MUBB, athletics and academics, etc.

[The Process]

Ok .. I've tried to do a little re-pruning after Rocky dropped the bomb on this thread.  Cut out the beginning JJones stuff, cut out the end Ners/Hoop bs.

I'll probably regret this.

Well as long as soccer is kept out, how bad can it be..?

[Hoopaloop]

Pat Hazel stealing and James Matthews committing assault didn't happen?

What happened to those players?  That should answer the question for you in terms of how it was handled.  They were removed from the team.

[Hoopaloop]

Yes I have and yes it can be done because I did it myself.  

However I also fancy myself, humility aside, as very intelligent from a solid educational background before playing going to school.  Not everyone is going to have those same standards and capabilities.  Congrats to your family being able to pull that off, but I would argue they are more the exception than the rule....Academic All-American award is big deal because its very difficult.

All I'm saying is being a D1 revenue sport athlete is not easy and the university is using them to make money to pay for fancy new buildings.  However they are apparently willing to overlook all that because they have some high and mighty viewpoint.

It is not easy.  Depending on your background, it can be even more difficult.  The next question then is whether there are enough student athletes that can succeed athletically and be successful academically?  The answer to that is yes, in my opinion. 

I'm also fine with continuing down the current path, but Buzz has to get his guys to understand the consequences of their actions.  Do they get it?  Do they understand that they put their university and their coach at risk with some of the things the press has reported about?  If Buzz can keep things contained, then go for it.  If he can't, then the president and AD have every right to protect the university's image in a manner they see fit.

[avid1010]

Really going there?  So this is now a program for the learning disabled (so long as they're a Top 60 prospect)?

There is balance in everything.  I take pride in all that is MU.  Hoops and academics.  I'm believe in the notion that acceptable grades and real progress toward one's degree is a prerequisite to athletic participation. Trust me, acceptable grades and progress toward one's degree is a constant refrain in my household where I now write two tuition checks to our beloved institution.  If MU leadership felt that academic standards had slipped and therefore needed to bump (or more vigorously enforce) the threshold a bit, I fully understand.  But I do agree with the notion that individual student athletes should be given some time to meet the new standards.

the thought of balance in college hoops or football is a joke.  the balance has nothing to do with what's best for kids, but instead what's best for the university (financially).  so the balance is how much mu is willing to let its standards slide to field a solid bball program that fuels millions of dollars to the university each year.  to think there's any balance in what mu does for its bball players in comparison to what they do for the school is a joke.  i'll believe in balance when college hoops/football balance how much they make off the kids with what they provide for the kids, and we stop making millions off of them. 

[Dawson Rental]

Thanks for taking the time topper.

[mu03eng]

It is not easy.  Depending on your background, it can be even more difficult.  The next question then is whether there are enough student athletes that can succeed athletically and be successful academically?  The answer to that is yes, in my opinion. 

I'm also fine with continuing down the current path, but Buzz has to get his guys to understand the consequences of their actions.  Do they get it?  Do they understand that they put their university and their coach at risk with some of the things the press has reported about?  If Buzz can keep things contained, then go for it.  If he can't, then the president and AD have every right to protect the university's image in a manner they see fit.

Again, I'd be ok with it if they were going after behavior issues, but they aren't they are going after academics by all accounts.  And behaviorally, I still don't things are any worse now than they were before.  There was one incident that pulled back the curtain so to speak and so its all out in the open.  Now there seems to be this academic red herring as a proxy for the behavioral issues.  If the BOT wants to go this route and turn away kids that could use what MUBB has to offer that's their call, but I think one that is counter to everything the university should stand for especially with a player already in the fold.

[jesmu84]

It is not easy.  Depending on your background, it can be even more difficult.  The next question then is whether there are enough student athletes that can succeed athletically and be successful academically?  The answer to that is yes, in my opinion. 

I'm also fine with continuing down the current path, but Buzz has to get his guys to understand the consequences of their actions.  Do they get it?  Do they understand that they put their university and their coach at risk with some of the things the press has reported about?  If Buzz can keep things contained, then go for it.  If he can't, then the president and AD have every right to protect the university's image in a manner they see fit.

So getting better academically will also improve behavior? Can you explain/prove that correlation?  Like others have said, I have no problem with punishing players who have had behavioral issues. I also have no problem with MU wanting to improve the academic requirements of athletes. But I'm confused how the two are related.

[Pakuni]

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that just a few weeks after so many here puffed out their chests and crowed with pride following a CNN story about MU's academic success from athletes, some of you people are ripping the administration for demanding - gasp! - academic success from its athletes?

Seems to be a disconnect here ....

[brewcity77]

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that just a few weeks after so many here puffed out their chests and crowed with pride following a CNN story about MU's academic success from athletes, some of you people are ripping the administration for demanding - gasp! - academic success from its athletes?

Seems to be a disconnect here ....

Disagree. The two are completely different. CNN praised MU for succeeding under the current NCAA and Marquette standards. The outcry is over changing those standards and not making allowances for those already in the process. The impression I get is that under current standards, our student-athletes are for the most part all doing fine under the current requirements.

Changing the rules mid-stream is unfair. These guys were given standards to meet and they've been meeting them. If you want to change the rules for new recruits not yet here, that's one thing, and I think most could accept that. It would limit our ceiling, but it's not unacceptable. But for guys that have been here 1, 2, or 3 years to meet new standards overnight, especially if some of those are mathematical impossibilities, it's simply unreasonable. When they were recruited, the standards we put before them were essentially Marquette's contract. Those should be honored for guys already here, especially when that story you cited is evidence that we've been succeeding where other schools (UW, UConn, etc) have been failing.

If you worked at a widget factory and your boss told you when you started that you had to make an average of 20 widgets per day to keep your job, that'd be their prerogative. So you do that successfully, but after 3 years, the new boss says you have to average 25 widgets a day to keep your job, and it's retroactive to when you started. So even if you could make 25 widgets a day, you'd have to make 40 a day to offset the 20/day you made during your first 3 years.

I believe that is the issue some are having with this.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that just a few weeks after so many here puffed out their chests and crowed with pride following a CNN story about MU's academic success from athletes, some of you people are ripping the administration for demanding - gasp! - academic success from its athletes?

Seems to be a disconnect here ....

That's a great point, and as a follow-up:

#1 How many athletes are barely getting by right now? I thought most of the players were closer to 2.5+GPA than 2.0GPA.

#2 Is the admin. changing the entrance requirements, or just the GPA requirements while they are in school? If it's the former, certainly that can change recruiting. If it's the latter, I'm not so sure, and it will certainly depend upon how hard the new standards are. Again, how many guys are getting 2.0GPAs?

Before I go Hiroshima, I'll need to know these things... but after that... Pilarz will get destroyed!

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Disagree. The two are completely different. CNN praised MU for succeeding under the current NCAA and Marquette standards. The outcry is over changing those standards and not making allowances for those already in the process. The impression I get is that under current standards, our student-athletes are for the most part all doing fine under the current requirements.

Changing the rules mid-stream is unfair. These guys were given standards to meet and they've been meeting them. If you want to change the rules for new recruits not yet here, that's one thing, and I think most could accept that. It would limit our ceiling, but it's not unacceptable. But for guys that have been here 1, 2, or 3 years to meet new standards overnight, especially if some of those are mathematical impossibilities, it's simply unreasonable. When they were recruited, the standards we put before them were essentially Marquette's contract. Those should be honored for guys already here, especially when that story you cited is evidence that we've been succeeding where other schools (UW, UConn, etc) have been failing.

If you worked at a widget factory and your boss told you when you started that you had to make an average of 20 widgets per day to keep your job, that'd be their prerogative. So you do that successfully, but after 3 years, the new boss says you have to average 25 widgets a day to keep your job, and it's retroactive to when you started. So even if you could make 25 widgets a day, you'd have to make 40 a day to offset the 20/day you made during your first 3 years.

I believe that is the issue some are having with this.

Yes, I certainly will be disappointed if that is the approach MU takes.

Retro-active standards would be unfair. However, raising the standards (in general) may not damn MU to a "SLU" like existence like has been claimed.

There are several posters around here who are extrapolating this to the Nth degree, and now the water is muddied.

[Pakuni]

Disagree. The two are completely different. CNN praised MU for succeeding under the current NCAA and Marquette standards. The outcry is over changing those standards and not making allowances for those already in the process. The impression I get is that under current standards, our student-athletes are for the most part all doing fine under the current requirements.

Two points:

1. Do we have any actual verifiable prooof that changes are being made/enforced retroactiviely, without allowances, etc.? I mean, I know Internet rumors are 100 percent accurate and all, but do we have anything more substantive than the breathless reports of the usual chicken littles?

2. Does anyone really believe changes would be made if MU were maintaining the academic success that was spoken of in the CNN report? Remember, the numbers used in that report were from 2000-08. It's 2012. Lots can change in four years.

Just my opinion, but we all come off a bit hypocritical when we brag about MU's academic success then get angry when the schools demands high standards in the classroom.

[Hoopaloop]

Yes, I certainly will be disappointed if that is the approach MU takes.

Retro-active standards would be unfair. However, raising the standards (in general) may not damn MU to a "SLU" like existence like has been claimed.

There are several posters around here who are extrapolating this to the Nth degree, and now the water is muddied.

This is how I feel.  I have faith in Buzz and the various programs in this country that do well and have higher academic standards than the NCAA minimums

[Hoopaloop]

So getting better academically will also improve behavior? Can you explain/prove that correlation?  Like others have said, I have no problem with punishing players who have had behavioral issues. I also have no problem with MU wanting to improve the academic requirements of athletes. But I'm confused how the two are related.

That is my feeling that the adminstration believes this to be the case.  The thought process is something like this:

better academic results = kids that are maturer, more responsible, understand the bigger picture, right from wrong, etc.

Whether there is a true correlation is something for Williams, Pilarz, higher ed folks and sociologists to determine, but that seems to be the thinking

[mugrad2006]

I may be selfish, but I'm not willing to give up the next 15-20 years of potentially great basketball so that Fr Pillarz and LW can launch an experiment that assesses whether or not MU basketball can compete using the Stanford/ND model.  I'm also not sure if that will create a better situation for the university overall.

I don't want criminals on the team, but I also think that basketball in its current format adds a lot more to the university than any negatives it might produce.  If they institute a program that runs off Buzz and a handful of players due to overly restrictive conditions, I know I'm a lot less likely to throw my donations MU's way in the future.

[brewcity77]

1. Do we have any actual verifiable prooof that changes are being made/enforced retroactiviely, without allowances, etc.? I mean, I know Internet rumors are 100 percent accurate and all, but do we have anything more substantive than the breathless reports of the usual chicken littles?

No. That's why this is all speculation. We'll see what happens in a few weeks, but this is the nature of rumor. We just hope it isn't as bad as some are speculating. But trying to compare the doomsday scenario (whether true or not) and being proud of good graduation records is still apples and oranges.

[warthog-driver]

http://espn.go.com/dallas/ncb/story/_/id/7864558/larry-brown-tells-several-smu-mustangs-players-team

At least Larry Brown has the balls to tell it like it is. 

Leslee Smith, one of the cut players, was a high school teammate of Junior Cadougan's

[martyconlonontherun]

But for guys that have been here 1, 2, or 3 years to meet new standards overnight, especially if some of those are mathematical impossibilities, it's simply unreasonable.

That is something that is very important but we will never know. If a player is kicked off to the new standards, was it because he didn't do enough to get it up or mathematically impossible based on GPA and when he was informed of the new policy. A lot of people will say "he didn't get a chance to improve his grades" but that doesn't mean it is impossible.

Whats the new standard? Say 2.25? Say he was meeting the old standards? at 1.80001 (which I wouldn't feel bad if he got cut cause you should be better than the standards) after 36 MU credits (65 GPA points). IF he had known before the semester (big if), he could've loaded up on classes (15 credits), ended his season early to focus on studying, and got a 4.0. That would put him at 2.4 and he would have been safe for his final 2 years at MU. It would suck, but not completely impossible.

The only way I see it as mathematically impossible is if they told him after the semester has started, he was only enrolled in the min classes and he started the semester off poorly. But I have been hearing these rumors for a month and a half, so it makes me feel he knew before the semester and just didn't perform enough in the classroom.

[kmwtrucks]

To ask a player that got a 1.8 to then get a 4.0 is just unfair.  To ask him to get a 2.2 is fine IMO.  That is how they should apply it. 

[jsglow]

Actually a careful read of the current policy already demonstrates the 'step up' required between Sophomore and Junior year.  One must begin Sophomore year with a 1.8 GPA, enroll in 12 credits per semester and successfully complete not less than 24 during Sophomore year with a max of 6 during the summer.  Well, let's say that the student athlete takes 4 classes in the Fall and gets 3 Ds and one F.  The student athlete's cumulative gradepoint will have gone down and (s)he would have only achieved 9 credit hours of the 24 that needed for the year.  He or she would certainly then need a bunch of Bs in the Spring just to balance.  The next measurement point is the beginning of Junior year when a 1.9 is required under the existing published policy and a certain number of credits and percentage of the major must be completed.

Now I pose this to the reader.  Let's assume for a moment that the ONLY change to the current published policy is that one has to start Junior year with a 2.0.  Unreasonable?  Please recall that it takes a 2.0 cumulative GPA to graduate.  Would that make Fr. Pilarz or LW unreasonable?  Or would we be more disappointed in the student athlete for not holding up his/her end of the bargain?

[martyconlonontherun]

To ask a player that got a 1.8 to then get a 4.0 is just unfair.  To ask him to get a 2.2 is fine IMO.  That is how they should apply it. 

Well, in the situation above, it would've bumped him to a 2.5. That was an extreme scenario where is was previously doing the absolute min and it would only really take a 3.0 to bump it up to like a 2.1. There are enough classes at MU with enough built-in points that a B average is possible for even the worst students. Show up, do all the homework and you will get B in a lot of classes. With academic advisers and tutors, I don't think it is too extreme for 1 semester of B-work. Again, I also said the player should have sat this semester out to focused on school if he knew he was this close to getting booted.

[mr.MUskie]

Well, in the situation above, it would've bumped him to a 2.5. That was an extreme scenario where is was previously doing the absolute min and it would only really take a 3.0 to bump it up to like a 2.1. There are enough classes at MU with enough built-in points that a B average is possible for even the worst students. Show up, do all the homework and you will get B in a lot of classes. With academic advisers and tutors, I don't think it is too extreme for 1 semester of B-work. Again, I also said the player should have sat this semester out to focused on school if he knew he was this close to getting booted.

Is that even an option?  These guys are on athletic scholarships.  Can they just go to Buzz and say "I'm gonna sit this semester out and just be a student"?

[jsglow]

I guess where I'm coming down is this isn't a 'sky is falling' situation and if a student athlete can't even make a minimal standard then are they really a student athlete and aren't we becoming UConn or Kentucky if we somehow look the other way?

We know Buzz sits in living rooms and promises mothers that their son will get a legitimate education.  I'm certain he means it.  Then, it's up to the young man to do his part, especially with all the support built into the system.

[Benny B]

So getting better academically will also improve behavior? Can you explain/prove that correlation?  Like others have said, I have no problem with punishing players who have had behavioral issues. I also have no problem with MU wanting to improve the academic requirements of athletes. But I'm confused how the two are related.

Your confusion stems from the fact that you're misusing/misunderstanding the term 'correlation.'

Improving one's academic standing won't cause improvement in behavior. But good academics and good behavior are correlated.  In other words, you can generally improve overall behavior by bringing in academic-focused students. But generally you can't improve an individual's behavior by forcing them to do better academically.

[JakeBarnes]

Your confusion stems from the fact that you're misusing/misunderstanding the term 'correlation.'

Improving one's academic standing won't cause improvement in behavior. But good academics and good behavior are correlated.  In other words, you can generally improve overall behavior by bringing in academic-focused students. But generally you can't improve an individual's behavior by forcing them to do better academically.

I can also correlate the fact that people who smoke weed also drink milk. Does this mean milk drinkers are more likely to smoke weed? Academics usually only change the level of bad behavior, if anything. Perhaps what people here are really debating is socio-economic status determining behavior (and that may even be tenuous).