OT: Brian Kelly - All my players are at risk academically
And now for something completely different...
Brian Kelly actually scores points in my book. He was asked about academics as they relate to his football team and gave this response:
I think we recognized that all of my football players are at risk. All of them, really. Honestly, I don't know that any of our players would get into the school by themselves right now, with the academic standards the way they are. Maybe one or two of our players that are on scholarship.
So, making sure that with the rigors that we put them in -- playing on the road, playing night games, getting home at 4 o'clock in the morning, all of the demands that we place on them relative to the academics, and going into an incredibly competitive academic classroom every day -- we recognize this is a different group.
And we have to provide all the resources necessary for them to succeed and don't force them into finding shortcuts.
I think we've clearly identified that we need to do better. And we're not afraid to look at any shortcomings that we do have and fix them.
Click here for the full article.
I'm not a Brian Kelly fan at all. Dare I say that he handled this well? I think it was an honest and accurate assessment. Interesting that it mirrors what Mattison said to that recruit (forget which one) that got blown way out of proportion.
The only time I hear Brian Kelly is when he's yelling, so I don't even know what his normal voice sounds like. Grouchy Smurf maybe?
Maybe yelling is his normal voice.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
It's always been a problem, and awareness of it is always a good thing.
Softball and baseball players likely do not have as large of a problem because softball and baseball do not attract as many poor, at-risk youth players as football and basketball do. They're almost certainly more academically qualified when they walk in the door, and so they're going to have an easier time with classes.
at least imo probably have it the hardest. At least with football most games are on Saturday and you're missing very little class time. With basketball you have games all 7 days of the week and due to TV they might have a game that isn't starting until 9pm eastern time. A weekday away game at say PSU means they are missing class the day of the game and probably not getting back to their dorm/apartment until the sun is almost coming up the next day. On top of that the amount of class time the players miss due to conference tourneys, the NCAA tourney and possible early season tourneys is huge.
athletes to a high academic standard, unlike many other places.
I probably agree with what he is trying to say, but he shouldn't have said it. This is kinda what got him in trouble a long time ago when he was a HS coach in Michigan. If I remember correctly he basically said intercity athletes are poor and stupid so we shouldn't expect any more out of them. In my mind, that is the WRONG answer.
What players he chooses to select or any other coach for that matter is his choice. Stanford doesn't accept kids that don't meet academic standards and they do just fine.
He's not saying that we "shouldn't expect any more out of them." He's saying this is a problem we need to try to address. And he's 100% right. More coaches need to be willing to talk about this.
And don't make it seem like he has the luxary of only selecting kids that will succeed in school. Brady Hoke graduated lots of players who were pretty academically successful, and he got run out of town on a rail. Coaches have to win games, and academic considerations will always be secondary at a major power like ND.
of integrity (given what's happend in his past), but I think he's found himself pushed into a corner the last couple years, with the various academic problems that nd has had. I don't think he's speaking only from a narrow nd perspective, but probably trying to voice that the problem is ncaa-wide, and that more and more coaches will be having the same kinds of trouble unless the system is changed. You can talk about shifting demographics and good weather all you want, but the main advantage that the SEC has is their advantage in recruiting "borderline" student atheletes. For schools like nd and UM to keep up, they have to take more chances, and those chances sometimes blow up in your face. I certainly don't begrudge any kid getting the chance to go to college for free, I envy them, but the rigor of college isn't for everyone. There needs to be an alternative for a promising young athlete (someone like Kelly Baraka, for instance), who's not cut out for college, but who's not quite ready to pursue a professional career. I don't understand, with the ingenuity that we have here in this country, how we continue to cram college down the throats of hundreds of kids each year, who really don't belong, or even want to be there.
it's a choice, one we all have to make coming out of HS, to make the sacrifice for a better future by continuing on with school, or take a little worse job now to make money but possibly limit our long term earning potential.
And using Kelly Baraka as an example is, quite frankly, ridiculous. He was nothing more than an idiot pot head who couldn't stop getting caught smoking the mary jane(and if anyone who has ever known a college athlete is to be believed, plenty of them manage to smoke without getting caught). Baraka was just stupid, a talented athlete sure, but stupid.
You want a real example look at Brandon Jennings, instead of going to Louisville, the college route, he went to Israel or Europe or something, and got paid for a year before getting drafted into the NBA. He may have slipped in the draft some as a result, but he got to do what he wanted to do and didn't have to go to college to do it, so the option exists, it's just that not many choose to use it.
There are options for football players as well, the CFL for example has no age requirement that I'm aware of, it's just that most American football players don't grow up dreaming of being the star player for the Montreal Alouettes, but they do dream of starring for Michigan, OSU, Bama, USC, ND etc.
I went to school with Kelly and graduated the year before. I remember telling him he should go to Michigan repeatedly every time I saw him. Then when he returned to Portage after striking out I yelled at him and told him how stupid it was for him to do what he did; I had bumped into him while visiting a friend of a friend.
He knew, even while he sat there listening and rolling a blunt, nodding his head as I told him. I had to remind him he would have been behind Perry and before Hart, running behind the best line in the nation, arguably. A far cry from the security given to him by the ol' PNHS Husky OL.
Those were the days...
/csb
I took what he said as applying to all his players - even the smart ones - due to the time and travel commitment all of them have. Even a 4.0 / 1400 SAT type is going to have a lot of challenges and prioritization conflicts during a semester (e.g., a major paper or lab due on Monday and a major exam to study for coming off a Saturday night road game).
I think he did a great job saying this in an encompassing way.
That's not what he said and he was never a HS coach.
Isn't this the exact thing that Mattison got kicked out of a recruit's house for saying?
That was exactly my first thought. I'll trust that Mattison handled it tactfully and his message probably misinterpreted. It's not Mattison's first rodeo and he knows what he's doing.
I don't think that there was any reason for Kelly to say that "maybe one or two" of his players would typically qualify to get into ND. It serves no purpose. Just say that "we provide all of the resources necessary for them to succeed" and leave it at that.
I wonder if he will admit that all of his players are also at risk of being catfished?
Didn't Mattison have the same pitch to the DE recruit from Omaha that became irate afterwards, that he would say that?
Daishon Neal's dad is pissed...
Always better to recognize the problem than pretend it's not there
Pretending it's not there leads to UNC-type scandals and other routes by which some athletes feel the need to cheat to get by
Brian Kelly is really... KILLING it out there.
Jesus, dude. Someone already made this in-poor-taste joke. Did you have to make it again?
I'll tell you a quick story, if I may.
Somewhere on Earth someone just died. Just now. And by the time you've read to this point a child has died, not just an elderly person. Another person just died.
And another.
It's ok to make jokes in any "taste." It's ok to laugh or not. You're going to die eventually. MIght as well have a good time while you're here.
Yep, lots of people die. That doesn't make you any less of an asshole for making a joke about one of those tragic deaths.
You are going to have an awful funeral, man.
Okay. For the record, I normally like your posts.
Well now... what was all of this "poor taste" stuff from a minute ago?
I normally like your posts. I did not like this particular post.
Really? I liked it. I thought it was smart and funny.
But not many people share my sense of humor.
Those deaths happened as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances on the part of the victim?
Or are we redefining "tragic" to mean "something bad"?
Redefining? I didn't consult the dictionary before I used the word, but I was thinking along these lines:
Yep... I guess we are redefining the word.
Uggg... another case of common misuse leading to new definitions.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
except for the fact that for athletics (at least the big three) Michigan only goes by the NCAA Clearinghouse level and not normal admissions
I thought for a second Brian Kelly was getting a little too over the top with these comments. He got a little shaky, but then he came crashing back down to Earth. He kills me.
May as well go to the rape and suicide jokes next. I know they're in the holster.
Well I mean... David Carradine.
Batting 0/2, Dudeness. Whiffed on the first attempt at that joke, then doubled down as though people didn't get it the first time. The Fugitive went there with the very first comment, then IB6UB9 followed and also got a pretty uneven response. Tasteless and unoriginal, with a side of not funny. Always a winning combination.
Thanks, man. It really means a lot coming from an anonymous internet poster.
And the points, my god the points. I mean what was I thinking risking the points like that? Everytime I post, just before I click save, I think "Is this worth the points? What if your jokes aren't good? What if you don't play it right?" I mean there is a lot to be considered before posting, you know?
Thanks for setting me down the right path though, man. I have a lot of reflecting to do.
At the risk of insulting the Blobfish, I'm guessing your reflection looks something like this:
And you are critiquing jokes?
Just having a bit of fun, as I realize you are. So please- do your thing with the re-tread dead kid jokes. I did mine with the unfounded implication that you're ugly. Probably the first and last time.
With love,
Sam from Chicago (to get the anonymity thing out of the way)
Glad to see many have decided to use a kids death to get their punchlines in
Thinks you are funny. Stop being such a tool.