Another "Jock" School Punished by the NCAA | The Boneyard

Another "Jock" School Punished by the NCAA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
1,208
Reaction Score
1,376
To anyone that has the NYT counting your "reads," this won't count; except for me.
July 16, 2012
"Throw the Book at Penn State

By JOE NOCERA

You just can’t make up a coincidence like this.
On Thursday, the same day Louis Freeh, the former director of .B.I., issued his damning report about the cover-up of Jerry Sandusky’s sexual crimes by the Penn State hierarchy, the N.C.A.A. lowered the boom on — are you ready for this? — the California Institute of Technology.
One of the world’s great engineering schools, Caltech is never going to be mistaken for Penn State as an athletic force. With fewer than 1,000 undergraduates, it is a Division III school, which means, among other things, that it doesn’t grant athletic scholarships. Its basketball team ekes out about five wins a season, and its baseball team, according to The Times, has lost 227 games in a row. At Caltech, unlike your typical athletic powerhouse, “student-athletes” truly are students.
Part of being a student at Caltech means “shopping” for courses for the first three weeks of each trimester. Students are allowed to sample classes before they have to register for them. “During those three weeks,” read an N.C.A.A. press release issued on Thursday, “because they were not actually registered in some or all of the courses they are attending, some students were not enrolled on a full-time basis.” And part-time students, you see, are not allowed to play intercollegiate athletics. Between 2007 and 2010, according to the N.C.A.A., this happened with 30 athletes in 12 sports.
It would be hard to imagine a more frivolous violation of the rules — or one that could do less harm to the integrity of college sports. What’s more, Caltech turned itself in after a new athletic director realized that the practice of shopping for classes probably violated N.C.A.A. rules. Yet the punishment imposed on the school was severe: three years of probation, a postseason ban in a dozen sports, the erasure of wins and individual records that were gained with ineligible athletes, and more. Indeed, Caltech was cited for “a lack of institutional control,” which is pretty much the worst thing you can be accused of in N.C.A.A.-speak.
In the wake of the Freeh report, there has been a lot of speculation about what punishment the N.C.A.A. should impose on Penn State — and even whether the Sandusky scandal is within its purview. I’m in the camp that says the N.C.A.A. should throw the book at Penn State. The legal system will take care of whether others besides Sandusky deserve to go to prison for failing to report his predatory behavior. Penn State itself will almost surely finish the painful process of removing the halo from the head of its late coach, Joe Paterno, which the Freeh report has begun. But only the N.C.A.A. can impose the so-called death penalty, forcing Penn State to shut down its football program for a period of time. Yes, it would make a mess of television schedules, not to mention the rest of Penn State’s athletic teams — which rely on the revenue that football generates — but it’s the only way to send the right message.
That message is this: no university should ever be as beholden to its football program as Penn State was. At other big-time sports schools, there are all kinds of daily hypocrisies that people avert their eyes from in the name of college football or men’s basketball. Sadly, we accept these hypocrisies as the price to be paid for the money college sports generates and the entertainment it provides.
But at Penn State, football was of such overweening importance — and Paterno was such a godlike figure — that a sexual predator was allowed to roam free because of his association with football. A janitor spots Sandusky in the shower with a boy but is afraid to say anything because crossing Paterno “would have been like going against the president of the United States.” Sandusky uses the lure of the football program to attract his victims. Paterno and others in the Penn State chain of command, in Freeh’s words, “repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky’s child abuse” — to avoid bad publicity for the football program. A great university sold its soul to its football team.
As regular readers know, I don’t have much faith in the N.C.A.A. It has congealed into a bureaucracy that cares only about enforcing its rules, no matter how silly or retrograde. But here is a chance to put its money where its mouth is. The N.C.A.A. proclaims that part of its mission is to “integrate athletics into higher education.” If it really believes that, it will impose the death penalty on Penn State, to send a signal that no school should put football above its own integrity.
Anything less than that will send another signal entirely. Namely, that in the eyes of the N.C.A.A., what happened at Penn State is no worse than what happened at Caltech."

upnext_rest.png
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,285
Reaction Score
9,284
I thought I was reading The Onion for a second. You just can't make this stuff up.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,913
Reaction Score
10,324
If the NCAA is going to use these type of standards to judge the "lack of institutional control" it should be very interesting to see how they come down on UNC for having students registered for fake courses that never met, and the signitures of professors were forged.

The University of North Carolina is currently in some hot water. In a report published by The News & Observer, several North Carolina football players took classes that had little to no instruction at all. At the head of the claim is one course in particular: AFAM 280: Blacks in North Carolina. Out of the 19 students enrolled in the class, 18 were football players. In addition, it was revealed that "football and basketball players made up a majority of the enrollments of nine particularly suspect classes in which the professors listed as instructors have denied involvement, and have claimed that signatures were forged on records related to them."

Is there a more blantant example of "lack of institutional control" than an educational institution having fake classes and grades.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
2,044
Reaction Score
1,870
Is there a more blantant example of "lack of institutional control" than an educational institution having fake classes and grades.

as long as the players got good grades in those fake classes the NCAA won't punish them as much as failing real classes. one of the many reasons the NCAA is ridiculous
 

CL82

NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions - Again!
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
59,550
Reaction Score
222,813
as long as the players got good grades in those fake classes the NCAA won't punish them as much as failing real classes. one of the many reasons the NCAA is ridiculous

..or leaving early to play professionally with otherwise good grades:rolleyes:
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,985
Reaction Score
2,846
I can't wait to compare Cal Tech's penalty with the one Miami gets.


Probably going to have to wait awhile for that. Seems like the NCAA has its hands full sorting it all out, and they don't move too quickly.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
1,684
Reaction Score
2,889
The NCAA isn't looking at these latest UNC allegations. It is better to cheat and retain players' eligibilty by no- show classes, fake grades,etc. then to accurately report APR numbers:

"But there's little indication the NCAA is investigating another scandal that arguably paints a much darker picture: dozens of bogus classes largely attended by athletes that were offered by the longtime chairman of the Department of African and Afro-American Studies.

The NCAA has said practically nothing about the academic fraud. UNC officials have said it does not constitute an NCAA violation because non-athletes had also been enrolled in the bogus classes and were not treated differently. They have consistently said the bogus classes were not hatched to keep athletes eligible to play....

Asked for a response to the internal report that showed 54 bogus classes, NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn sent an email with a link to the press release announcing the sanctions levied from the previous investigation."

"Any additional questions," she wrote, "should be directed to the university."


Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/07/12/2195296/on-north-carolina-class-scandal.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/07/12/2195296/on-north-carolina-class-scandal.html#storylink=cpy
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
1,208
Reaction Score
1,376
..or leaving early to play professionally with otherwise good grades:rolleyes:

Another Nocera column (listed under his name on NYT's "More Opinion" page) entitled: " Majoring in Eligibility" tells the story of a football player who, when admitted, (Memphis and please don't) could "barely read" and now, after four years, is reading and writing at, what the author describes, a seventh grade level. The article, obviously tweaking the NCAA eligibility rules, also noted how this type of "athletic admission" dilutes all under grad diplomas given by the subject institution. Finally, he quoted the player: (I'll paraphrase) "now that I can read, I need to understand what it is I'm reading."
As I read, I noticed that the column's description was consistent with "Upstater's" views on the non-relationship between APR and graduation.
I also remembered Edsel kind of half-complaining about UCONN's admission standards and the fact that UCONN doesn't provide the type of major that allows players to "hide."
Finally, I wondered if Nocera has body guards. He seems to have made NCAA rules and enforcement methods a favorite target. The things he addresses and the way he addresses them, in numerous columns, must royally piss-off the NCAA. It seems to irritate the hell out of his core readers as well who, seemingly, want Nocera to return to and stick with issues having more gravitas. Snobs!
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
22,817
Reaction Score
9,456
The NCAA has a lot of issues to address with how they monitor things.

Graduation rates should most definitely be heavily monitored. Schools that are taking kids in for athletics with no intentions of really having them graduate would stand out very quickly.

As far as scores/ things like that.

Upstater - if you're reading - is it normal practice to somehow have a scale in an academic curriculum to rate the difficulty of one course vs. another course? I don't know if that exists.

If it does, it would make things simple for the NCAA, or any monitoring organization. A scaled scoring system for grade reporting

You attribute a score that's based not just on the grade, but the course difficulty - maybe by course hours / credits or something.

(i.e. getting a B or even a C in say a chemistry or biology class with 5-6 hours of lecture a week and a 4 hour lab, should have more weight than earning an A in a 3 hour a week night time lecture., or a 1 credit PE class or something, and if you're getting A's in those hard classes.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,743
Reaction Score
48,443
The NCAA has a lot of issues to address with how they monitor things.

Graduation rates should most definitely be heavily monitored. Schools that are taking kids in for athletics with no intentions of really having them graduate would stand out very quickly.

As far as scores/ things like that.

Upstater - if you're reading - is it normal practice to somehow have a scale in an academic curriculum to rate the difficulty of one course vs. another course? I don't know if that exists.

If it does, it would make things simple for the NCAA, or any monitoring organization. A scaled scoring system for grade reporting

You attribute a score that's based not just on the grade, but the course difficulty - maybe by course hours / credits or something.

(i.e. getting a B or even a C in say a chemistry or biology class with 5-6 hours of lecture a week and a 4 hour lab, should have more weight than earning an A in a 3 hour a week night time lecture., or a 1 credit PE class or something, and if you're getting A's in those hard classes.

Graduation rates have absolutely no relation to the APR.

There is something called GSR that the NCAA cooked up. It's a gas. Basically, it measures how many of your students graduated who DIDN'T transfer or leave early for the pros.

So, how many of your students went through 2 or 3 years of schooling and stalled in their major and didn't make it to the end? But, if these kids transferred out to a community college or 2 year school, you're fine. If they dropped out to play in the Korean league, you're fine.

Assuming 4 bball kids per year are brought into schools, then we might say over a 5 year period you have about 20 kids. If 19 transfer or go to the pros, and one of your kids graduates, your score is 100% on the GSR. If none of your kids transfers or goes to the pros, and 10 of 20 graduate, your score is 50%.

I would never want the NCAA PR machine anywhere near my curriculum even if there were a way to weight such courses. I don't even believe in that breakdown not only between disciplines and majors, but interdepartmentally. I wouldn't even weight my own courses in such a fashion even though I know that I tend to give higher grades for one type of course than another. In my Lit. courses, there's a great deal of reading and discussion, but only 2 opportunities to grade over the semester. I give plenty of As, few Bs, lots of Cs and many Ds. Average for the course is B-. In my writing classes, I let them know that they will be doing an immense amount of work for the class, graded weekly, and that I';l give them credit for amount of work and improvement (i.e. editing). Half the kids drop the class after realizing what's in store (though many more want to add it) and at the end, I give almost all As or Bs with a failure or two. Cs are rare. Average grade in that class is B+/A-. Which should be weighted as more difficult? Beats me.

In general, intro classes are easier than upper level classes in the major. But people are different, so it's impossible to say whether a student with evident abilities in math and the sciences would even succeed in some of the courses I teach. some of those science students are my best students, some struggle mightily to put a good sentence together. I imagine the same is true of liberal arts kids. Some have great aptitude with math but prefer liberal arts. I would never want weighing these courses against one another. We always tend to assess what we're teaching and always weigh practicality. It's part of teaching. If someone isn't thinking all the time of the value of their own work and classes, then they aren't good teachers.

In the end, there's only one thing the NCAA should be interested in: higher admission standards so that Memphis can't do what it did. After that, it should be up to the schools. I would also recommend that the NCAA redefine what it means to be a student athlete in good standing. At most, bball players should be halftime during the spring, perhaps even less than that. And definitely not full-time students.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
22,817
Reaction Score
9,456
didn't think anything like that existed.

I just know qualitatively, that my B's in my courses, we're worth a hell of a lot more than the A's in some other courses I saw others get when I was an undergrad student. Quantitative? Not sure how to go about differentiating that way. B is B, and A is A.

I know the NCAA already has standards for eligibility, based on core high school curriculum requirements. The problem is enforcing it, because if the high school transcript says it's there....well....you have to assume that it is, and I'd bet for that kid in Memphis, when the paperwork went in for eligibility, it was all in order.

I do think that it's ridiculous that the NCAA can penalize a program for a bunch of kids getting C's and D's in chemistry or physics, and reward a school for kids getting A's in 1 or 2 hour a week PE classes.

Don't know how to fix it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
308
Guests online
2,435
Total visitors
2,743

Forum statistics

Threads
160,166
Messages
4,219,585
Members
10,082
Latest member
Basingstoke


.
Top Bottom