Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="boog204, post: 2370153, member: 880"] I'm a little late to this party... So is the basic premise that the NCAA has concluded that even though these classes were worthless and with a total lack of academic creditability, that they are acceptable because they were not created solely for athletes? While the lack of NCAA action is disgusting, I do see their point in stating that they cannot punish a school for the classes it creates *if* the entire student body does have access to it. It's morally/ethically idiotic, but I do get the stance. If so, UNC found itself quite an amazing loophole and essentially every school can (and should if they are not already) do this. Any notion of the student athlete was destroyed years ago, but this officially states it. When I was at UConn, there was always a rush to try and take Geology 101 (Rocks for Jocks). It was a large class ~350 (AS55) and it was about 85% athletes. It was simple. Two exams, all of the notes were provided and you could pass/fail it with no effect on GPA. It was also a pre-req so it aided with graduation. The other class was French 169 (Studies in the French Speaking World). It was basically myself, one other dude, and then the soccer, field hockey, and volleyball teams (those femininas' were gorgeous!) Much of the class was done in French. I do not then nor now speak French. Got an A. Obviously, a bit different than UNC's system, but I think every big time university has their "athlete" courses. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach