News and Notes

Submitted by GoWings2008 on

More inputs from the world of college sports, a couple things from the conference this time as well as one item that this blog has discussed a few times...so, shall we?

Big Ten awards tracker after last week:  The Graham-George Offensive Player of the year has Wisconsin RB Melvin Gordon in the lead.  Of note, msu WR Tony Lippet is in the discussion getting some props from Brady Hoke.  Link:  http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/109555/big-ten-awards-race-tracker-week-8-2

Nebraska coach Bo Pelini is not too happy with the relationship between ESPN and the SEC, specifically their network.  "I don't think that kind of relationship is good for college football. That's just my opinion. Anytime you have a relationship with somebody, you have a partnership, you are supposed to be neutral. It's pretty hard to stay neutral in that situation."  The article states they think its a bit ironic because of the BTN's relationship with FOX.  Although I agree with him (Pelini), this public statement may be a mistake on his part.  Link:  http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/bo-pelini-i-dont-think-espn-sec-relationship-is-good-for-college-football/ar-BBatK47

Finally, a report commissioned by UNC to investigate sham classes concluded that academic advisors "steered athletes into [them] over an 18-year period but does not directly implicate coaches or athletic administrators in the scheme."  The article said that this study is the third and most comprehensive look into the matter.  From what I can tell, its the most damning of them as well.  Link:  http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11745036/north-carolina-investigation-says-advisers-pushed-sham-classes

turd ferguson

October 22nd, 2014 at 2:53 PM ^

I get the concern about what's happening at UNC, but at the same time, if many/most of your student-athletes wouldn't have been accepted to the school on academic merit, and if their sports saddle them with far more outside-of-work responsibilities than non-athletes, why should we expect them to enroll and succeed in the same courses as non-athletes?  

The New York Times headline called this a "shadow curriculum" for athletes.  As long as those athletes do well after college - and I have no idea whether (and where) they do - it's not clear to me that it's terrible if athletes generally take different, less rigorous classes.  Sham classes are a problem, of course, but in cases less extreme than UNC, I think there's more ambiguity here than meets the eye.

GoWings2008

October 22nd, 2014 at 2:55 PM ^

and agree to an extent.  The one part of the article that I'd refer to in rebuttal is this passage:  "They allowed a student to write a paper of at least 10 pages rather than attend lectures or meet with professors. The papers were graded by Crowder, who was not a professor. They typically earned an A or B-plus grade."

Graded by a non-professor...who accepted that the paper would be good enough instead of class...and got an A or B+.  Something smells fishy to me.

turd ferguson

October 22nd, 2014 at 3:00 PM ^

What UNC did was extreme.  I'm thinking more along the lines of what Harbaugh said about Michigan.  Take, for example, Michigan Engineering.  It's hard.  I can't imagine how hard it would be for someone who's also managing training, practice, and game schedules, especially if that student didn't have the academic credentials of other UM undergrads.  Expecting athletes, as a whole, to take the same courses as non-athletes seems like it's setting them up for failure.

Two caveats.  First, the UNC thing (e.g., the total sham classes) is bad.  Second, you obviously want to be sure that athletes can go for a rigorous academic program if they'd like.

GoWings2008

October 22nd, 2014 at 3:04 PM ^

And not to mix apples and oranges, the football players at AFA when I was there...I felt for them.  The academic minimums, on top of the military duties, is a tough road to take.  But those guys aren't necessarily competing at as high of a level as say Michigan, but the expectations of each are diffferent from each other.  The football players got a lot of help, help that other students didn't get, but in my opinion they deserved it because of all the other responsibilities they had.  (General) Fisher DeBerry had a lot of pull when I was there....  

Don

October 22nd, 2014 at 5:27 PM ^

I was in UM's architecture program in the '70s, and it was one of the most demanding programs on campus at the time in terms of time commitment. The ungodly number of all-nighters that all of us pulled every semester was ridiculous, but they were necessary to simply keep up with the work load. Regardless, that didn't keep three members of the football team—Dave Whiteford, Greg Koss, and later Derek Howard—from successfully going through the program. DL Dave Gallagher and OL Stefan Humphries both went to med school while they were on the team as well. The idea that Bo was telling kids on the team that they couldn't take demanding classes is ridiculous.

Mr Miggle

October 22nd, 2014 at 3:57 PM ^

courses as non-athletes? Absolutely we should, without exception.

A legitimate college education is the most important and valuable reward most of them get for representing their schools. Cheating them out of that is inexcusable. That's not to say they have to take the most rigorous majors. Those that can handle them should, if they so desire. I'm uncormfortable with schools shepherding the bulk of their athletes into a single major. It's a common practice, even at Stanford. Done properly, those classes and majors are open to all students and the professors keep the same standards as every other department. It's hard to be confident that's what happens most places.   

Michigan doesn't accept everyone that meets NCAA minimum qualifications. They're reluctant to accept JuCos and transfers. That drives some fans crazy, but the point is not to put athletes into academic situations they can't handle. Tutoring, superior time management and the right environment can help a lot of student athletes outperform their HS resumes.

Unfortunately, I think academic cheating is rampart in college sports. Maybe the depths that UNC sunk to will spur reform at some other campuses, but I'm not getting my hopes up. I have a lot of respect for Notre Dame's emphasis on academics. I'm afraid that more often it's the institutions cheating on grades rather than the players.

turd ferguson

October 22nd, 2014 at 5:42 PM ^

Part of the question is whether universities are forcing or coercing students to study something they don't want to study (or avoid classes that they want to take).  I'm obviously not for telling athletes that they need to major in kinesiology if they want to major in physics.  Any athlete who wants to major in physics absolutely should be able to do so.  

On the other hand, if you're arguing that football players generally should have the same distribution of coursework and majors that the broader student body has, then that's going to have consequences that probably won't be good for the football players.  (I don't think that's what you're saying, but I'm a little unclear on your argument.)  As a whole, football players probably don't want to take the same courses that other UM undergrads want to take.  And on average they'd probably end up with much lower GPAs than their non-athlete peers if they took the same courses.  That's partly because of time availability and partly because of credentials.  Even if Michigan won't accept minimum qualifiers, there's a lot of space between minimum qualifiers and the typical, non-athlete Michigan undergraduate.  If you want a football team that performs just as well in just the same courses as non-athletes, you're going to have to radically change the academic requirements for Michigan football.  Maybe that's a good move - I'm not sure - but it certainly would keep some current players out of UM and would have serious consequences for which athletes we can and can't recruit.

More generally, I also think we disagree about what it means to get a "legitimate college education."  A lot of people believe that college kids don't really learn much in class.  My impression is that you don't have to take the toughest classes at UM in order to get a stellar education.  In fact, taking classes that mean something to you and are appropriately difficult for you probably produces more learning - and a more "legitimate" college education - than cramming to get through classes that you hate and might not persist through.  And a college degree is a big deal - and a really valuable signal on the job market - even if a kid hasn't taken the most rigorous courses that his university offers.

To repeat myself, I think sham courses are awful and every player needs to be encouraged to pursue whichever academic program he/she wishes.  At the same time, I think it's fair and honest to acknowledge that football players aren't the same as other students.  They have more obligations and (generally) more modest academic credentials.  It's not unreasonable to think that they might not want and benefit from the same courses as others in their universities.

Mr Miggle

October 22nd, 2014 at 7:26 PM ^

should mirror the entire student body's. Some majors present scheduling challenges that are hard to overcome, nursing is one example. I agree too, that their academic profile as a group is below the average, so we should expect fewer athletes in the most rigorous majors.

Guidance conselors could offer useful advice, but when most of the team shares a single major, I have to wonder why. Most of the answers won't reflect well on the school or the program. Players could have a lot of reasons to choose one field over another and could often do so after taking at least a couple of semesters. There should be a happy medium in there.

My idea of a legitimate education has little to do with the field of study. I'm concerned with whether the departments are run honestly or whether they're just designed to keep athletes eligible.

I didn't think you were suggesting that there needs to be an easy major for some athletes that can't keep up with the other students. I don't agree with that idea. That's just taking the easy way out when your mission is to educate your students.

 

Mpfnfu Ford

October 22nd, 2014 at 3:38 PM ^

Is that the AFAM chair woke up one day and decided to use his department to help students who were struggling to maintain a high enough GPA to stay enrolled. Academic counselors pushed students who were struggling to stay above the 2.0 GPA minimum to what ended up being the no show take your A classes. And that's why UNC isn't going to get into NCAA trouble over it* The AFAM no show classes went to students AND student athletes, so it wasn't an improper benefit and thus falls outside of the NCAA's purview. 

The academic counselors were rebuked for not speaking up louder about how weird it was that these no show classes all seemed to result in A's for students who were previously struggling mightily to get through UNC coursework. It didn't implicate them in the malfeasance. Everyone involved in the counseling department is saying they "should have done more" which is getting to be the go-to excuse for people who get caught with their pants down. 

It's a real GD shame. UNC was always in that club of schools where you thought, "well, maybe you can stay clean and do major sports." And then you find out "nah."

 

 

*their NCAA sanctions are over an agent scandal involing their DL coach serving as a runner for an agent he was buddies with and guys receiving cash and goodies.

TESOE

October 22nd, 2014 at 5:07 PM ^

Hoke said a couple weeks ago that he and his staff look at issues around CFB every week.  I don't hear him check in on issues of the day like Pelini does.

There is a very strong and vocal section of Michigan alumni and fans that pay attention.  It would be nice if a Michigan coach would talk about one issue a week that concerns CFB at large.

BlueinLansing

October 22nd, 2014 at 6:10 PM ^

about ESPN, they spent the first 4 weeks of the season absolutely trashing the BIG Ten.

 

Fox may have the Big Ten Network but they do not carry Big Ten games on their network nor have the games most popular morning and afternoon shows.  ESPN has been largely a pimp daddy for the SEC and its just going to get worse.