Marciano490 said:Wait, was it always the Wainstein report? I could've sworn it used to be the Weinstein report.
Yes. Just like the Berenstain Bears.
Marciano490 said:Wait, was it always the Wainstein report? I could've sworn it used to be the Weinstein report.
“It would be the equivalent of three student-athletes per team per year over that period of time,” Cunningham said, referencing the 18-year period in which athletes and nonathletes alike used bogus classes to boost their GPAs. “So as bad as it was, as long as it was, it’s really starting to sink in that there was maybe one, two, three classes for somebody – so that might be six or nine hours out of 120 that it takes to graduate. So it’s shocking, but as you have a little more time to look at it, it’s not quite as bad as I was thinking it was 48 hours ago.”
Word.Infield Infidel said:They'll never do the death penalty again. It has too many unintended consequences for people who had nothing to do with it. Just like TV bans, it hurts the other schools in the conference, in this case because the other schools lose games, and it hurts players who arrived after the infractions took place. If the players want to stay, why make them sit out a year? Even if they get immediate transfers, why make them leave? Ban the teams from non-conference games (which opponents can easily replace), and post-season, and penalize the coaches who knew about it.
Without going into too much detail, self policing very rarely works.Fred in Lynn said:I think the death penalty is viscerally pleasing but misses when it comes to remediating the situation. They would be wise to allow a program to continue to compete under heavy financial sanctions but limited competition sanctions. Money would continue to come in, and it would pass right through the university's coffers to pay the fine and fund something beneficial not related to the school. Allow the school to act toward those who were part of the wrongdoing and are still employed or registered. (Let the courts take care of those who acted criminally.) Those student-athletes currently who are there now and everyone else associated with the school shouldn't be punished for things they had no part in.
As a general rule of negotiating, it's a good idea in most cases to permit the respondent the opportunity to propose a punitive remedy. If the proposal is insufficient, comment. If unresponsive, enforce. You've forced the respondent to show its hand, and cannot be accused of acting unilaterally.JayMags71 said:Without going into too much detail, self policing very rarely works.
You think Penn State doesn't care about $60M in fines?Old Fart Tree said:They'll never do the death penalty again, and yet it's the only thing that actually makes a program regret its violations. You think Greg29 is going to give a shit about "vacated wins"?
Fred in Lynn said:You think Penn State doesn't care about $60M in fines?
Fred in Lynn said:You think Penn State doesn't care about $60M in fines?
Please don't take the context of the quote out of the reply.Average Reds said:
Honestly? They care more about the destruction of their football program. And they still got off light.
Not particularly no.Fred in Lynn said:You think Penn State doesn't care about $60M in fines?
I'm sorry, but are implying that money doesn't matter in a capitalist republic, that PSU doesn't miss the $60M it paid out? I think that's Rod Serling behind me.Cellar-Door said:Not particularly no.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2013/04/08/penn-state-athletics-finances-2012-sandusky/2064641/
Some years they get more than that in athletics use only pledges from alumni.
I have no idea what you are talking about. You asked a direct question and I gave you a direct answer.Fred in Lynn said:Please don't take the context of the quote out of the reply.
Why are you okay with sanctions that punish innocent people and don't punish the guilty? Reggie Bush broke NCAA rules and he wasn't punished; the school, players, coaches, and everyone else was. There is something unsavory, immoral, and lazy about that practice.
I'm saying that they'd much rather cough up $60M than take any kind of significant blow to the football program that is the major driving force behind bringing in significantly more money than that.Fred in Lynn said:I'm sorry, but are implying that money doesn't matter in a capitalist republic, that PSU doesn't miss the $60M it paid out? I think that's Rod Serling behind me.
The NCAA has issues as an enforcement body. Keeping it simple would only benefit them. I felt a change in approach like the one I ran through earlier would only help them, while not continuing the terrible practice of punishing innocent parties in the way they do now.
Infield Infidel said:They'll never do the death penalty again. It has too many unintended consequences for people who had nothing to do with it. Just like TV bans, it hurts the other schools in the conference, in this case because the other schools lose games, and it hurts players who arrived after the infractions took place. If the players want to stay, why make them sit out a year? Even if they get immediate transfers, why make them leave? Ban the teams from non-conference games (which opponents can easily replace), and post-season, and penalize the coaches who knew about it.
Average Reds said:
Agreed. I didn't know you could revoke accreditation on a program by program basis.
SumnerH said:May as well eliminate the pretense of accreditation if they don't get to make that call.
I'm not saying UNC in particular should or shouldn't have theirs yanked, just that if the independent, non-profit accreditation agency doesn't get to make that call then it really isn't an independent accreditation agency at all--making that call is, in fact, its entire reason for existing.
CSteinhardt said:
What would realistically happen if it lost accreditation? We don't really know, but I can make a reasonable guess. UNC would have to dip deep into its $2.3B endowment in order to replace federal funding while it is not accredited. I don't expect it would send its students home with no financial aid, but rather that it would replace those funds from its endowment, as the alternative is having almost no students and everybody transferring. There would, as a result, be major and nearly immediate changes, which would be good for all schools facing this sort of decision. As long as it got accredited again within a year, which would be a reasonable timeline, the school would survive. The grants are a bit more complicated, as often the money is paid up front, but UNC would be unable to apply for new grants during this year. So the financial hit would be large in the first year but continue for at least several years thereafter.
When you consider how much of that endowment is raised by having such a strong athletic program, this seems appropriate to me. Part of the punishment should be disgorging UNC of the profits from its action, and that, not closing the school entirely, would be the realistic outcome of losing accreditation for a year. It hasn't happened before at a major research university, so to some extent we're guessing, but it's merited here.
Replies #169, #170. I wasn't replying to you. You thought I was. Moving on.Average Reds said:I have no idea what you are talking about. You asked a direct question and I gave you a direct answer.
For the freshman class at Georgia Tech, the average SAT is a record-shattering 1445. It's an eye-popping figure that underscores Tech's standing as one of the nation's most elite public schools.
But look at Tech's football team and a different picture emerges. For incoming football players, the average SAT is 420 points below the class as a whole, according to an analysis of school data obtained by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution....
How We Got The Story
With the NCAA moving to tighten some academic requirements for athletes, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution decided to examine how the scores of Georgia's Division I football programs stacked up.
The AJC filed multiple open records requests with the University of Georgia, Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Southern University and Georgia State University seeking admission test scores and high
school GPA's for football players as well as the general student population. The AJC also obtained the number of so-called special admits, football players who are admitted even though they lack the minimum test scores set by the University System of Georgia.
UGA at first declined to provide the number of special admits, citing the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). They eventually provided the statistics after the other Georgia schools provided their own data. UGA also declined to break down the admissions scores of their football players down by year, as the three other schools had done. They again cited FERPA. That prevented the AJC from doing a year-by-year comparison with UGA football recruits, as it did with the other schools. Instead, UGA provided aggregate football score data for the six-year period examined by the AJC. They then gave the newspaper weighted averages for the overall student body for the same time period for comparison.
The AJC focused on football for two reasons. One, it is the top moneymaking sport at the Georgia schools. Secondly, with 100 or so players, the football teams are large enough that schools were able to provide scores without intruding on student privacy.
DrewDawg said:I think the best part of that article is that the Ga State student body average SAT score is comparable to the Ga Tech football team's.
Fred in Lynn said:Replies #169, #170. I wasn't replying to you. You thought I was. Moving on.
Fred in Lynn said:AR - It seems insufficient and more plainly, wrong to discount the practice of punishing innocent parties as a necessary part of the process. It's not. It's an accepted convention from an organization that sucks at interpretation and enforcement of its own rules.
The system is overdue for collapse because it is a system based fundamentally on two basic, if incredibly opulent, absurdities: the absurdity of the mad, profit-whoring way we run higher education and the absurdity of believing that it is one of the functions of our institutions of higher education to be part of the multimillion-dollar sports-entertainment industry. The first absurdity leads inevitably to the second one, and the second one leads inevitably to the NCAA, an organization born of absurdity that has managed to create new levels of absurdity every second it has been in existence. It is, honestly, laughable.
-snip-
And now it will fall to the NCAA, God help us, to parcel out blame and responsibility and punishment. At this point, of course, the NCAA is little more than a walking conflict of interest, and an absurd one, at that. The NCAA would not exist if players were not paid under the table. The NCAA would not exist if so many of its “member institutions” weren’t playing ethical mumblety-peg with their academic integrity to keep the players eligible and the money flowing everywhere except into the pockets of the people doing all the real work. There is absolutely no way this will end well. There is absolutely no way this will not end hilariously, however.
The primary function of a university is not to make a buck any more than it is to help the banks gouge the student body. (Germany just did away with college tuition entirely.) Colleges have no business being vehicles for mass entertainment any more than they have business selling widgets or maintaining a fishing fleet. It is no proper part of a university’s mission to provide quality television programming and year-round gambling opportunities for the rest of the country. That this has become the norm in America’s system of higher education is a monstrous accident of history and of academic neglect, but there it is, and it is not going anywhere, and the only way to do it is simply to make an honest business out of it.
OilCanShotTupac said:
I've ranted about this before, to the point of being completely obnoxious and derailing threads.
Blow it up, blow the whole fucking thing up. the NCAA's current system is indefensible, it is hypocritical, it is unsustainable, it is Immoral.
in his grantland piece, Charles Pierce puts it better than I can:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-tar-heels-state-academic-scandal-big-money-no-surprises/
- spin off the revenue sports teams from the universities as for-profit corporations.
- let them paid massive licensing fees to the universities to use the school's facilities, logos, trademarks, etc.
- pay the players. if they are stars, pay them well. let them go to classes and earn degrees if they want, as part of their compensation, but end the fucking charade that students are at the schools to get an education.
- Kill the NCAA.
Dgilpin said:
Do you take as much issue with the minor league baseball system, which in terms of compensation takes advantage of athletes far worse than college athletes.
Monbo Jumbo said:Tangentially related - Atlanta Journal Constitution has a fairly big piece today on scores and grades of admitted football players versus general population in the state's four Div 1 schools.
Average Reds said:
Unless I've missed something, minor league baseball players are free to negotiate their compensation and there is no oversight agency charged with determining eligibility to play based on a fraudulent academic mission.
Comparing minor league baseball to college athletics seems like comparing apples to farm equipment. But keep fucking that chicken, Norma Rae.
SuperManny said:
Are those SAT scores correct? I thought the SAT was now out of 2400 which would make a 1445 not that great.
Monbo Jumbo said:
It's just math + verbal - no writing - compare with ACT tab.
dcmissle said:
GT has a pretty strong applicant pool.
There is nothing new about this. Strong athletes compose a totally different applicant pool with a lower bar. And yes, that applies to the Ivies and the likes of Stanford too -- they won't admit people who cannot do the work; but they will admit individuals who would not stand the proverbial snowball's chance in the regular pool. And if they deny that, they are lying.
Monbo Jumbo said:
Yes and Yes.
GTech has always been tough academically for atheletes. BC is a good comp. And it is one of the best D1 State schools in the country.
The interesting note in the article is that UGA refused at first to provide any data, and then later did provide data, but averaged it over the 6 years. They refused to provide the year-by-year breakdown. While it's always been tougher to get admitted to GTech, UGA has become much harder to get into as well in recent years. At the same time, their football program makes frequent headlines with poor off-field behavior from players. I suspect a year-by-year breakdown of the UGA data would show a dramatic widening of the gap between the football pool and the general pool over that time, which would not have reflected well on the Univ.
This is the real the tragedy as I see it. University of Michigan musky fishing team. Spending all your hours on the Detroit River or LSC. I make an awesome figure-8 for the recruiters on the board.Charlie Pierce said:Colleges have no business being vehicles for mass entertainment any more than they have business...maintaining a fishing fleet.
Can't respond as long as I would like right now, but essence of response is that, in terms of $$$$, viewership, visibility, public interest, etc.,Dgilpin said:
Do you take as much issue with the minor league baseball system, which in terms of compensation takes advantage of athletes far worse than college athletes.
OilCanShotTupac said:Can't respond as long as I would like right now, but essence of response is that, in terms of $$$$, viewership, visibility, public interest, etc.,
LSU-Alabama (for example) >>>>>>>>>> Lansing Lugnuts vs. Quad Cities River Bandits
and it's not even close.
Average Reds said:Unless I've missed something, minor league baseball players are free to negotiate their compensation and there is no oversight agency charged with determining eligibility to play based on a fraudulent academic mission.
DrewDawg said:So, the UNC guy hasn't reappeared in this thread again has he? Did I miss it?