Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="huskymedic, post: 2359744, member: 549"] That's the point Dana O'Neil makes above in the article Bilas retweeted (post #78): >>The NCAA has, throughout its history, often steered away from academic issues, positioning itself as the governing body of athletics and insisting that accrediting agencies and the like are in charge of curriculum and coursework. Its phonebook-thick rulebook includes plenty of rules on initial eligibility requirements and maintaining good academic standing but it says nothing about determining what counts as a proper college course and what doesn’t. “It’s ultimately up to universities to determine whether or not the courses for which they’re giving credit, the degrees for which they’re passing out diplomas, live up to the academic standards of higher education,’’ NCAA president Mark Emmert said in 2015.<< >>Case precedent follows Emmert’s thinking. Ten years ago a Michigan professor taught nearly 300 independent study classes over a three-year period, athletes making up 85 percent of the class rosters. An Auburn professor taught more than 200 independent study courses in one year that required virtually no work and included 18 football players on the Tigers’ 2004 football roster. The NCAA did not charge either school with anything relating to the academic courses, decisions North Carolina cited in its argument. This North Carolina case, then, could be a direct pivot on the NCAA’s positioning, one with far-reaching ramifications.<< [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach