You know the problems with that. We've discussed it in the Education thread and the Racism thread. It is not the availability of tutors, it is how they are used.
I'm not quite following you, and that was some time ago. Gimme the Cliff's Notes. This, too. I'm not sure what you're saying. How are they used, and how is it different within athletics than elsewhere on campus, other than maybe corruption (which is already prohibited)?
http://msn.foxsports.com/buzzer/sto...ier-rips-ncaa-after-winning-ncaa-title-040714 Can't say I have an opinion but it is amusing at least to see that non even the champs are happy with the NCAA.. Edit: He also said that they did not have money for food.. http://thinkprogress.org/sports/201...s-that-we-dont-have-enough-money-to-get-food/
Education disproportionately disfavors poor families. And by percentage, Blacks and Latinos are at a disadvantage compared to everybody other than Native Indians. Holding them to the same academic standards does not support the advancement of those students. Sure they need to meet basic requirements, but when many are passing high school on social promotion, holding them to the same standards is not fair. Athletics have tutors brought into the program, have people work for them (at least to get tutors). The general population has to do their own legwork. Further, I doubt the general population is as corrupt as athletics.
I'm sure this guy can technically get enough calories, whether they are tasty calories or even particularly healthy calories is another question. Not one that I will fuss. I had plenty of college meals on Kraft Mac & Cheese made with postdated milk that was sold at a discount, and frozen peas. Ain't nobody was worried about me. Nor should they have been.
My cousin did Romon noodles for almost 2 years for almost every meal unless somebody else made the food.
Ummm...UConn was banned for poor academic performance and recruiting violations, right? http://www.vox.com/2014/4/7/5590682/uconns-basketball-team-graduates-8-percent-of-players
I do not necessarily agree with Napier, I think that both statements are anecdotal evidence of how messed up the NCAA is. Basically the best basketball player this year thinks that the rules are crap and that they are waaay underpaid. And this is the star from a star program. Wouldn't kids like him be better if they were allowed to play professionally after High school or if the NCAA implemented some kind of wage and different academic requirements for its athletes? Just a question, my opinion on this is still evolving, although I don't think that semi professional sports help academic programs, more like hurt them.
Education doesn't disfavor anyone, but the society that prepares students for college might. The environments that a lot of poor people are in (both in school and out of school) are what makes it tough for some of them to get thru HS, let along college. I'd much rather see extensive work be done to reshape the student's K-12 experience (I don't know what anyone can do about the communities themselves, and they contribute heavily to the experience) than to allow the student to get that far and then be admitted to a university he's unprepared to handle. To what standards should we hold them, then? I want my degree to have the same value it did when I walked. If they're passing HS on social promotion, that's an issue for the secondary system. It's that system that's setting the student up for failure (if I go with the general vibe here that football players are as a rule unfit for university learning). If anything, college is the last step and they've been led this far. It's always going to be a problem if the elementary and secondary experiences aren't looked into. I don't know- maybe the rules could be amended to force student-athletes to find their own tutors. But the bolded? Enforce the rules in place and that stops. Tutors aren't supposed to take tests for another student- people allow it.
If the grades the team got didn't get anyone kicked out of school, yeah, he has a point. He was a senior, right? If he'd been talented enough to go early he'd have done. See if you can find out whether the classroom performance that got the team banned from the NCAAs last season got anyone put on academic probation. Interest in a university always helps academic programs, tho indirectly most of the time. Extracurriculars generate interest in a university. It's one of the ways schools get people to identify with them from the cradle, and to think of them when it's time to pick a school. Example: Knoxville, Athens and Auburn are pretty much the same distance from my house and Tuscaloosa's only a bit closer. With no significant differences between the three for an undecided major, it's probably going to be gridiron support that makes the difference.
Probably not playing last year hurt his chances so, even if he was very good, it was better for him to stay and get more exposure this year. Regarding the ban, it is not only how UConn students performed but also how their rivals reported their performance. As it has been posted before, there seems to be a group of "athlete friendly" courses at several colleges. So collegiate sports are basically a very expensive marketing tool. How does that reflect on the actual performance of academic programs? Do people yearn to go to Ivy League colleges because of their sports? Are people that fill stadiums at SEC mostly college graduates? I agree that there is an additional element when considering similar options and that the sense of belonging might help recruit better students and professors and secure more donations in the long run, but that does reflect on better doctors or more research or better physicists? Excuse me if I fail to see the connection.
By this, I meant allocation of resources across the spectrum (teachers, pay, facilities, external programs, community support, etc.). I agree that K-12 needs to be reshaped, and part of that is thinking about how poor students can be effective in college when they lack support at home. I'm thinking enterance, not exit. A student might need to retake a class (as an example) to prepare them for college, but they are promoted and set to graduate high school before they are academically ready. Yet some of those students are athletes and are given scholarships to schools where they are not ready to handle the academic work asked of them. Thus, we see places like UConn where they have a very low graduation rate.
No. College sports haven't changed. The way we view them (and the frequency with which we can discuss them and analyze them) has changed because we have access to more info. Same games, just with more coverage and money and hype. Ivy League schools are for business and networking, period. No one's winning any relevant championships out of the Ivy League. The hottest coeds aren't at the Ivy League schools. You go there because you want to earn more money than the guys with the same degree from less expensive and/or less socially connected schools. Mostly, maybe, among those who are old enough to be in college or finished with it. We're talking about only 90-105K every weekend, and those tix aren't cheap. But there are a LOT more people who'll buy jerseys and ballcaps and posters and lanyards and bumper stickers and door stickers and window stickers and everything else associated with the brand. It doesn't really matter if you're planning on staying in the state where you attended school. The given company in the given state is probably happy to hire the state's grads if it doesn't hurt their bottom line. I get that, and I agree. We may differ in how much any of that's going to help unless the home is dedicated to rearing children for academic success. Start by trying to show them what academic success looks like, and if you still have an audience after the first five minutes, that'd be a great liftoff. Fixed, slightly. We agree that they'd be more prepared if the K-12 was going better. I guess I'm trying to say that football players don't have to be any less prepared than any other student. The school systems they came from are responsible for that by promoting an undeserving student with inflated grades.
Yeah, I've seen that and, on one occasion, been pressured to be part of it- lost one teaching job that way. In retrospect, I should have given the grade. I don't know how you'd save a community that won't always listen to advice from the people who grew up in places that didn't need saving. The intentions are usually good, but the process in my experience seems to focus on "Get them into college!!" instead of "Get them prepared for college (so they'll stay in college)".
Figure that out and you'll win a MacArthur grant at the very least, and maybe even a Nobel Peace prize.
Along these lines, not long ago my wife's college, Division III, had to deal with the dismissal of a lacrosse player who grew up on Long Island. He was among the wealthiest kids at the college, and among the dumbest. He was dismissed his spring semester. His parents offered to pay double the tuition so he could play one more season of lacrosse. I suspect he was passed along every bit as much as the kids we're talking about.
And Texans. Don't forget Texas. Calipari weighs in. And he may have a point- this dicking around with a four-team sham of a playoff is probably going to hurt them more than basketball does. At least basketball has a legitimate tournament. http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...ipari-likens-ncaa-dying-soviet-union-new-book
I think Calipari is a douche, but I don't have a problem with his proposals as enumerated in the article (I assume he's talking about players in revenue-producing sports for the stipend: that might be a bit tricky when you deal with sports where a small handful of teams make money (wrestling, hockey, baseball, lacrosse possibly, and hopefully one day, soccer) but most don't.)s • Players should receive stipends of $3,000 to $5,000; • The NCAA should cover eligible players' insurance premiums; • Athletes should be able to accept loans up to $50,000 against future earnings; • If a coach leaves an institution, players should be able to transfer from that program without having to sit out a season; • Athletes should be allowed one round-trip flight home every year.
I don't know anything about him other than that he's taken three different programs to the Final Four. My guess is that Memphis (which had history with Dana Kirk long before Cal got there) knew they'd lose some seasons when they hired him and decided it was worth it. Amherst ought to be happy he got Camby and the Minutemen that far, and the NCAA already has a doggie door for Kentucky as it is. The bolded is my only issue. Sure, Calipari's players are going to the NBA, but his rivals (let alone a given football team) won't have anywhere near the same percentage. And what happens if a fb player ends up like Tyrone Prothro, with career-ending injury going after a ball from one of Alabama's "team leaders"? He's got to pay back that money while working as a bank teller in Tuscaloosa. Even if the bank decides the player is a good risk, one play could change all that.
Well, I would hope the insurance thing would help him out a bit. And as far as loans go, a lot of students take out more than that (unwisely, IMO) and have to deal with the same problem: What if they don't get into med school? or pass the CPA exam? Along those lines, I would hope that some provisions could be made to help a player retool vocationally in case of injury or in case he just doesn't wind up being good enough to get paid for the sport.
I get this. Of course, it's important for a student-athlete to have a marketable major, or at least one that can get him into grad/professional school if he's got the grades. OTOH, if he's already on a scholarship, the $50K isn't going toward his tuition. I think the bolded can be solved with vigilance in grading at the secondary level- if the student can hang, he'll be able to find work after school. If he can't, he won't get into the uni to begin with. Prolly not gonna happen, but its a possible answer. And I'd add a year to the scholly (but not eligibility) so the student can take the courses he needs without playing. If he plays four with no shirt, he's got a year after that to get the courses he couldn't take while playing because of schedule conflicts (someone brought this up a while back, but I don't recall who or when).
Well, you know, the NCAA came up with the whole "student-athlete" thing mostly so it could avoid paying worker's comp (mentioned in the Atlantic article that inspired the thread). Also, NBA commish Adam Silver is open to paying subsidies to college players if the age limit is raised. Colleges have a nice racket going - other people are just falling over each other to pay for the labor.