Quote:NCAA board votes to penalize schools whose athletes struggle in class
BY ALAN SCHMADTKE
The Orlando Sentinel
(KRT) - Calling it "a sea change in college sports," NCAA President Myles Brand heralded a new set of academic reforms voted in Thursday by the Division I Board of Directors - reforms that would penalize schools that don't keep athletes eligible and fail to graduate them.
Under guidelines that go into effect over the next three years, coaches whose players become academically ineligible and don't graduate will find themselves losing scholarships and, if poor performance is ongoing, being removed from postseason consideration.
"This is landmark legislation," Brand said. "We will need to implement these and hold strong."
As part of the reform, the way the NCAA calculates graduation rates will change. The association will start giving schools credit for athletes who transfer in and then graduate. The NCAA will start tracking students for the new rule beginning with the 2004-05 freshman class.
The Committee on Academic Performance will administer the new system, which includes two sets of penalties - contemporaneous and historical. "Contemporaneous" relates to the immediate loss of scholarships, and "historical" relates to the postseason ban for programs whose athletes continually haven't made the grade in the classroom.
Scholarships could start being eliminated in the fall of 2006, and postseason bans could hit in the fall of 2008. The board wants to study three years of academic progress data before hammering programs with postseason penalties.
Board chairman Robert E. Hemenway, chancellor at Kansas, had a message to future college athletes: "We're going to do everything in our power to determine that you graduate."
NCAA leaders view Thursday's action as forcing accountability on coaches and athletic departments in much the same way other decisions have forced accountability on athletes. Earlier academic reform packages, for instance, increased the number of core courses athletes must pass in high school to get into college and increased the amount of coursework an athlete must pass a year to keep his eligibility.
This fall, the NCAA will send a letter to every Division I school outlining the status of each of the school's sports had the reforms already been in place. That's to highlight which sports have the most work ahead.
An NCAA committee is studying where to draw a so-called "cutline"_the dividing line for all sports. The cutline has to be drawn before the NCAA's evaluation letters can be prepared.
"This reform is not just targeted at football or basketball. It's targeted at all sports," Hemenway said.
There are schools out there that literally have 0% graduation rates for players in a particular sport. (Cincy's basketball program comes to mind). Although we have engaged in rather heated debates about the wisdom or desirability of the I-A football rules, this is one on which we should all agree.
It's certainly well-intentioned, but one suspects the NCAA will need more than the six additional investigators they've hired to keep up with allegations of academic fraud. You don't have to be Linda Bensel-Meyers to think that this creates some funny incentives.
(This also reminds me of a story older Duke grads tell about the once-famous "Cunningham curve" at Carolina. According to legend, Billy Cunningham always got a C in his classes, and everyone else's grade was adjusted accordingly.
)
I have a vision of graduation rates and grade point averages skyrocketing, and a whole slew of Dexter Manleys being unleashed on society.
Academic Fraud will become the most rampant cause of NCAA probation, and 70% of those who commit the violation will never be caught because the teachers will be involved, due to the million dollar pressures from school presidents who talk a big game but cower behind the almighty dollar.
The only problem I see with this is the way they calculate "graduation rate". If a kid leaves school early for the NFL or NBA, that counts against the school. Or, if a kid transfers to another school and graduates, that counts against his original school. It seems to me that those two factors should not count against a school, especially if they are using these numbers to determine postseason berths, etc.
IndyFalcon Wrote:The only problem I see with this is the way they calculate "graduation rate". If a kid leaves school early for the NFL or NBA, that counts against the school. Or, if a kid transfers to another school and graduates, that counts against his original school. It seems to me that those two factors should not count against a school, especially if they are using these numbers to determine postseason berths, etc.
I agree that the graduation rate logic is a bit flawed. I thought I read somewhere that it was being examined, though. For instance, now I think a transfer from another school who graduates at the new school does not count towards the rate. In the future, they might count after all. The concept of this new rule makes sense, but the process still needs some work.
If athletes at your school, whenever they started, graduate from your school, they should count. If they drop out to pursue a career outside of your school (be it dealing crack, becoming a politician, or playing pro sports) or go to another school, they should not count. Perhaps then schools would not be so eager to recruit athletes who only want to stay for a couple of years, or have no business being in college at all. Perhaps they will treat athletes better, be more honest with them, and cut down on the transfers.
IndyFalcon Wrote:The only problem I see with this is the way they calculate "graduation rate". If a kid leaves school early for the NFL or NBA, that counts against the school. Or, if a kid transfers to another school and graduates, that counts against his original school. It seems to me that those two factors should not count against a school, especially if they are using these numbers to determine postseason berths, etc.
With respect to the transfers, the Sentinel said the following:
Quote:As part of the reform, the way the NCAA calculates graduation rates will change. The association will start giving schools credit for athletes who transfer in and then graduate. The NCAA will start tracking students for the new rule beginning with the 2004-05 freshman class.
A kid leaving early for the pros wasn't mentioned so I'll be curoius what will come of that.
Essency Wrote:IndyFalcon Wrote:The only problem I see with this is the way they calculate "graduation rate". If a kid leaves school early for the NFL or NBA, that counts against the school. Or, if a kid transfers to another school and graduates, that counts against his original school. It seems to me that those two factors should not count against a school, especially if they are using these numbers to determine postseason berths, etc.
With respect to the transfers, the Sentinel said the following:
Quote:As part of the reform, the way the NCAA calculates graduation rates will change. The association will start giving schools credit for athletes who transfer in and then graduate. The NCAA will start tracking students for the new rule beginning with the 2004-05 freshman class.
A kid leaving early for the pros wasn't mentioned so I'll be curoius what will come of that.
That's just for transfers in, not transfers out. The rate should reflect those that attended your school with the intention of graduating from your school (or at least working that direction), not those that purposely left early.
axeme Wrote:If athletes at your school, whenever they started, graduate from your school, they should count. If they drop out to pursue a career outside of your school (be it dealing crack, becoming a politician, or playing pro sports) or go to another school, they should not count. Perhaps then schools would not be so eager to recruit athletes who only want to stay for a couple of years, or have no business being in college at all. Perhaps they will treat athletes better, be more honest with them, and cut down on the transfers.
OK.
So a kid shouldn't leave school for a $20 million dollar signing bonus and a three year guaranteed contract worth another $10 mil.
Oh, wait, neither should a kid leave for the NBA so he can get his $100 million contract.
I don't know what they taught you in school, but if I could have left school to start my profession earning that type of money, I'd put my college education on the shelf, without a second thought.
I'd leave to.
Schools should recruit athletes that are more interested in a college degree than being professional athletes. Student first. Athlete second. Student-athlete. It's quite a concept. Maybe it will cut down on the schools whose only priority is winning ball games and not giving a damn about anything else, particularly whether they educate theri athletes or not.
Let the football factory whining begin.
Schools should pay the price when they recruit athletes who may only be there 1 or 2 years and whose main priority is getting trained for the pros. That should not be the college's mission.
axeme Wrote:I'd leave to.
Schools should recruit athletes that are more interested in a college degree than being professional athletes. Student first. Athlete second. Student-athlete. It's quite a concept. Maybe it will cut down on the schools whose only priority is winning ball games and not giving a damn about anything else, particularly whether they educate theri athletes or not.
Let the football factory whining begin.
Schools should pay the price when they recruit athletes who may only be there 1 or 2 years and whose main priority is getting trained for the pros. That should not be the college's mission.
Would you blame the University if a sophomore DJ on the college radio station got a $100,000 offer to DJ at the big city station?
Herd Swimming Wrote:axeme Wrote:If athletes at your school, whenever they started, graduate from your school, they should count. If they drop out to pursue a career outside of your school (be it dealing crack, becoming a politician, or playing pro sports) or go to another school, they should not count. Perhaps then schools would not be so eager to recruit athletes who only want to stay for a couple of years, or have no business being in college at all. Perhaps they will treat athletes better, be more honest with them, and cut down on the transfers.
OK.
So a kid shouldn't leave school for a $20 million dollar signing bonus and a three year guaranteed contract worth another $10 mil.
Oh, wait, neither should a kid leave for the NBA so he can get his $100 million contract.
I don't know what they taught you in school, but if I could have left school to start my profession earning that type of money, I'd put my college education on the shelf, without a second thought.
Sadly, this is how money was warped the entire set of morals in the U.S.
(It's sick we actually pay athletes that kind of money)
Quote:(It's sick we actually pay athletes that kind of money)
I beg to differ. Athletes are paid what they are paid because we like to see them throw a baseball or shoot a basketball or run with a football. Period. It's the free market at work. For that matter, how much money did you give to your school's athletic programs last year (and the purchase of tickets is included in your giving) vs. their academic programs?
HuskieDan Wrote:axeme Wrote:I'd leave to.
Schools should recruit athletes that are more interested in a college degree than being professional athletes. Student first. Athlete second. Student-athlete. It's quite a concept. Maybe it will cut down on the schools whose only priority is winning ball games and not giving a damn about anything else, particularly whether they educate theri athletes or not.
Let the football factory whining begin.
Schools should pay the price when they recruit athletes who may only be there 1 or 2 years and whose main priority is getting trained for the pros. That should not be the college's mission.
Would you blame the University if a sophomore DJ on the college radio station got a $100,000 offer to DJ at the big city station?
Blame?
No, but I'd count it as a student who enrolled for a while, then dropped out, which is simply the truth. Why they leave is their business. That they leave should be noted. If it's a rare instance, an unusual case, it will make little difference in the statistics long term. That a team has a player now and again who goes pro won't affect them much. But schools who recruit routinely players who can't cut it academically, or have lots of them who are
only there to further their athletic rather than academic careers should have this counted against them. It's not the Carmelo Anthony's and Mike Williams who are going to drag a team's numbers down. It's a consistent pattern of recruiting that will get exposed.
The Knight Time Wrote:Herd Swimming Wrote:axeme Wrote:If athletes at your school, whenever they started, graduate from your school, they should count. If they drop out to pursue a career outside of your school (be it dealing crack, becoming a politician, or playing pro sports) or go to another school, they should not count. Perhaps then schools would not be so eager to recruit athletes who only want to stay for a couple of years, or have no business being in college at all. Perhaps they will treat athletes better, be more honest with them, and cut down on the transfers.
OK.
So a kid shouldn't leave school for a $20 million dollar signing bonus and a three year guaranteed contract worth another $10 mil.
Oh, wait, neither should a kid leave for the NBA so he can get his $100 million contract.
I don't know what they taught you in school, but if I could have left school to start my profession earning that type of money, I'd put my college education on the shelf, without a second thought.
Sadly, this is how money was warped the entire set of morals in the U.S.
(It's sick we actually pay athletes that kind of money)
I'm sorry, I fail to see where morality comes into play here.
Are you saying that you went to college merely so you could have an education, with no goals or aspirations as a result?
Personally, I went to college to get an education that would enable me to gain the type of employment that would enable me to have a family that didn't have to live off of others and the type that would allow my kids to gain an education of their choosing when they reached college age.
If someone had offered me $100,000 per year as a college freshman to come and work for them, with the promise of continued employment, I'd have been gone, gone gone.
Does that make me immoral?
Capitalism isn't immoral. It is the basis of our society.
If a guy/gal can get a wad of cash for reading poetry then fine. If the same person can earn his/her living from teaching, fine.
If that person can earn their living from reasearch, or as an artist, or as a scholar, fine.
Earning your living through athletics, which entertains MILLIONS each year, is no different.