Piggybacking on the poll about Rice having a football program.

After what has transpired with the NCAA and UNC, it is crystal clear that the NCAA has zero influence, control or honestly, desire, to handle the shenanigans and dirty underbelly of college athletics. UNC is just the latest in a steady stream of incidents that shine light on the slimy machinations that permeate the upper echelons and powers-that-be in College Athletics.

In this light, Rice should immediately and proactively announce its decision to sever ties with the NCAA. Doing so would be, for starters, the right thing to do. In addition, for a university who's motto is "unconventional wisdom", this would be the most unconventional move that Rice could make. From a self serving perspective, this would give Rice unprecedented media attention, shining a light on Rice's mission of higher education and desire to not sully themselves by associating with the aforementioned underbelly.

Sports do not constitute an integral part of Rice - despite the feeling of the board (this is not a representative sample in either interest groups or age). athletics at Rice are but an afterthought, something occurring on the same parcel of land, but with little to no overlap. The average student at Rice does not care about or follow Rice Athletics. As a matter of fact, athletic attendance is declining across the entire country. As a result of athletics not featuring, the people who really truly miss athletics will be a small number and almost exclusively former athletes and alumni from decades past.

Finally, there is the dollars and cents issue. Rice athletics has a TV contract with C-USA that pays out 200 thousand dollars a year, insufficient to pay even 1/4th of Bailiff's salary. Dropping athletics saves millions of dollars a year that could be appropriated elsewhere to the betterment of the school as a whole.

from a personal perspective, I enjoy Rice athletics (well, not the dumpster fire we hve in football). I appreciate the fact that Rice is committed to running a clean program and not participating in the dodgy under-the-table activities that go on elsewhere. But at some point, the fact must be accepted that the well we swim in is contaminated; this contamination is an anathema to the mission of the University and Higher Education as a whole.

Continued participation is an endorsement, albeit indirectly, to this contamination. Between the absurdly high pay scales for poor performance, the tax games played by the bowl game organizers, to the shady sponsorship and seat license "donation" games, the well is poisoned badly. (For more details read this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshfreedma...-football/)

It is time to live up to that Unconventional Wisdom tagline. To Leebron and the Board of Trustees - take a bold step, be visionary, take a real step; make a difference.

To quote Nicolas Klein (via Chamath Palihapitiya, venture capitalist and board member of the Golden State Warriors )
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win

Can this wait until after the soccer game?

Since you've become so anti-sports at Rice, why did bother to come back to the Parliament? Why waste your time?

I'm not trying to be snarky. Just curious.

(10-13-2017 07:23 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Since you've become so anti-sports at Rice, why did bother to come back to the Parliament? Why waste your time?

I'm not trying to be snarky. Just curious.

I'm still a fan - and a sports fan in general.

That said, after seeing the collapse in revenue for the department from TV contracts, the retaining of Bailiff (with no signs of it stopping), Rice getting disparaged and laughed at on national TV and the NCAA once again sweeping serious issues under the rug, the question I asked myself was, is this in the best interest of the University anymore?

Given that question above, this seemed like a good place to make that thought heard.

The more general question is that, after the UNC 'no bill' investigation, is the NCAA a dead man walking? Seems to me that the NCAA just may become a superfluous shell after this with no real power to exercise.

That would make the question of Rice walking away somewhat moot.

Quite good article on the UNC thing: https://www.theringer.com/2017/10/13/164...n-findings

Pretty simply, since it wasn't exclusively an athletic department thing (more specifically, since it didn't interfere with the amateurism issue), it wasn't really the NCAA's jurisdiction (same way penalizing Penn State athletically for the Sandusky thing wans't really their jurisdiction and many of those penalties got lifted eventually, though I think it's much less clear-cut here). Given the penalties that the NCAA has handed down for other things that weren't academics-based recently (the Louisville penalties, the complete shellacking Indiana went through after the Kelvin Sampson fiasco, USC vacating the BCS championship), I don't think they're completely unwilling to penalize, but there wasn't something they could penalize over here.

UNC the school was penalized as harshly by their accreditation organization (SACS) as they could be without accreditation being revoked, so I think (however bad it looks) the matter was appropriately penalized. Even if the NCAA were to hand down further penalties, WBB and football were far more at fault than MBB.

The amateurism question, on the other hand, is its own matter. I can see the argument for Rice leaving the NCAA because it would enable them to more appropriately compensate their student athletes for the extra work they do above and beyond, especially given this. Not outright hiring ringers to play football, but I don't think anyone here would disagree that playing football at Rice (or running cross country at Rice or playing soccer at Rice) is slightly more strenuous of a student job than camping out at the reference desk in Fondren. But that's its own entirely different argument.

(10-14-2017 01:09 PM)Antarius Wrote:  ... the question I asked myself was, is this in the best interest of the University anymore?

Given that question above, this seemed like a good place to make that thought heard.

Antarius ... Since is was a question, even to yourself, and not a personal assertion ... I think you should edit the title/subject of this thread to add a question mark at its end.

(10-14-2017 05:17 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  Quite good article on the UNC thing: https://www.theringer.com/2017/10/13/164...n-findings

Pretty simply, since it wasn't exclusively an athletic department thing (more specifically, since it didn't interfere with the amateurism issue), it wasn't really the NCAA's jurisdiction (same way penalizing Penn State athletically for the Sandusky thing wans't really their jurisdiction and many of those penalties got lifted eventually, though I think it's much less clear-cut here). Given the penalties that the NCAA has handed down for other things that weren't academics-based recently (the Louisville penalties, the complete shellacking Indiana went through after the Kelvin Sampson fiasco, USC vacating the BCS championship), I don't think they're completely unwilling to penalize, but there wasn't something they could penalize over here.

UNC the school was penalized as harshly by their accreditation organization (SACS) as they could be without accreditation being revoked, so I think (however bad it looks) the matter was appropriately penalized. Even if the NCAA were to hand down further penalties, WBB and football were far more at fault than MBB.

The amateurism question, on the other hand, is its own matter. I can see the argument for Rice leaving the NCAA because it would enable them to more appropriately compensate their student athletes for the extra work they do above and beyond, especially given this. Not outright hiring ringers to play football, but I don't think anyone here would disagree that playing football at Rice (or running cross country at Rice or playing soccer at Rice) is slightly more strenuous of a student job than camping out at the reference desk in Fondren. But that's its own entirely different argument.

Thank you for the link. It is a good read. Independent of the NCAA's jurisdiction, the fact that it is happening and is permissible for universities (supposedly the bastion of learning) to have these easy classes that contribute nothing to higher education, learning or knowledge is the problem. And it is abundantly clear that in the absence of a blue-blood athletic program, these classes would not exist.

The damning statement is this one Per the Wainstein report, 47.4 percent of the identifiable class enrollments were comprised of athletes who otherwise made up just over 4 percent of the student body.

Coincidences like this just don't happen. And yes, the NCAA may not have had the authority or smoking gun to prove it, but do we (as a University) want to continue to associate with such behavior? Behavior that is an anathema to our mission as a university? Add this to Penn State, Baylor and others, the NCAA can't really do a thing. Rice should consider taking a stand against this.

My theory is that because it was UNC and UNC is MBB the NCAA didn’t want to do anything to take UNC out March Madness. The NCAA lost control of FBS football with the BCS effectively making the decisions for playoffs and TV. The cash cow for the NCAA is MBB, specifically March Madness. The NCAA took in almost $1B from the tournament last year and that money represents almost 90% of its annual revenue. Without UNC or the other 4 or 5 Big Dogs the ability to get contracts like the $10.8B 14 year deal signed in 2010 (and extended in 2016 to run through 2032) would be impossible. The cynic in me might even suggest that is why it was the FBI that busted Adidas and came down on Louisville instead of the NCAA.

Actually, I think the Ringer article completely glosses over the accreditation side of things. Interestingly enough, it notes that the university accepted the findings and penalty through the assessment of the accreditation agency. But according to a quick summary at the end of the Charlotte Observer article the Ringer author pointed to:

Quote:In its decision last year, SACS cited seven areas where the university didn’t meet standards: overall integrity; program content; control of intercollegiate athletics; academic support services; academic freedom; faculty role in governance; and compliance with provisions in federal financial aid law.

source: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/lo...64597.html

So things were bad enough on athletic controls, academic support services, and program content to get major sanctions from the accrediting agency, but there wasn't even a simple failure to control finding from the NCAA? This doesn't pass the smell test.

Here's the other concerning statement in that same article, which talked about the 200-page findings from UNC's investigation by an outside investigator:

Quote:The Wainstein report revealed an extensive pattern of academic fraud, including hundreds of fake independent studies and no-show classes in the African and Afro-American Studies department.

What? Fake classes? Everyone's defense focuses on the no-show classes, but fake classes is a completely different beast. If fake is the right adjective, then ineligible players were being used in games. This is why I'm focusing on the accreditation role in all of this, because if classes don't meet instructional standards, why are they able to keep anyone eligible?

While I'd love to get my hands on the Wainstein report, I wouldn't have the time to go through it. But I certainly would hope that some journalist wanting to look into this more would start there.

I take it back - I spent 10 minutes looking at it (start here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/e...37687.html ) and found this section. I believe these kinds of things was part of the problem at Rutgers.

Quote:Assigning Specific Grades upon Request: We found evidence that both Crowder and Nyang’oro received requests that they award specific grades to certain student-athletes. Those requests came from two persons – Associate Director of ASPSA and Director of Football Cynthia Reynolds and women’s basketball academic counselor Jan Boxill (“Boxill”).

According to Crowder, Reynolds routinely provided her at the beginning of each semester with a list of the football players registered in her paper classes and the grade that each player needed to remain in good standing.71 Crowder said that she ignored the grade suggestions, knowing full well that she would award any student who submitted a paper with a fairly high grade.

In addition to Reynolds’ grade guidance, our email review disclosed several instances where Boxill made specific grade suggestions for her women’s basketball players. In September 2008, for example, Boxill forwarded a paper on behalf of one of her players, to which Crowder responded that “[a]s long as I am here, I will try to accommodate as many favors as possible,” presumably signaling her willingness to grant grade requests up to the point of her retirement. As to that particular student’s paper, Crowder then said “Did you say a D will do for [the basketball player]? I’m only asking because 1. no sources, 2, it has absolutely nothing to do with the assignments for that class and 3. it seems to me to be a recycled paper. She took [another class] in spring of 2007 and that was likely for that class.” Boxill replied “Yes, a D will be fine; that’s all she needs. I didn’t look at the paper but figured it was a recycled one as well, but I couldn’t figure out from where.”

When we asked Crowder and Boxill about this exchange, they admitted their collusion on the grade, but explained that it had nothing to do with eligibility. This was a student-athlete whose playing days were over, who was on the verge of graduation and who needed only a passing grade to get her diploma. They simply ignored the glaring deficiencies in her paper so as to allow her to graduate.

Boxill continued these grade suggestions after Crowder retired. In July 2010, she sent an email to Gore, Crowder’s successor in the AFAM office, forwarding the paper for a woman’s basketball player who was taking a paper class. In the cover email, Boxill commented that the paper “is very good and informative. I would give it an A- or at least a B+.” Gore replied that the player “did a good job” on the paper, and that it “looks like an A- to me.” Boxill responded with one word – “GREAT!!!” – and the student was ultimately awarded an A- in the course.

When we pressed Gore about this exchange, he denied having assigned the A- himself, but suggested that he may well have passed Boxill’s suggestion on to Nyang’oro, who was the instructor of record for that paper class. Nyang’oro had no memory of that particular basketball player or of Boxill’s suggestion. He did acknowledge, however, that he would occasionally assign specific grades if asked to do so by Boxill. He recalled one particular situation when he gave a women’s basketball player a B+ even though he felt her paper was “terrible” and was a “clear F.” He assigned that grade because Boxill had suggested that he do so.

source: http://media2.newsobserver.com/smedia/20...So.156.pdf pp. 39-40

This is a bloody e-mail trail, for crying out loud. While UNC argued against some of the conclusions of the report (after making a big deal about it in front of the accreditation agency about their seriousness to getting to the bottom of things), seems to me there are at least a few factual areas they could have nailed them on. Secondary infractions, maybe, but letting them completely go?

BTW, it does appear the football and women's basketball team may have been the worse offenders, compared the higher-profile men's basketball team. But you're not going to convince me that UNC should have gotten off on everything.

(10-14-2017 09:30 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Actually, I think the Ringer article completely glosses over the accreditation side of things. Interestingly enough, it notes that the university accepted the findings and penalty through the assessment of the accreditation agency. But according to a quick summary at the end of the Charlotte Observer article the Ringer author pointed to:

Quote:In its decision last year, SACS cited seven areas where the university didn’t meet standards: overall integrity; program content; control of intercollegiate athletics; academic support services; academic freedom; faculty role in governance; and compliance with provisions in federal financial aid law.

source: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/lo...64597.html

So things were bad enough on athletic controls, academic support services, and program content to get major sanctions from the accrediting agency, but there wasn't even a simple failure to control finding from the NCAA? This doesn't pass the smell test.

Here's the other concerning statement in that same article, which talked about the 200-page findings from UNC's investigation by an outside investigator:

Quote:The Wainstein report revealed an extensive pattern of academic fraud, including hundreds of fake independent studies and no-show classes in the African and Afro-American Studies department.

What? Fake classes? Everyone's defense focuses on the no-show classes, but fake classes is a completely different beast. If fake is the right adjective, then ineligible players were being used in games. This is why I'm focusing on the accreditation role in all of this, because if classes don't meet instructional standards, why are they able to keep anyone eligible?

While I'd love to get my hands on the Wainstein report, I wouldn't have the time to go through it. But I certainly would hope that some journalist wanting to look into this more would start there.

I take it back - I spent 10 minutes looking at it (start here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/e...37687.html ) and found this section. I believe these kinds of things was part of the problem at Rutgers.

Quote:Assigning Specific Grades upon Request: We found evidence that both Crowder and Nyang’oro received requests that they award specific grades to certain student-athletes. Those requests came from two persons – Associate Director of ASPSA and Director of Football Cynthia Reynolds and women’s basketball academic counselor Jan Boxill (“Boxill”).

According to Crowder, Reynolds routinely provided her at the beginning of each semester with a list of the football players registered in her paper classes and the grade that each player needed to remain in good standing.71 Crowder said that she ignored the grade suggestions, knowing full well that she would award any student who submitted a paper with a fairly high grade.

In addition to Reynolds’ grade guidance, our email review disclosed several instances where Boxill made specific grade suggestions for her women’s basketball players. In September 2008, for example, Boxill forwarded a paper on behalf of one of her players, to which Crowder responded that “[a]s long as I am here, I will try to accommodate as many favors as possible,” presumably signaling her willingness to grant grade requests up to the point of her retirement. As to that particular student’s paper, Crowder then said “Did you say a D will do for [the basketball player]? I’m only asking because 1. no sources, 2, it has absolutely nothing to do with the assignments for that class and 3. it seems to me to be a recycled paper. She took [another class] in spring of 2007 and that was likely for that class.” Boxill replied “Yes, a D will be fine; that’s all she needs. I didn’t look at the paper but figured it was a recycled one as well, but I couldn’t figure out from where.”

When we asked Crowder and Boxill about this exchange, they admitted their collusion on the grade, but explained that it had nothing to do with eligibility. This was a student-athlete whose playing days were over, who was on the verge of graduation and who needed only a passing grade to get her diploma. They simply ignored the glaring deficiencies in her paper so as to allow her to graduate.

Boxill continued these grade suggestions after Crowder retired. In July 2010, she sent an email to Gore, Crowder’s successor in the AFAM office, forwarding the paper for a woman’s basketball player who was taking a paper class. In the cover email, Boxill commented that the paper “is very good and informative. I would give it an A- or at least a B+.” Gore replied that the player “did a good job” on the paper, and that it “looks like an A- to me.” Boxill responded with one word – “GREAT!!!” – and the student was ultimately awarded an A- in the course.

When we pressed Gore about this exchange, he denied having assigned the A- himself, but suggested that he may well have passed Boxill’s suggestion on to Nyang’oro, who was the instructor of record for that paper class. Nyang’oro had no memory of that particular basketball player or of Boxill’s suggestion. He did acknowledge, however, that he would occasionally assign specific grades if asked to do so by Boxill. He recalled one particular situation when he gave a women’s basketball player a B+ even though he felt her paper was “terrible” and was a “clear F.” He assigned that grade because Boxill had suggested that he do so.

source: http://media2.newsobserver.com/smedia/20...So.156.pdf pp. 39-40

This is a bloody e-mail trail, for crying out loud. While UNC argued against some of the conclusions of the report (after making a big deal about it in front of the accreditation agency about their seriousness to getting to the bottom of things), seems to me there are at least a few factual areas they could have nailed them on. Secondary infractions, maybe, but letting them completely go?

BTW, it does appear the football and women's basketball team may have been the worse offenders, compared the higher-profile men's basketball team. But you're not going to convince me that UNC should have gotten off on everything.

I'm feeling lazy, so does anyone know if there were repercussions for the professors? The excerpt in that post where Crowder sent an email to the coach regarding a player's paper which was apparently off topic and recycled from a previous class, but which was given a D because that was what the player needed, is awful. How unethical.

(10-14-2017 10:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 09:30 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Actually, I think the Ringer article completely glosses over the accreditation side of things. Interestingly enough, it notes that the university accepted the findings and penalty through the assessment of the accreditation agency. But according to a quick summary at the end of the Charlotte Observer article the Ringer author pointed to:

Quote:In its decision last year, SACS cited seven areas where the university didn’t meet standards: overall integrity; program content; control of intercollegiate athletics; academic support services; academic freedom; faculty role in governance; and compliance with provisions in federal financial aid law.

source: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/lo...64597.html

So things were bad enough on athletic controls, academic support services, and program content to get major sanctions from the accrediting agency, but there wasn't even a simple failure to control finding from the NCAA? This doesn't pass the smell test.

Here's the other concerning statement in that same article, which talked about the 200-page findings from UNC's investigation by an outside investigator:

Quote:The Wainstein report revealed an extensive pattern of academic fraud, including hundreds of fake independent studies and no-show classes in the African and Afro-American Studies department.

What? Fake classes? Everyone's defense focuses on the no-show classes, but fake classes is a completely different beast. If fake is the right adjective, then ineligible players were being used in games. This is why I'm focusing on the accreditation role in all of this, because if classes don't meet instructional standards, why are they able to keep anyone eligible?

While I'd love to get my hands on the Wainstein report, I wouldn't have the time to go through it. But I certainly would hope that some journalist wanting to look into this more would start there.

I take it back - I spent 10 minutes looking at it (start here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/e...37687.html ) and found this section. I believe these kinds of things was part of the problem at Rutgers.

Quote:Assigning Specific Grades upon Request: We found evidence that both Crowder and Nyang’oro received requests that they award specific grades to certain student-athletes. Those requests came from two persons – Associate Director of ASPSA and Director of Football Cynthia Reynolds and women’s basketball academic counselor Jan Boxill (“Boxill”).

According to Crowder, Reynolds routinely provided her at the beginning of each semester with a list of the football players registered in her paper classes and the grade that each player needed to remain in good standing.71 Crowder said that she ignored the grade suggestions, knowing full well that she would award any student who submitted a paper with a fairly high grade.

In addition to Reynolds’ grade guidance, our email review disclosed several instances where Boxill made specific grade suggestions for her women’s basketball players. In September 2008, for example, Boxill forwarded a paper on behalf of one of her players, to which Crowder responded that “[a]s long as I am here, I will try to accommodate as many favors as possible,” presumably signaling her willingness to grant grade requests up to the point of her retirement. As to that particular student’s paper, Crowder then said “Did you say a D will do for [the basketball player]? I’m only asking because 1. no sources, 2, it has absolutely nothing to do with the assignments for that class and 3. it seems to me to be a recycled paper. She took [another class] in spring of 2007 and that was likely for that class.” Boxill replied “Yes, a D will be fine; that’s all she needs. I didn’t look at the paper but figured it was a recycled one as well, but I couldn’t figure out from where.”

When we asked Crowder and Boxill about this exchange, they admitted their collusion on the grade, but explained that it had nothing to do with eligibility. This was a student-athlete whose playing days were over, who was on the verge of graduation and who needed only a passing grade to get her diploma. They simply ignored the glaring deficiencies in her paper so as to allow her to graduate.

Boxill continued these grade suggestions after Crowder retired. In July 2010, she sent an email to Gore, Crowder’s successor in the AFAM office, forwarding the paper for a woman’s basketball player who was taking a paper class. In the cover email, Boxill commented that the paper “is very good and informative. I would give it an A- or at least a B+.” Gore replied that the player “did a good job” on the paper, and that it “looks like an A- to me.” Boxill responded with one word – “GREAT!!!” – and the student was ultimately awarded an A- in the course.

When we pressed Gore about this exchange, he denied having assigned the A- himself, but suggested that he may well have passed Boxill’s suggestion on to Nyang’oro, who was the instructor of record for that paper class. Nyang’oro had no memory of that particular basketball player or of Boxill’s suggestion. He did acknowledge, however, that he would occasionally assign specific grades if asked to do so by Boxill. He recalled one particular situation when he gave a women’s basketball player a B+ even though he felt her paper was “terrible” and was a “clear F.” He assigned that grade because Boxill had suggested that he do so.

source: http://media2.newsobserver.com/smedia/20...So.156.pdf pp. 39-40

This is a bloody e-mail trail, for crying out loud. While UNC argued against some of the conclusions of the report (after making a big deal about it in front of the accreditation agency about their seriousness to getting to the bottom of things), seems to me there are at least a few factual areas they could have nailed them on. Secondary infractions, maybe, but letting them completely go?

BTW, it does appear the football and women's basketball team may have been the worse offenders, compared the higher-profile men's basketball team. But you're not going to convince me that UNC should have gotten off on everything.

I'm feeling lazy, so does anyone know if there were repercussions for the professors? The excerpt in that post where Crowder sent an email to the coach regarding a player's paper which was apparently off topic and recycled from a previous class, but which was given a D because that was what the player needed, is awful. How unethical.

The entire episode was utterly unethical. And, unfortunately, due to the lack of cooperation and structure of the classes, the NCAA could not sustain the more serious issues due to lack of specific direction at the behest of the AD, and the things they could substantiate fell outside their jurisdiction (like the Baylor rape issues).

It shows what an utter paper edifice the NCAA truly is when the fundamental purpose of many major athletic programs is being a low-cost and highly profitable farm system / training league for professional sports.

(10-15-2017 10:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 10:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-14-2017 09:30 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Actually, I think the Ringer article completely glosses over the accreditation side of things. Interestingly enough, it notes that the university accepted the findings and penalty through the assessment of the accreditation agency. But according to a quick summary at the end of the Charlotte Observer article the Ringer author pointed to:

Quote:In its decision last year, SACS cited seven areas where the university didn’t meet standards: overall integrity; program content; control of intercollegiate athletics; academic support services; academic freedom; faculty role in governance; and compliance with provisions in federal financial aid law.

source: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/lo...64597.html

So things were bad enough on athletic controls, academic support services, and program content to get major sanctions from the accrediting agency, but there wasn't even a simple failure to control finding from the NCAA? This doesn't pass the smell test.

Here's the other concerning statement in that same article, which talked about the 200-page findings from UNC's investigation by an outside investigator:

Quote:The Wainstein report revealed an extensive pattern of academic fraud, including hundreds of fake independent studies and no-show classes in the African and Afro-American Studies department.

What? Fake classes? Everyone's defense focuses on the no-show classes, but fake classes is a completely different beast. If fake is the right adjective, then ineligible players were being used in games. This is why I'm focusing on the accreditation role in all of this, because if classes don't meet instructional standards, why are they able to keep anyone eligible?

While I'd love to get my hands on the Wainstein report, I wouldn't have the time to go through it. But I certainly would hope that some journalist wanting to look into this more would start there.

I take it back - I spent 10 minutes looking at it (start here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/e...37687.html ) and found this section. I believe these kinds of things was part of the problem at Rutgers.

Quote:Assigning Specific Grades upon Request: We found evidence that both Crowder and Nyang’oro received requests that they award specific grades to certain student-athletes. Those requests came from two persons – Associate Director of ASPSA and Director of Football Cynthia Reynolds and women’s basketball academic counselor Jan Boxill (“Boxill”).

According to Crowder, Reynolds routinely provided her at the beginning of each semester with a list of the football players registered in her paper classes and the grade that each player needed to remain in good standing.71 Crowder said that she ignored the grade suggestions, knowing full well that she would award any student who submitted a paper with a fairly high grade.

In addition to Reynolds’ grade guidance, our email review disclosed several instances where Boxill made specific grade suggestions for her women’s basketball players. In September 2008, for example, Boxill forwarded a paper on behalf of one of her players, to which Crowder responded that “[a]s long as I am here, I will try to accommodate as many favors as possible,” presumably signaling her willingness to grant grade requests up to the point of her retirement. As to that particular student’s paper, Crowder then said “Did you say a D will do for [the basketball player]? I’m only asking because 1. no sources, 2, it has absolutely nothing to do with the assignments for that class and 3. it seems to me to be a recycled paper. She took [another class] in spring of 2007 and that was likely for that class.” Boxill replied “Yes, a D will be fine; that’s all she needs. I didn’t look at the paper but figured it was a recycled one as well, but I couldn’t figure out from where.”

When we asked Crowder and Boxill about this exchange, they admitted their collusion on the grade, but explained that it had nothing to do with eligibility. This was a student-athlete whose playing days were over, who was on the verge of graduation and who needed only a passing grade to get her diploma. They simply ignored the glaring deficiencies in her paper so as to allow her to graduate.

Boxill continued these grade suggestions after Crowder retired. In July 2010, she sent an email to Gore, Crowder’s successor in the AFAM office, forwarding the paper for a woman’s basketball player who was taking a paper class. In the cover email, Boxill commented that the paper “is very good and informative. I would give it an A- or at least a B+.” Gore replied that the player “did a good job” on the paper, and that it “looks like an A- to me.” Boxill responded with one word – “GREAT!!!” – and the student was ultimately awarded an A- in the course.

When we pressed Gore about this exchange, he denied having assigned the A- himself, but suggested that he may well have passed Boxill’s suggestion on to Nyang’oro, who was the instructor of record for that paper class. Nyang’oro had no memory of that particular basketball player or of Boxill’s suggestion. He did acknowledge, however, that he would occasionally assign specific grades if asked to do so by Boxill. He recalled one particular situation when he gave a women’s basketball player a B+ even though he felt her paper was “terrible” and was a “clear F.” He assigned that grade because Boxill had suggested that he do so.

source: http://media2.newsobserver.com/smedia/20...So.156.pdf pp. 39-40

This is a bloody e-mail trail, for crying out loud. While UNC argued against some of the conclusions of the report (after making a big deal about it in front of the accreditation agency about their seriousness to getting to the bottom of things), seems to me there are at least a few factual areas they could have nailed them on. Secondary infractions, maybe, but letting them completely go?

BTW, it does appear the football and women's basketball team may have been the worse offenders, compared the higher-profile men's basketball team. But you're not going to convince me that UNC should have gotten off on everything.

I'm feeling lazy, so does anyone know if there were repercussions for the professors? The excerpt in that post where Crowder sent an email to the coach regarding a player's paper which was apparently off topic and recycled from a previous class, but which was given a D because that was what the player needed, is awful. How unethical.

The entire episode was utterly unethical. And, unfortunately, due to the lack of cooperation and structure of the classes, the NCAA could not sustain the more serious issues due to lack of specific direction at the behest of the AD, and the things they could substantiate fell outside their jurisdiction (like the Baylor rape issues).

It shows what an utter paper edifice the NCAA truly is when the fundamental purpose of many major athletic programs is being a low-cost and highly profitable farm system / training league for professional sports.

Actually pretty high cost if done competitively, just not much filters down past facilities ,coaches the AD etc

Rice could leave the NCAA, or the NCAA could leave it. Sooner or later, here's what's going to happen:

A group of schools, mostly co-incident with the membership of the so-called Power 5 conferences but not necessarily inclusive or exclusive, will ask the NCAA to consider legislation to create a super-division for them. Schools in this division will eliminate any educational component to their athletic programs. Players will be university employees paid to perform athletics, essentially as minor-league athletes under the branding of universities. Division I schools not included in this super-division can remain as members of a rump Division I and function as they do now. The NCAA will have to accept this arrangement; if not, these schools would simply withdraw en masse from the organization and form their own athletic association, taking with them most of the revenues that the NCAA currently gets from bowl games and the Division I men's basketball tournament. So this split will come eventually; there's too much money out there for it not to happen.

I very much doubt that Rice would be part of this super-division, and I very much doubt that Rice would want to be part of this super-division. I suspect that this will be the endgame to everything that's been happening in college athletics since the 1980s.

But once every 35 years.... we beat Texas... and that's why you keep at it....

(10-19-2017 10:45 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Rice could leave the NCAA, or the NCAA could leave it. Sooner or later, here's what's going to happen:

A group of schools, mostly co-incident with the membership of the so-called Power 5 conferences but not necessarily inclusive or exclusive, will ask the NCAA to consider legislation to create a super-division for them. Schools in this division will eliminate any educational component to their athletic programs. Players will be university employees paid to perform athletics, essentially as minor-league athletes under the branding of universities. Division I schools not included in this super-division can remain as members of a rump Division I and function as they do now. The NCAA will have to accept this arrangement; if not, these schools would simply withdraw en masse from the organization and form their own athletic association, taking with them most of the revenues that the NCAA currently gets from bowl games and the Division I men's basketball tournament. So this split will come eventually; there's too much money out there for it not to happen.

I very much doubt that Rice would be part of this super-division, and I very much doubt that Rice would want to be part of this super-division. I suspect that this will be the endgame to everything that's been happening in college athletics since the 1980s.

If this is really how it plays out, I agree that I would not want Rice in that group. The idea of severing the "student" part of "student-athlete" is an anathema to me!

(10-20-2017 11:06 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 10:45 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Rice could leave the NCAA, or the NCAA could leave it. Sooner or later, here's what's going to happen:

A group of schools, mostly co-incident with the membership of the so-called Power 5 conferences but not necessarily inclusive or exclusive, will ask the NCAA to consider legislation to create a super-division for them. Schools in this division will eliminate any educational component to their athletic programs. Players will be university employees paid to perform athletics, essentially as minor-league athletes under the branding of universities. Division I schools not included in this super-division can remain as members of a rump Division I and function as they do now. The NCAA will have to accept this arrangement; if not, these schools would simply withdraw en masse from the organization and form their own athletic association, taking with them most of the revenues that the NCAA currently gets from bowl games and the Division I men's basketball tournament. So this split will come eventually; there's too much money out there for it not to happen.

I very much doubt that Rice would be part of this super-division, and I very much doubt that Rice would want to be part of this super-division. I suspect that this will be the endgame to everything that's been happening in college athletics since the 1980s.

If this is really how it plays out, I agree that I would not want Rice in that group. The idea of severing the "student" part of "student-athlete" is an anathema to me!

Agree totally.

It's going to present people like Stanford and ND and Duke and Northwestern and Vandy with a real quandary if that happens.

(10-20-2017 11:02 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  But once every 35 years.... we beat Texas... and that's why you keep at it....

We aren't going to beat Texas anymore. If we continue down the path of the "lovable loser" type as coach, with the P5-G5 split as large as it is now, we stand no chance. We had our shot when Texas was mediocre (~5 years ago) and wilted at that chance. Even with a better coach, it is highly unlikely these days; we'd have to catch lightning in a bottle - and why that lightning would choose to strike anywhere near Rice now - not sure either. Regardless, beating UT once every 35 years - hopefully thats not a real goal.

On a mildly related note, this happened: Kirby Smart (UGA coach) arrives by helicopter

This is how crazy the life of the haves is. Do we want to try to play this game?

Vandy won't have a quandary. They'll follow the money.

I think a move like that would kill the golden goose, and at least some school presidents may feel likewise, though maybe not enough.

The public isn't interested in minor-league football or basketball, and the minor-league baseball market is pretty well saturated. Nevertheless, every few years, somebody tries to start a league, so it could happen.

(10-20-2017 11:15 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 11:02 AM)Neelys Ghost Wrote:  But once every 35 years.... we beat Texas... and that's why you keep at it....

We aren't going to beat Texas anymore. If we continue down the path of the "lovable loser" type as coach, with the P5-G5 split as large as it is now, we stand no chance. We had our shot when Texas was mediocre (~5 years ago) and wilted at that chance. Even with a better coach, it is highly unlikely these days; we'd have to catch lightning in a bottle - and why that lightning would choose to strike anywhere near Rice now - not sure either. Regardless, beating UT once every 35 years - hopefully thats not a real goal.

On a mildly related note, this happened: Kirby Smart (UGA coach) arrives by helicopter

This is how crazy the life of the haves is. Do we want to try to play this game?

Chad Morris at SMU has one.