just be athletes.
Well that may be. That's their decision to make and their consequences to live with.
-
My armchair quarterback opinion on this is that in a perfect world the schools would police their own academics. Unfortunately, we live in a world where money is value over integrity, athletics over academics, and not having to go to class is considered a bonus by a majority of male college football and basketball players. Schools would have monetary incentives to create the lowest academic standards possible for their college athletes. Given that the greatest form of payment college athletes receive for all of their work is their tuition, it would create a system where players are even more taken advantage of then they are now. The NCAA policing academics is a necessary evil in order to ensure fair competitive play and students getting properly compensated for the revenue they generate for the school.
-
Well that may be. That's their decision to make and their consequences to live with.
What consequences do you think there will be?
-
What consequences do you think there will be?
Accreditation and embarrassment.
I don't really care honestly. I don't think the NCAA should be cast as the great defender of the student athlete.
-
Well that may be. That's their decision to make and their consequences to live with.
There would be no consequences, because there would be no governing body to disclose this to or oversee it. They would just do it and pretend they are giving educations to kids.
Hell, they would even use those educations to support their mission and get grants saying they are providing to underprivileged students.
Frankly, if there is no governing body making sure these kids are getting an education and that there are fierce punishments for breaking this rule, then there should be no college athletics period.
-
There would be no consequences, because there would be no governing body to disclose this to or oversee it. They would just do it and pretend they are giving educations to kids.
Hell, they would even use those educations to support their mission and get grants saying they are providing to underprivileged students.
Frankly, if there is no governing body making sure these kids are getting an education and that there are fierce punishments for breaking this rule, then there should be no college athletics period.
Is this a moral or a logistical argument.
Sultan is right....right now we are sitting in an ambiguous stance where we claim to care about athletes being students but then don't do anything to force them to be. Why have the pretense of requiring athletes to be successful students? If Alabama wants to put a bunch of kids on scholarship that can't spell can't and give them money to go to their school so be it. Wouldn't stop Harvard or Stanford or Cal or whoever from having their own academic standards and demanding their students meet them.
The current system in place is merely window dressing so people who watch college sports can feel morally clean when it comes to the value proposition for the people playing the games.
-
Is this a moral or a logistical argument.
Sultan is right....right now we are sitting in an ambiguous stance where we claim to care about athletes being students but then don't do anything to force them to be. Why have the pretense of requiring athletes to be successful students? If Alabama wants to put a bunch of kids on scholarship that can't spell can't and give them money to go to their school so be it. Wouldn't stop Harvard or Stanford or Cal or whoever from having their own academic standards and demanding their students meet them.
The current system in place is merely window dressing so people who watch college sports can feel morally clean when it comes to the value proposition for the people playing the games.
Exactly. The idea that somehow the NCAA is the moral defender of the student athlete is darn near close to laughable.
-
My armchair quarterback opinion on this is that in a perfect world the schools would police their own academics. Unfortunately, we live in a world where money is value over integrity, athletics over academics, and not having to go to class is considered a bonus by a majority of male college football and basketball players. Schools would have monetary incentives to create the lowest academic standards possible for their college athletes. Given that the greatest form of payment college athletes receive for all of their work is their tuition, it would create a system where players are even more taken advantage of then they are now. The NCAA policing academics is a necessary evil in order to ensure fair competitive play and students getting properly compensated for the revenue they generate for the school.
Wouldn't like... Getting paid work better?
-
Sultan, you're in higher education, right? I'm not particularly well versed in the accreditation process, but aren't those boards the ones that are charged with ensuring that universities don't offer sham degrees? I would think that the individuals employed by those boards have some qualifications/experience to make such assessments. Perhaps that is hopelessly naive. But it seems to me like the NCAA has already created a cluster f**k out of its attempts to oversee its own area of responsibility and supposed expertise. I'm not sure they should expand their oversight responsibilities to include an area that would seem to be exponentially more complicated.
-
Exactly. The idea that somehow the NCAA is the moral defender of the student athlete is darn near close to laughable.
But it is more true than University administrations being the moral defender of the student athlete.
-
Sultan, you're in higher education, right? I'm not particularly well versed in the accreditation process, but aren't those boards the ones that are charged with ensuring that universities don't offer sham degrees? I would think that the individuals employed by those boards have some qualifications/experience to make such assessments. Perhaps that is hopelessly naive. But it seems to me like the NCAA has already created a cluster f**k out of its attempts to oversee its own area of responsibility and supposed expertise. I'm not sure they should expand their oversight responsibilities to include an area that would seem to be exponentially more complicated.
Accreditation organizations are a sham also. UNC was put on probation, but their accreditation is not at risk, because they are taking steps to make sure this doesn't happen again.
The thing about these accreditation organizations is that like the NCAA, they exist because the Universities permit them to exist. Their are a number or accreditation organizations, none of whom place any restrictions on administration or have any requirements regarding courses, degrees etc.
Its all BS that justifies more jobs and allows the administration to pat themselves not he back as doing a good job and if something goes wrong they have lengthy paperwork that they can use to pass the blame on to someone else. In this case, the professor teaching all those classes and running the program. Accreditation oversees educators, not administration.
-
Wouldn't like... Getting paid work better?
Personally, I feel like their college tuition is more than adequate compensation. I think it would be a logistical nightmare to find a way to fairly compensate if we switched to paying players. I think it would also price athletics out of a lot of schools. I do think there is room for some sort of small stipend that is consistent across all schools to help with non academic expenses. I also think players should get compensated from sources like video games featuring them and camps where they instruct.
Of course this is all based on my very limited understanding of all this
-
Accreditation and embarrassment.
I don't really care honestly. I don't think the NCAA should be cast as the great defender of the student athlete.
So no consequences. Because no university would ever go so far that their accreditation is at risk and they're would no embarrassment as long as the team kept winning.
I get the irony in casting the NCAA as the great defender of the student athlete. They are really bad at it. But they are the only ones doing it. A bad defender is better than no defender.
-
Sultan, you're in higher education, right? I'm not particularly well versed in the accreditation process, but aren't those boards the ones that are charged with ensuring that universities don't offer sham degrees? I would think that the individuals employed by those boards have some qualifications/experience to make such assessments. Perhaps that is hopelessly naive. But it seems to me like the NCAA has already created a cluster f**k out of its attempts to oversee its own area of responsibility and supposed expertise. I'm not sure they should expand their oversight responsibilities to include an area that would seem to be exponentially more complicated.
Yes and that's kind of my point. The accreditation body for UNC already put them on probation. Here is a story on that and how the University has had to respond.
http://college.usatoday.com/2015/06/11/unc-probation-accreditation-agency/
To me this is much more effective than NCAA standards that are simply window dressing. While the changes got rid of the sham degree, it didn't get rid of the get them in, move them along and move them out mentality. So we have created a system that seems like it adds legitimacy, but I'm not sure it does.
Put it this way, we like to tout when Marquette basketball players graduate. However how many of them truly have gained the knowledge that allow them to use that degree? How many of them retained that knowledge when working extensively with tutors? How many of them end up in careers that require a college degree?
I would much rather have a system where schools are allowed to admit whomever they want, BUT guaranty them free attendance for life to attain their degree along with access to resources such as tutoring and career development. (Not necessarily a basketball scholarship for four years though.) So instead of throwing a bunch of resources at them simply to keep them eligible, use those resources to make sure they actually learn something.
-
To me this is much more effective than NCAA standards that are simply window dressing. While the changes got rid of the sham degree, it didn't get rid of the get them in, move them along and move them out mentality. So we have created a system that seems like it adds legitimacy, but I'm not sure it does.
Perhaps, but using UNC's logic, "the mentality of get them in, move them along and move them out" applies to all students in higher education these days... not just student-athletes.
-
Personally, I feel like their college tuition is more than adequate compensation. I think it would be a logistical nightmare to find a way to fairly compensate if we switched to paying players. I think it would also price athletics out of a lot of schools. I do think there is room for some sort of small stipend that is consistent across all schools to help with non academic expenses. I also think players should get compensated from sources like video games featuring them and camps where they instruct.
Of course this is all based on my very limited understanding of all this
See, this exposes the flawed underpinning of all of this and requires us to do a whole bunch of mental gymnastics to rationalize everything.
We all love college sports, we pay big money to watch college sports. That money goes to universities and businesses associated with delivering the product we love to watch. The universities then "pay" their athletes in the form of free education and enhanced educational support. That makes us feel morally ok because we have altruistic outcomes (students get an "education") in addition to our self serving outcomes (we get to watch semi-pro football). However, since we've built this house of cards on "fairness" and "altuism" we must enforce the educational standards so the fault of the original construct isn't exposed(an education must be delivered or they aren't getting "paid")....ergo we police the education provided to the athletes, but not too hard because we might limit our ability to enjoy the product.
Yes there are net positives of the system (students get access to educational opportunities they otherwise wouldn't, big sports funding pays for small sports which act as feeder systems for olympic sports, etc) but the entire construct is a foundation of lies and self serving outcomes. The sooner we all either accept that we are part of the corruption and be ok with it or vow to eliminate the source of it we'll never escape this debate/conundrum.
-
Now I feel dirty and can not watch college sports any longer. Thanks for that mu03.
-
See, this exposes the flawed underpinning of all of this and requires us to do a whole bunch of mental gymnastics to rationalize everything.
We all love college sports, we pay big money to watch college sports. That money goes to universities and businesses associated with delivering the product we love to watch. The universities then "pay" their athletes in the form of free education and enhanced educational support. That makes us feel morally ok because we have altruistic outcomes (students get an "education") in addition to our self serving outcomes (we get to watch semi-pro football). However, since we've built this house of cards on "fairness" and "altuism" we must enforce the educational standards so the fault of the original construct isn't exposed(an education must be delivered or they aren't getting "paid")....ergo we police the education provided to the athletes, but not too hard because we might limit our ability to enjoy the product.
Yes there are net positives of the system (students get access to educational opportunities they otherwise wouldn't, big sports funding pays for small sports which act as feeder systems for olympic sports, etc) but the entire construct is a foundation of lies and self serving outcomes. The sooner we all either accept that we are part of the corruption and be ok with it or vow to eliminate the source of it we'll never escape this debate/conundrum.
I guess I don't see it that way. To me it's simple business.
Universities make money off athletes. In exchange, athletes are given free education, room and board, enhanced academic support, coaching from the best in the business, free travel, and lots of exposure. NCAA regulates and takes a cut of the universities' money.
I don't see something based on altruism or fairness. I also don't see the need to do mental backflips to rationalize anything. I see a system where everyone benefits. Are there abuses? Sure and this should be addressed. Do the athletes deserve more? Possibly and that should be figured out. But I don't think the system is really that bad fur anyone involved.
-
Then the question becomes...did the athletic department know they were "bogus?" Or simply that they were easier and worked well with athletes? Because if it was simply the latter, every school has programs like that including my beloved alma mater.
Wait, wasn't it alleged that Dean Smith participated in starting these programs up for the purpose of having somewhere to direct his players?
-
I guess I don't see it that way. To me it's simple business.
Universities make money off athletes. In exchange, athletes are given free education, room and board, enhanced academic support, coaching from the best in the business, free travel, and lots of exposure. NCAA regulates and takes a cut of the universities' money.
I don't see something based on altruism or fairness. I also don't see the need to do mental backflips to rationalize anything. I see a system where everyone benefits. Are there abuses? Sure and this should be addressed. Do the athletes deserve more? Possibly and that should be figured out. But I don't think the system is really that bad fur anyone involved.
If that were the case, why do we have to have an enforcement agency to make sure the athletes are properly collecting their "pay" (going to class and getting grades etc). No one would run around and force an NFL players or Joe Blow to cash their check
-
If that were the case, why do we have to have an enforcement agency to make sure the athletes are properly collecting their "pay" (going to class and getting grades etc). No one would run around and force an NFL players or Joe Blow to cash their check
You're thinking about it wrong. Theyre not there to make sure athletes are collecting their pay. They are there to make sure the university is properly distributing that pay.
-
UNC should just have it that you can pay for your degree. No courses required. Just have an asterisk after BA* or BS* to indicate it was bought.
-
Yes and that's kind of my point. The accreditation body for UNC already put them on probation. Here is a story on that and how the University has had to respond.
http://college.usatoday.com/2015/06/11/unc-probation-accreditation-agency/
To me this is much more effective than NCAA standards that are simply window dressing. While the changes got rid of the sham degree, it didn't get rid of the get them in, move them along and move them out mentality. So we have created a system that seems like it adds legitimacy, but I'm not sure it does.
Put it this way, we like to tout when Marquette basketball players graduate. However how many of them truly have gained the knowledge that allow them to use that degree? How many of them retained that knowledge when working extensively with tutors? How many of them end up in careers that require a college degree?
I would much rather have a system where schools are allowed to admit whomever they want, BUT guaranty them free attendance for life to attain their degree along with access to resources such as tutoring and career development. (Not necessarily a basketball scholarship for four years though.) So instead of throwing a bunch of resources at them simply to keep them eligible, use those resources to make sure they actually learn something.
I assume you know next to nothing about these accreditation agencies.
Probation means nothing and UNC will never be punished by the accreditation agencies to any extent besides a "don't do that again; probation".
-
You're thinking about it wrong. Theyre not there to make sure athletes are collecting their pay. They are there to make sure the university is properly distributing that pay.
If that's the case, then they totally failed to make sure the athletes were paid at UNC, yes?
-
I assume you know next to nothing about these accreditation agencies.
I know a lot about them.
Probation means nothing and UNC will never be punished by the accreditation agencies to any extent besides a "don't do that again; probation".
UNC actually did take a number of steps to prevent it from happening again and detailed what those steps were. Good enough for me.
-
We all know if Marquette did what UNC did, Marquette would be sanctioned right out of D1 basketball. The rules apply, except to the elite few.
-
We all know if Marquette did what UNC did, Marquette would be sanctioned right out of D1 basketball. The rules apply, except to the elite few.
Yeah there is no evidence to suggest that. I mean the NCAA pretty much made up a jurisdiction to severely punish one of the elites of college football. Elite programs have been on probation previously.
What elite schools do have is the money to make sure that academic "progress" is attained though intensive tutoring and the like. They also have the money to hire the best law firms, etc.
-
Yeah there is no evidence to suggest that. I mean the NCAA pretty much made up a jurisdiction to severely punish one of the elites of college football. Elite programs have been on probation previously.
What elite schools do have is the money to make sure that academic "progress" is attained though intensive tutoring and the like. They also have the money to hire the best law firms, etc.
I would agree.
Years ago, SMU was an elite of College Football. Until the NCAA uncovered enough rule violations to give SMU the death penalty.
SMU has not been seen nor heard from among power teams since.
If they penalize North Carolina -- and I'm not sure they will either -- another school will fill the void among elite teams. New rivalries will develop when Duke starts kicking the living crap out of UNC year in and year out.
Seeing UNC fall would not be the end of the world, except in Chapel Hill. Once upon a time, UCLA was a very elite program. No one ever won as many NCAA D1 Basketball championships as UCLA. They're still good, but more like we've been in recent years. Sometimes good, sometimes very good and sometimes mediocre. The NCAA could survive North Carolina descending to the depths of ordinary.
College basketball did not die because UCLA, in its Los Angeles base, became ordinary. Nor will it die if someone else in the ACC takes UNC's place -- as long as it is NOT Virginia Tech or Notre Dame!
-
If that's the case, then they totally failed to make sure the athletes were paid at UNC, yes?
Absolutely. Hoping that they will get off their ass and do something. I never said the NCAA was good at its job. But it's all we got right now. I'd rather fix the broken system than say the system is broken so let's toss it.
-
UNC actually did take a number of steps to prevent it from happening again and detailed what those steps were. Good enough for me.
An absolutely fair opinion. Personally, I don't think there is enough bite to prevent it from happening again. And that affects fair competition and is abusive of athletes.
The only things these schools care about is if their football and men's basketball teams are winning. If you want to keep these abuses from occurring then that's where you need to hit them. The issue may be academic but it happened for the benefit of athletics. Similarly, the Penn State case was conduct related but it was allowed for the sake of athletics.
-
An absolutely fair opinion. Personally, I don't think there is enough bite to prevent it from happening again. And that affects fair competition and is abusive of athletes.
The concept of "fair competition" has never, and will never, be part of college athletics. Ever.
And there are other ways that you can prevent abuse of athletes other than the sham system that the NCAA has put in place now.
-
The concept of "fair competition" has never, and will never, be part of college athletics. Ever.
Depends on your definition.
And there are other ways that you can prevent abuse of athletes other than the sham system that the NCAA has put in place now.
How? Cause accreditation probation will not cut it.
-
How? Cause accreditation probation will not cut it.
I have mentioned it earlier. Guaranteed full cost of attendance scholarship for life to attain a bachelor's degree. Even if that means admitting someone who will need remedial work.
-
I know a lot about them.
UNC actually did take a number of steps to prevent it from happening again and detailed what those steps were. Good enough for me.
UNC did nothing that they weren't already doing. Accreditation organizations and "probation" from them means nothing. The only people that like Accreditation are administrators, because they can pat themselves on the back and if something goes wrong blame the professor.
It is a way bigger sham than the NCAA.
For those not involved, here is how Accreditation generally works. For core curriculum they have to show they fulfill said core curriculum. Basically, submit some papers and it is rubber stamped by the office of around 12 people that oversee an entire region of hundreds of colleges.
For other classes, professors are told they need to have "education outcomes". Those outcomes are up to the professor. The professor then has to decide how to assess those outcomes. The professor assesses those outcomes themselves and decides if they fulfill said goal or not.
The university keeps these and tells the accreditation organization every thing is great. If there is an audit or fraud (in UNC's case), the accreditation organization run by former university administrators goes and talks to their buddies saying...wtf. The Administrators go back and say the professor did not fulfill obligations. We will make sure they do so in the future.
To save face, here is a probation that means nothing. We will just use it to show that we actually do something for our jobs.
-
UNC did nothing that they weren't already doing. Accreditation organizations and "probation" from them means nothing. The only people that like Accreditation are administrators, because they can pat themselves on the back and if something goes wrong blame the professor.
It is a way bigger sham than the NCAA.
For those not involved, here is how Accreditation generally works. For core curriculum they have to show they fulfill said core curriculum. Basically, submit some papers and it is rubber stamped by the office of around 12 people that oversee an entire region of hundreds of colleges.
For other classes, professors are told they need to have "education outcomes". Those outcomes are up to the professor. The professor then has to decide how to assess those outcomes. The professor assesses those outcomes themselves and decides if they fulfill said goal or not.
The university keeps these and tells the accreditation organization every thing is great. If there is an audit or fraud (in UNC's case), the accreditation organization run by former university administrators goes and talks to their buddies saying...wtf. The Administrators go back and say the professor did not fulfill obligations. We will make sure they do so in the future.
To save face, here is a probation that means nothing. We will just use it to show that we actually do something for our jobs.
Ah.... So you don't know much about the accreditation process. It is much more complicated than you are portraying. But thanks for playing.
-
Ah.... So you don't know much about the accreditation process. Thanks for playing.
Actually, I work on a major University accreditation committee. And know many others in the same boat or who are in charge of the accreditation process. Its total BS. But here is another professors opinion on the issue.
http://www.rense.com/general96/accred.html (http://www.rense.com/general96/accred.html)
And a lot of what I'm writing above is in new requirements to ensure that the professors are doing their job and to create paper trails to show the University was checking up on these issues...as a result of the UNC issues.
-
Actually, I work on a major University accreditation committee. And know many others in the same boat or who are in charge of the accreditation process. Its total BS. But here is another professors opinion on the issue.
http://www.rense.com/general96/accred.html (http://www.rense.com/general96/accred.html)
And a lot of what I'm writing above is in new requirements to ensure that the professors are doing their job and to create paper trails to show the University was checking up on these issues...as a result of the UNC issues.
Oh that's right. You're a professor. LOL. I'll just give you a pat on the head and send you on your way now.
-
Oh that's right. You're a professor. LOL. I'll just give you a pat on the head and send you on your way now.
Funny, every professor says the same thing about administrators. I encourage you to read the book, the fall of the professor.
When people complain about the costs of college education, a large component of it came when administrators decided education should be run by them and not the educators.
Accreditation is just a colossal collection of paperwork and absolutely zero validation that any educating was actually being done.
-
Funny, every professor says the same thing about administrators. I encourage you to read the book, the fall of the professor.
When people complain about the costs of college education, a large component of it came when administrators decided education should be run by them and not the educators.
I gotta make my coin somehow!
-
Is this a moral or a logistical argument.
Sultan is right....right now we are sitting in an ambiguous stance where we claim to care about athletes being students but then don't do anything to force them to be. Why have the pretense of requiring athletes to be successful students? If Alabama wants to put a bunch of kids on scholarship that can't spell can't and give them money to go to their school so be it. Wouldn't stop Harvard or Stanford or Cal or whoever from having their own academic standards and demanding their students meet them.
The current system in place is merely window dressing so people who watch college sports can feel morally clean when it comes to the value proposition for the people playing the games.
Kevin Ross vs. Creighton University is mostly why.
-
Yeah there is no evidence to suggest that. I mean the NCAA pretty much made up a jurisdiction to severely punish one of the elites of college football. Elite programs have been on probation previously.
What elite schools do have is the money to make sure that academic "progress" is attained though intensive tutoring and the like. They also have the money to hire the best law firms, etc.
Which is how Penn State got its victories back.
-
One of the big issues that has to be kept in mind in all of the debate on UNC is the discrepancy between the quality of university education. Years ago, when I was in college, UNLV was a major basketball power. Nobody ever accused UNLV of being the Harvard of the West nor did anyone expect UNLV to suddenly become one of the nation's best public universities.
In short, UNLV was a school that was not academically rigorous.
Now you're UNC. You are competing for athletes against the UNLVs of the east, where Bluto Blutarsky may be the rule rather than the exception. Your basketball program means millions and millions of dollars and has been partially responsible for the university becoming what it is. So you create a class or a program that competes with the lowest common denominator of university. You hope you do not get caught, but if you do, the ends justify the means.
To some degree, every school does "it." The average ACT score for the University of Illinois, for example, is "off the charts," unless you are an athlete. If your student body averages a 29 ACT and your athletes are substantially below that, you can tutor them and teach, but there is only so much you can do unless you create special classes and programs. I have no idea if Illinois did that, but I have to believe that somewhere along the line, most major BIG schools somehow manage to do that.
As schools get more rigorous, the UNC problem will become a bigger and bigger issue. The University of Tennessee, for example, used to admit in-state students based on BPM -- beats per minute. Today UT is selective. Explain how that is possible with the football team (and its reputation) that UT has? It isn't without an accommodation similar to UNC.
For our university, it's clear we have a tough road. Marquette is not an easy school and I don't sense the Jesuits or the administration willing to bend to squeeze athletes through (keep in mind that Horton Roe was for everyone). Places like Marquette, Stanford, Vanderbilt and Northwestern may bend the rules to get someone in -- but then you have the challenge of getting them out.
-
The reality is that the program was set up for athletes. If other students were stupid or naive enough to enroll in it, all the better (in the University's eyes).
That would bring us into a RICO discussion if any one had the balls to press it. And the grounds are there.
-
The University of Tennessee, for example, used to admit in-state students based on BPM -- beats per minute. Today UT is selective. Explain how that is possible with the football team (and its reputation) that UT has? It isn't without an accommodation similar to UNC.
On this topic, it is amazing the transformation that has occurred with Ohio State since I first moved here 25 years ago. When my wife was growing up here -- and when I arrived -- OSU was similar to how you describe UT. Anybody with a heartbeat could get in. Now, it's quite selective and a lot of kids don't get accepted. Many opt to to to OSU-Mansfield for a year and then transfer to the Columbus campus.
All colleges will make some concessions to allow for admission of student athletes. At selective schools, it would be very difficult to fill their rosters otherwise -- or at least fill them with athletes that will be competitive. Some make bigger concessions than others. Having been through the process recently with some extremely selective schools, it was interesting to compare how different schools approached the issue. My daughter is a very good student, but she got accepted at a school where her brother was rejected -- and his grades and test scores were better than hers. And I assume that school make even bigger concessions in the money sports.
-
Well that may be. That's their decision to make and their consequences to live with.
While I agree with this, as I remember it, the were football players that claimed UNC was forcing some who wanted to take real courses into the bogus curriculum. I guess the kids could transfer, but it really stinks that they are going to get away with this.
-
On this topic, it is amazing the transformation that has occurred with Ohio State since I first moved here 25 years ago. When my wife was growing up here -- and when I arrived -- OSU was similar to how you describe UT. Anybody with a heartbeat could get in. Now, it's quite selective and a lot of kids don't get accepted. Many opt to to to OSU-Mansfield for a year and then transfer to the Columbus campus.
All colleges will make some concessions to allow for admission of student athletes. At selective schools, it would be very difficult to fill their rosters otherwise -- or at least fill them with athletes that will be competitive. Some make bigger concessions than others. Having been through the process recently with some extremely selective schools, it was interesting to compare how different schools approached the issue. My daughter is a very good student, but she got accepted at a school where her brother was rejected -- and his grades and test scores were better than hers. And I assume that school make even bigger concessions in the money sports.
Perhaps if colleges and universities held student-athletes to the same standard as they do all of their other students, tutoring and summer school would be as important to parents and coaches as AAU leagues.
-
Perhaps if colleges and universities held student-athletes to the same standard as they do all of their other students, tutoring and summer school would be as important to parents and coaches as AAU leagues.
One thing I am proud of is how MU actually works positively with kids on their academics.
-
Perhaps if colleges and universities held student-athletes to the same standard as they do all of their other students, tutoring and summer school would be as important to parents and coaches as AAU leagues.
I assume you're talking about admissions standards, since you're responding to my post. I think it probably varies wildly from school to school. Being an athlete is simply one "extra" that can put someone over the hump. The fact of the matter is that the elite universities receive thousands of applications that are, essentially identical. When there are 3000 spots and you've got 20,000 applicants -- many of whom have 4.0+, 32+ ACT, etc. -- an applicant has to have something to stand out from the crowd. Maybe it takes a great essay or interview; maybe it takes unique and meaningful volunteer experience; maybe it takes being the first person in your family to attend college; maybe it takes being a concert violinist; and, yes, maybe it takes being an athlete that can help the team. In the schools we dealt with, the student still had to have excellent academic credentials. Honestly, when a university has 5-10 very accomplished applicants for every slot, summer school and tutoring aren't going to do all that much to differentiate you from the other applicants.
That said, I agree with you in principle -- and my kids did take summer classes and have tutoring. Students should work hard in the classroom and do everything they can to have the type of academic credentials to get into the schools they want to attend. That's the most important thing and should be the starting point. But if they've got their sights set on schools with extremely low acceptance rates, they better have something else to set them apart from the masses. For some, sports does the trick.
-
I assume you're talking about admissions standards, since you're responding to my post. I think it probably varies wildly from school to school. Being an athlete is simply one "extra" that can put someone over the hump. The fact of the matter is that the elite universities receive thousands of applications that are, essentially identical. When there are 3000 spots and you've got 20,000 applicants -- many of whom have 4.0+, 32+ ACT, etc. -- an applicant has to have something to stand out from the crowd. Maybe it takes a great essay or interview; maybe it takes unique and meaningful volunteer experience; maybe it takes being the first person in your family to attend college; maybe it takes being a concert violinist; and, yes, maybe it takes being an athlete that can help the team. In the schools we dealt with, the student still had to have excellent academic credentials. Honestly, when a university has 5-10 very accomplished applicants for every slot, summer school and tutoring aren't going to do all that much to differentiate you from the other applicants.
That said, I agree with you in principle -- and my kids did take summer classes and have tutoring. Students should work hard in the classroom and do everything they can to have the type of academic credentials to get into the schools they want to attend. That's the most important thing and should be the starting point. But if they've got their sights set on schools with extremely low acceptance rates, they better have something else to set them apart from the masses. For some, sports does the trick.
I think you will admit though, that giving an applicant an edge because he was an Eagle Scout over those with similar scores and no remarkable extracurriculars is different than accepting a 4-star basketball prospect whose ACT score is 12 points lower than the median of everyone else who is accepted.
My point is that a lot of effort and money is put into improving the athletic skills of kids who are Division 1 caliber. Imagine what would happen if the NCAA said that any college student whose SAT score and/or GPA was more than a certain number of standard deviations lower than that that the median of all students would be ineligible for athletics. I could see universities pouring money into inner-city schools and educational programs.
-
I think you will admit though, that giving an applicant an edge because he was an Eagle Scout over those with similar scores and no remarkable extracurriculars is different than accepting a 4-star basketball project whose ACT score is 12 points lower than the median of everyone else who is accepted.
My point is that a lot of effort and money is put into improving the athletic skills of kids who are Division 1 caliber. Imagine what would happen if the NCAA said that any college student whose SAT score and/or GPA was more than a certain number of standard deviations lower than that that the median of all students would be ineligible for athletics. I could see universities pouring money into inner-city schools and educational programs.
I absolutely admit that. I wish I had a son that was going to be a lottery pick so that I would have a better idea how those kids get treated. Sadly, I don't have that frame of reference. I simply had a daughter who was good enough at a non-revenue sport to separate herself from the pack of applicants (although her class hasn't, technically, applied yet). That fact helped her gain admission into a school that her brother -- who had slightly better grades and test scores -- could not get admitted to. I suspect if he'd been an Eagle Scout he probably could have gotten in. Based only on my experience and the schools we were dealing with, the athletics helps on the margins. It won't necessarily get an unqualified kid in, but it will help a qualified kid jump ahead of other qualified kids. I have told many people that if they want to get their kid money for college, focus on the classroom. The odds are much, much better. More importantly, the skills they'll develop in the classroom will serve them much better in life than the ability to run fast, jump high or hit a ball.
But I suspect that my daughter's experience is virtually nothing like that of the typical 4-star basketball recruit. And I have little doubt that some of the men's basketball players at my daughter's future school have academic records that wouldn't even be considered for athletes in other sports.
I like the "standard deviation" idea. It would be interesting to see how that would play out.
-
One of the stories that is telling is that of one of our local kids where I live. The young man was heavily recruited for his football skills. He had interest from many universities and ultimately chose the University of Notre Dame. There, he turned out to be a pretty good wide receiver with at least some potential for the NFL.
The young man didn't make it out of Notre Dame. He was compelled to leave the university as part of an academic irregularity.
To Notre Dame's credit, they expect their athletes to go to the same classes and meet the same standards as other students. A UNC phantom program in Whatever Studies doesn't fly at Notre Dame (as it would not at Marquette). I can't believe the young man's ACT was on par with the median for incoming Notre Dame freshmen, otherwise there would not have been a general reason for an academic irregularity. He probably should have gone to Alabama!
I recall Vanderbilt wrestled with this issue a number of years ago when a high school All-American had decided to enroll at Vandy and play basketball. The university would not admit him -- over the strenuous objections of the athletic department -- because the player was not capable in the eyes of admissions of doing Vanderbilt work. The player ended up at the University of Kentucky, where he later was all-SEC and ended up in the NBA.
The point is that schools have three choices. (1) Recruit young men who can do the academic work of their school, (2) Create programs for athletes that are below the standards of the university (aka, UNC) or (3) leave the academically less gifted for the UNLVs of the world. Given the money that UNC and other elite basketball programs make, Item 3 is not an option for most.
In Marquette's case, I give us a lot of credit for working hard with our players -- and the proof is in the performance. Our guys do well after MU. But it's easy to compromise, grant bogus degrees and hope for the best.
In the case of UNC, before someone sanctions UNC, what happened to the athletes who graduated with significant classes in the so-called Phantom Courses? I'm not justifying it, but did they do well outside of basketball, or not?
-
One of the stories that is telling is that of one of our local kids where I live. The young man was heavily recruited for his football skills. He had interest from many universities and ultimately chose the University of Notre Dame. There, he turned out to be a pretty good wide receiver with at least some potential for the NFL.
The young man didn't make it out of Notre Dame. He was compelled to leave the university as part of an academic irregularity.
To Notre Dame's credit, they expect their athletes to go to the same classes and meet the same standards as other students. A UNC phantom program in Whatever Studies doesn't fly at Notre Dame (as it would not at Marquette). I can't believe the young man's ACT was on par with the median for incoming Notre Dame freshmen, otherwise there would not have been a general reason for an academic irregularity. He probably should have gone to Alabama!
I recall Vanderbilt wrestled with this issue a number of years ago when a high school All-American had decided to enroll at Vandy and play basketball. The university would not admit him -- over the strenuous objections of the athletic department -- because the player was not capable in the eyes of admissions of doing Vanderbilt work. The player ended up at the University of Kentucky, where he later was all-SEC and ended up in the NBA.
The point is that schools have three choices. (1) Recruit young men who can do the academic work of their school, (2) Create programs for athletes that are below the standards of the university (aka, UNC) or (3) leave the academically less gifted for the UNLVs of the world. Given the money that UNC and other elite basketball programs make, Item 3 is not an option for most.
In Marquette's case, I give us a lot of credit for working hard with our players -- and the proof is in the performance. Our guys do well after MU. But it's easy to compromise, grant bogus degrees and hope for the best.
In the case of UNC, before someone sanctions UNC, what happened to the athletes who graduated with significant classes in the so-called Phantom Courses? I'm not justifying it, but did they do well outside of basketball, or not?
The average football or basketball player at Notre Dame is NOT at the same level academically as the average student. And I'm sure that, for electives anyway, ND athletes are steered toward less demand classes, "friendly to the athletic department" teachers or both. In Al's day it was, for example, Horton Roe. Three hours of a guaranteed "A" every other semester helps.
We can argue over which schools are the biggest hypocrites - but not that everyone who plays big boy sports is one. That's a fact.
-
(2) Create programs for athletes that are below the standards of the university (aka, UNC)
Dgies, you've said this twice now. I might be misunderstanding so please correct me if I'm way off in left field. UNC did not just create "programs that are below the standards of the university." They created classes that literally only existed on paper. The students did not attend any classes but got credit as if they did. There were also multiple cases of athletes having papers written for them. This was pure academic fraud on a systematic level.
I have no issue with schools who have majors that are significantly easier than other. I don't have any issue with athletic programs recommending those easy majors to athletes. Do you really think its a coincidence that a vast majority of MUBB players end up as communications majors? (I can say that, I am proud grad of the Communications school :D). But creating a system where the athletes aren't even going through the motions of getting an education, that is something else entirely. It is an unfair competitive advantage and its extremely abusive of the players who took those classes (and in some cases were forced to take those classes).
-
Here's a question about sports/academics at Marquette if anyone knows...
Most of the schools we visited had a program in place where at the beginning of the semester athletes would give the professor a form listing all the classes they would miss because of competition. There were no consequences for missing those classes. Tests could be taken early or made up, pop quizzes could be made up, etc. Many schools really stressed this policy.
Some schools didn't have that. When asked how the schools deal with missed classes, the response was, "you're on your own...you'll have to work that out with your professors." It was clear that through speaking with older teammates and others you could figure out which professors tend to be more understanding and which to avoid, but there was no formal intervention by the athletics department (again...the revenue athletes might have a different experience).
Everyone seems to have tutors, study hall, etc. But not everyone automatically excuses athletes for competition-based absences.
How does Marquette handle that?
-
I think it is much more like the former.
-
Here's a question about sports/academics at Marquette if anyone knows...
Most of the schools we visited had a program in place where at the beginning of the semester athletes would give the professor a form listing all the classes they would miss because of competition. There were no consequences for missing those classes. Tests could be taken early or made up, pop quizzes could be made up, etc. Many schools really stressed this policy.
Some schools didn't have that. When asked how the schools deal with missed classes, the response was, "you're on your own...you'll have to work that out with your professors." It was clear that through speaking with older teammates and others you could figure out which professors tend to be more understanding and which to avoid, but there was no formal intervention by the athletics department (again...the revenue athletes might have a different experience).
Everyone seems to have tutors, study hall, etc. But not everyone automatically excuses athletes for competition-based absences.
How does Marquette handle that?
If I remember correctly, they work with the professors to pre-identify conflicts and create a schedule for the student athletes that makes sense to be successful.
One thing I want to call out separately.....students migrating to the easier class or prof is universal to students not just student athletes. We always talked in the engineering schools about what prof to have for thermo or system dynamics or whatever to have a better experience or easier time. To call out student athletes for doing the same thing is silly.
(Not saying you are doing this Still)
-
If I remember correctly, they work with the professors to pre-identify conflicts and create a schedule for the student athletes that makes sense to be successful.
One thing I want to call out separately.....students migrating to the easier class or prof is universal to students not just student athletes. We always talked in the engineering schools about what prof to have for thermo or system dynamics or whatever to have a better experience or easier time. To call out student athletes for doing the same thing is silly.
(Not saying you are doing this Still)
Oh, I totally agree. And when I was at Marquette I totally screwed this up. When it came time for me to fulfill my science requirement (and I put it off until junior year), I figured, "in high school, biology was much easier than physics." Big mistake. In keeping with the theme of this thread, many people were amazed that I made it through two years at Marquette without hearing the term, "basketball physics." But I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to get a more favorable (i.e., easier) class and it certainly isn't limited to athletes.
-
One thing I want to call out separately.....students migrating to the easier class or prof is universal to students not just student athletes. We always talked in the engineering schools about what prof to have for thermo or system dynamics or whatever to have a better experience or easier time. To call out student athletes for doing the same thing is silly.
(Not saying you are doing this Still)
100% true. It's not lazy, it's strategic!
-
Dgies, you've said this twice now. I might be misunderstanding so please correct me if I'm way off in left field. UNC did not just create "programs that are below the standards of the university." They created classes that literally only existed on paper. The students did not attend any classes but got credit as if they did. There were also multiple cases of athletes having papers written for them. This was pure academic fraud on a systematic level.
I have no issue with schools who have majors that are significantly easier than other. I don't have any issue with athletic programs recommending those easy majors to athletes. Do you really think its a coincidence that a vast majority of MUBB players end up as communications majors? (I can say that, I am proud grad of the Communications school :D). But creating a system where the athletes aren't even going through the motions of getting an education, that is something else entirely. It is an unfair competitive advantage and its extremely abusive of the players who took those classes (and in some cases were forced to take those classes).
OK, ask the risk of opening yet another Pandora's Box, Horton Roe probably fell into the same category of a class that existed on paper but didn't teach anyone anything. I'm a proud Journalism major and I was kinda told, "No Horton for you, Big Boy" because his classes were auto-As provided you showed up. At 8:00 a.m. and classical music, the snoring in his class reportedly was enough to cause concerns about sleep apnea.
Others in my family took Horton and the debate lasted for years whether Horton was a real class or not. There was an urban legend of someone who turned a paper in with three pages of narrative, a cover and a bibliography in back and 16 blank sheets in between. And got an "A". Somehow I doubt that but if it is true, yikes. We were no different than UNC then!
One of the better urban legends around MU was when "Easy" Ed Rosseau and his wife taught Ethics (Phil 104). Everyone wanted Easy Ed but the course catalog just had a professor's last name in it. Some dude signed for Phil 104 with Easy Ed and saw Mrs. Rosseau teaching the class. He barked out, "Hey, you're not Easy Ed!" Professor Rosseau looked back and said, "That's right! I'm Mrs. Easy Ed!" I still laugh at that one!
-
...because his classes were auto-As provided you showed up...We were no different than UNC then!
The highlighted phrase distinguishes Marquette from what was going on at UNC. With Horton, at least there was a class to show up for.
-
The highlighted phrase distinguishes Marquette from what was going on at UNC. With Horton, at least there was a class to show up for.
If you want to call it a class, OK. Your prerogative.
With apologies to Capital One, "How many Hortons are in your GPA?"
-
The highlighted phrase distinguishes Marquette from what was going on at UNC. With Horton, at least there was a class to show up for.
Yeah, in the "rankings of what is essentially academic fraud" UNC is #1. Those Horton Roe courses barely made it into the top 5. But it still was a joke, a fraud. Being outraged by something a little worse but designed to accomplish the same outcome seems a little much.
-
If you want to call it a class, OK. Your prerogative.
I probably wasn't too clear. It wasn't my intent to defend Marquette there or to suggest the situation at UNC was really any worse. But I can see how it came across that way.
-
The highlighted phrase distinguishes Marquette from what was going on at UNC. With Horton, at least there was a class to show up for.
This is actually key. In theory there is nothing wrong with what Horton did. In terms of accreditation, that class is fine, provided what the student is supposed to do is actually done (e.g. turn in a paper (can be blank).
-
This is actually key. In theory there is nothing wrong with what Horton did. In terms of accreditation, that class is fine, provided what the student is supposed to do is actually done (e.g. turn in a paper (can be blank).
Not necessarily true. You really don't understand accreditation as much as you think you do.
-
Not necessarily true. You really don't understand accreditation as much as you think you do.
Yes I do. I'm leaving out a few details as they relate to the specifics of this discussion. The "not necessarily true" are not relevant to the UNC investigation or the Horton class.
-
What consequences do you think there will be?
My understanding is that the schools, in order to keep the students "in line" academically, provide tutors, study time, and more-wink wink wink. If left up to the schools, will they continue to try to give the students a blazin chance to get an education and to keep up with their classes with the rigorous schedule they demand