Aug. 8, 2007

Star Athlete, You’re Admitted. Er, Never Mind

Steve Spurrier is hardly the first coach to blast his college’s admissions process; coaches never like it when top recruits get rejected. The University of South Carolina coach’s threat this week to quit if the institution does not alter its policies is unlikely to get Spurrier everything he wants; he says the university should admit any athlete who meets the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s eligibility standards for freshmen, and university officials say they won’t go there.

Looking for a job?

See all 206 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,554
Administrative: 2,163
Executive: 162
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

But the overaching issue Spurrier raises — what coaches and colleges tell athletes about their prospects for admission, and when in the process they send those signals — is a real one that affects every university that plays big-time sports. (Lest anyone wonder, it even applies in the Ivy League.)

Spurrier, who has spent more than two decades as a college and professional head football coach, used a news conference pegged to the start of the college football season on Sunday to complain bitterly about the fact that the university had in recent weeks rejected two high school players to whom Spurrier had essentially promised admission in February (video of his comments can be found here). The coach had done so, he said, because the athletes had been cleared to play under the NCAA’s Division I eligibility requirements for freshmen — a standard that ought to be sufficient for admission to the university, Spurrier suggested.

But the “special” admissions process that the university uses for about 75 students a year who don’t qualify under its regular admissions procedures turned down appeals from two of three football recruits who were referred to it. The players found out only this summer – one as recently as mid-July — that they would not be able to enroll and play football at South Carolina, leaving them few options to enroll elsewhere and, Spurrier said, making the university and the coach look bad.

“I’m embarrassed that I, and our coaches, basically misled these young men into believing they were coming here,” Spurrier said. “Now, I’m not blasting the president or the provost. The president has already told me how we’re going to change how we do admissions here…. As long as I’m the coach here, we’re going to take guys that qualify. If not, then I’m going to have to go somewhere else because I can’t tell a young man to come to school here, he qualifies, and not do that. And we did that this year.”

South Carolina officials say that they are sympathetic to Spurrier’s complaints about the timing of when players are notified that they have not been admitted, and that they are discussing procedural changes that would allow coaches to give recruits a thumbs up or thumbs down earlier than is now the case. That’s necessary in part because the special admissions process — which athletes are more likely than other students to make use of — can take months to unfold, waiting on the latest information from athletes’ senior year in high school. “From the student-athlete standpoint, the process does need some refinement, some fine tuning, in regard to timing,” said Russ McKinney, a university spokesman.

But Spurrier’s assertion that the university should more or less automatically admit athletes who meet the NCAA’s eligibility standards for freshmen is another matter, South Carolina officials say.

“The final say on the qualification of students applying for admission to the University of South Carolina will rest with the institution,” McKinney said. “The relationship between NCAA certification and our qualifications may well be an area that gets looked at. But right now that’s not been changed.” And any changes that might be made, he said, would be considered only with the direct involvement of the faculty.

Good, say faculty leaders. Claiborne (Gene) Reeder, a professor of pharmacoeconomics and chair of the Faculty Senate at South Carolina, said he thinks it would be wholly appropriate for South Carolina to review its admissions process to ensure that athletes find out in a timely manner whether they’ve found a place at the university or not. “If it’s a process issue, I would think it’s something the university should be able to come to compromise on.” But any suggestion that the university should lower its admission standards to the NCAA’s requirements for eligibility — which were eased significantly two years ago — is anathema, Reeder said. The NCAA standards require athletes to achieve a minimum grade point average in 14 high school core courses, using a sliding scale that also incorporates the SAT or ACT. But an athlete with a high enough GPA can conceivably qualify to compete as a freshman with the lowest possible score on the SAT.

“The academic quality of the student-athletes cannot be compromised,” he said. “University standards can’t be submerged to NCAA minimum guidelines.”

The Larger Problem

South Carolina is far from alone in wrestling with the issues Spurrier has raised; in fact, it caused headaches at the state’s other major public campus, Clemson University, just a few months ago.

The situation at Clemson was slightly different but related. In early February, just before the “national signing date” on which Division I-A football programs and athletes can commit to each other, Clemson fans and boosters went ballistic when they learned that a university panel had rejected the applications of two top high school football players, who went on to enroll at rival colleges. In the furor that followed, Clemson officials agreed to review the university’s policies for admitting athletes, just as South Carolina has.

Although many Clemson coaches — like Spurrier — urged the university to embrace the NCAA’s eligibility standards as their own requirements for athlete admission, that possibility was never seriously considered, said Doris Helms, provost and vice president for academic affairs at Clemson.

But it was abundantly clear to university officials that “the admissions process is out of sync with the recruiting process,” Helms said. Early February is when a football player (or other fall sport athlete) can sign a “national letter of intent” to enroll at a particular college, and it largely binds the athlete to that institution for one year. But by this pivotal point in the recruiting process, colleges and universities have often not completed their admissions processes, so they often feel pressured to give coaches a thumbs up or thumbs down on whether the athletes they covet are likely to be admitted.

That’s where the dilemma is for college officials, said Clemson’s Helms. If a university’s officials try to give an athlete (or his or her coach) a conclusive answer on admission by early February, in time for the national letter of intent deadline, they are probably going to be forced to do so based only on the student’s academic record through junior year of high school, and possibly without any standardized test results from senior year. “That may be giving short shrift to an athlete who comes up 100 points on the SAT” in the spring of his or her senior year,” said Helms.

But the other alternative — waiting to assess an athlete’s admissions chances until later in the senior spring or even early summer — has its own downside, as seen in the South Carolina situation to which Spurrier objected. “If you allow the [National Letter of Intent] to go forward without making that [admission] decision and the student falls down, then you end up with Steve Spurrier’s problem,” where the athlete has committed to attend the university on the possibly mistaken impression that he or she has been assured admission, said Helms.

Clemson’s review sought to deal with that possibility by permitting letters of intent to go out without an offer of admission, if a review by the director of admission ensures that the academic performance of the team in question (as judged by NCAA graduation and academic progress rates) is “acceptable” and “the academic record of the student athlete seeking scholarship admission for that sport is acceptable, with no apparent irregularities,” the policy reads.

But “it is understood, and must be understood by coaches,” said Helms, “that they are not admissions directors. You cannot tell an athlete, ‘You are coming to Clemson.’ After all, it’s a national letter of intent, not a national letter of acceptance.”

Officials at both Clemson and South Carolina said that they were aware of peer colleges — they declined to name names — where meeting the NCAA’s freshman eligibility standards, even as they have been weakened in recent years, was good enough to ensure admission for athletes, as Spurrier said he would prefer it at South Carolina.

Clemson and South Carolina say that that’s not something they’re willing to do, and that the admissions processes for athletes — even those admitted outside the regular admissions process — must remain in control of academic administrators. Said Reeder, the Faculty Senate chair at South Carolina: “As long as that admissions process — whether we’re talking about standard or special admits — as long as that remains under purview of the faculty, that’s probably as good as it gets.”

— Doug Lederman

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

who runs the place?

While I absolutely agree that applicants—athletic or otherwise—need to be told in a timely fashion whether they are admitted or not (and July is not timely), this story and others like it raise a fundamental question—who is running the university. Surely coaches should not be telling promising players they are “in” if the record says they may not make it. Let the coaches resign—there are others out there. Division I athletics do not and should not dictate university admission or other policies. Let’s keep our priorities straight!

Chris Sterling, professor at George Washington University, at 5:50 am EDT on August 8, 2007

E/xcellent comments Chris

Here are some comments I gave to a South Carolina reporter yesterday. I did not read the IHE article before and I am encouraged as to what USC officials are saying so I will need to reserve judgement concerning my last comments—but we will see.

First off a university must determine its own admission standards and USC is not some rogue for doing just that.. Coach Spurrier knew those standards as I am sure the rest of the department knew— along with the kids and parents. Methinks that these kids were assured admittance by “someone” and then it did not happen—however that is just an opinion. It seems a little after the fact to complain. A school is not obligated to admit anyone that meets NCAA standards unless they opt to do so and Coach Spurrier has been around long enough to know that. For this to be looked at a surprise is beyond me.

The position of The Drake Group is that schools should limit admission to the general profile of the incoming class. With that being said, USC could opt to admit those who meet NCAA standards, but it would be a problem if it was only for athletes. Mississippi State, Ole Miss, and USM admit anyone who meets NCAA standards—essentially lowering the admission standards for all for an athletic reason. I have a bit of a problem with that because we are letting NCAA academic standards dictate academic standards for everyone. The Auburn independent study fiasco was clearly created for athletes, but other students received the same benefit, and the standard was lowered, thus we have a watering down of higher education for athletics. Can you say tail wagging the dog??

Faculty can enforce academic standards they deem fit. If they feel that NCAA standards fit the profile of the university, then so be it, but no university should be forced to adopt any academic standard just because a coach says so—especially when the standards were clear from the beginning. Coach Spurrier should recruit to those standards set by the school—not the other way around.

Now on to the real world—I am sure he will get his way and I expect USC to adopt NCAA admission criteria for everyone. God forbid they lose that competitive advantage and lose the old ball coach!!

B. David Ridpath, Asst Prof at Ohio University, at 6:45 am EDT on August 8, 2007

NFL Boot Camps

After reading yesterdays article and this one today, the on going concerns about the positive or negative impact that sports have on higher education continues. It seems in truth, the tail is wagging the dog and coaches salaries are just unbelievable. Who said they are dumb jocks?

Psych Prof, at 8:10 am EDT on August 8, 2007

Who is being served!?

Bad timing aside, this is more evidence of the low regard many big-time athletic programs have for the educational futures of the young people who become fodder for their programs. Kudos to the folks at USC for perhaps recognizing that these young men were not likely to be successful academically—a factor too easily dismissed by coaches whose only measure of success is found on the playing field. One can only hope that the “old ball coach” is just as passionate about seeing these kids through their academic requirements en route to graduation (when, at some point, they fail to make the team) as he is concerned that they be given the chance to strap it up on Saturday afternoons.

Peter Van Buskirk, Author/Consultant/former dean of admission, at 9:00 am EDT on August 8, 2007

The answer is simple! The president should step in and admit the students/players. The university made a commitment/promise and they should live up to it. Next year the admissions department should assign a person to review all athletic department admissions commitments in advance to avoid future embarrassment to the university. Any disputes should be resolved by a committee consisting of the athletic director, the admissions director, and the provost. After the first year, it should work smoothly.

stephen, at 9:25 am EDT on August 8, 2007

Blame where it belongs

Spurrier and his staff didn’t know the admissions standards for their own college? Who is really to blame here? Those coaches should have known. They made the mistake; the college is not to blame. Now Spurrier wants to put the blame on the college so this doesn’t hurt his recruiting efforts. He’s probably already getting turned down by prospects based on this, and it’s of his own making. I have no sympathy for him, and man has not a shred of integrity.

DuPont Snoddy, at 9:50 am EDT on August 8, 2007

My rant

Mr. Spurrier has threatened to quit if admissions does not cave at USC, and I sincerely hope that USC calls his bluff.

1 — NCAA eligibility DOES NOT EQUAL standards for admission; it is a threshold for whether a student is eligible to compete at a particular level. The NCAA is very clear on this point and has reiterated it recently in a statement by Miles Brand — that while we recognize that some athletics admission cases are deemed “special,” the “special” designation is with respect to individual institutions’ determinations of admissibility; and, academic integrity, which includes acting consistent with institutional (not athletic) policies and values, must be core to any admission decision. Too many coaches conflate NCAA eligibility with admissibility. Mr. Spurrier is only the latest, and most flagrant, example.

2 — Higher education has abdicated its responsibility by allowing our colleges and universities to substitute for professional farm systems in many sports. Football is the most egregious example. Recall that the NFL does not allow student-athletes to be drafted early in their college years, claiming (perhaps rightly) that they are not big or tough enough to endure the professional season. That is, they want them to beef up — IN COLLEGE — before they draft them. Why should colleges and universities provide this de facto farm system to a for-profit professional organization with plenty of money to build and maintain its own farm system? The Spurriers of this world get no sympathy from me; however, we need to start recognizing our own complicity in allowing an environment where a football coach actually gets taken seriously when he makes such irresponsible comments.

By the way — I am a fan of college sports. I am a former division III athlete in two sports. I know that these kids bring a lot to college campuses and, by and large, persist and graduate at rates equal to or better than the rest of the college population. This is not college sports-bashing. This is a wake-up call to get our priorities straight so that we can maintain these opportunities for our students — those who participate and those who enjoy watching.

lapgr8ful, VP Enr oll & Student Affairs, at 10:50 am EDT on August 8, 2007

So — coach?

” .. coaches (sic) salaries are just unbelievable. Who said they are dumb jocks?”

That’s right — everyone should make less than the faculty. Or the world’s a terrible, awful place.

” .. I have no sympathy for him, and (sic) man has not a shred of integrity.”

Carolina fans know that Mr. Spurrier gave DOOK its last competitive football team. He never let the unknowing, keep him from his players and their goals.

Has anyone established that non-D1 colleges are more productive than D1 colleges? Of course not. That would require commitment and involvement, not just back-seat criticism.

Congratulations to USC for their excellent student communication programs. Good enough for government work, eh?

Buzz, at 10:55 am EDT on August 8, 2007

Athletic Admissions

As I read the comments by the coach, his expressed concern was the timing of the decisions, not the standards. It is not fair to student athletes who may depend on scholarships and are unable to meet NCAA guidelines for athletic participation if they attempt to attend a college other than where a letter of intent is registered. Once these students send a letter of intent to USC, they (as I understand) are unable to obtain a scholarship/play at another school in their freshmen year. By waiting until August, these rejected students (STUDENTS) are more likely not to attend any college. Perhaps the NCAA letter of intent policies need to change, and stop treating recruits like property — allow a student to withdraw a letter of intent if not admitted, and thereby play as a freshmen at another school.

Then again, perhaps the transparency of admissions standards needs to be enhanced. There is no compelling reason not to accept a student athlete to a college in February, conditional on the senior year grades being A/B/C and their SAT score being above a specificed level.

r hirsch, at 11:10 am EDT on August 8, 2007

Lighten Up

College football is a national pastime that has morphed into an economic engine for many colleges and universities. If you think for one second that your precious university’s overall standards for academic excellence would be tarnished over the admission of two NCAA acceptable athletes being shoved into the student body, then you and your egotistical mindset simply need to “lighten up.” Whether the world of ‘academia’ likes it or not, college football programs help fuel the fire that produces opportunities to maintain 4:1 faculty to student ratios. Most colleges would love to have a 2.1 GPA General Studies major taking Animal Husbandry for three consecutive semesters playing middle linebacker for an SEC championship team. Crazy Ivan out!

Crazy Ivan, at 11:20 am EDT on August 8, 2007

Stephen, you probably don’t realize that there is a “pre-application” process in place at many schools during which admission officers will give an early estimate of an athlete’s chances. Their formal applications sometimes don’t arrive until months after the admission process for other students is complete for various reasons.

Gerbera, at 11:30 am EDT on August 8, 2007

I recall that when he was head coach at Florida, Spurrier similarly went to the president’s office and demanded that a prize recruit be admitted. The president at Florida caved. Let’s hope that the president at USC won’t. The intrusion of athletic-program considerations into university academic policies and standards is out of control, and has been for a long time. Alumni ought to care more about the academic integrity of the institution than about winning records — and American society as a whole ought to be seeing a big red flag and asking questions when (as it was announced on ESPN last year) the highest paid public employee in the state of New Jersey is the Rutgers head football coach.

John Robertson, Prof of History at Central Michigan University, at 12:10 pm EDT on August 8, 2007

Picking on the underpriviledged?

I’ve tutored D1 football players, many of whom are from poor, minority communities. Not Einsteins — most have been victimized by the Public School Monopoly (PSM).

But with increased NCAA enforcement, most are putting a maximum effort. They know the alternative.

And those who have attended — AND PLAYED — develop the personal discipline to make a positive impact on their communities.

But the white male-dominated academy wants to keep the PSM-effect on these underprivileged kids? Tsk, tsk — how un-liberal.

Anyway, with new NFL rules on eligibility, college football should begin to ebb in performance quality. Happy now?

L.L., at 1:05 pm EDT on August 8, 2007

Student Athletes & the Admission Process

An element of this admissions story that is missing is what happens AFTER the student is admitted to the University. Admittedly the criteria used for admissions are crude predictors of students’ overall academic performance in college, but they are the best that we have. Students who fall substantially below those criteria may not be able to compete in classrooms with their peers who have met or exceeded the basic admissions standards. Such a student may be ill-prepared to compete with better qualified peers. When one adds in other factors, such as the very busy practice schedules, the number of away games played, and other obligations that student athletes carry, these under-prepared students may find their academic performance affected negatively resulting in lower grades, academic probation, and, ultimately, suspension or expulsion.

We do not do student athletes (or any other student for that matter) a favor by lowering the standards in order to admit them if we do not provide simultaneously a support system that works with the academic side of the house to insure that students are able to perform academically and to move through a major course of study so that successful graduation is possible. Such efforts should be focused on maximizing student athletes’ academic performance, enabling them to meet academic standards, rather than on identifying ways in which standards can be lowered to accommodate poorly performing students. Student athletes are ill-served by the institutions for which they play if the focus is on getting the most out of our athletes rather than our student athletes getting the most out of their education. Student athletes should be considered students first, athletes second or third.

Too often the athletic side of institutions focuses on the win/loss ratio as that is how their success is judged. Such a focus reflects team (or coach) success rather than the success of the individual student athlete. Academic success, in contrast, reflects an individual’s abilities to succeed at coursework and a major, factors that should be predictive of success in a career and in life.

Winning seasons are often quickly forgotten as any coach can tell you if a successful season is followed by a less successful season. In contrast, creating an atmosphere in which student athletes can succeed academically should prepare them for successful careers and, potentially, a lifetime of support for the institution that provided their education. Ultimately it is the success of the alumni, not the success of the athletic teams, that determines the viability and long-term success of institutions of higher education.

D. Bruce Carter, Associate Dean/Associate Professor at College of HSHP-Syracuse University, at 2:00 pm EDT on August 8, 2007

Revenge against the jocks

Most of the comments sound like the nerds are proud the “dumb jocks” have been snubbed. Countless men and women have been recruited by colleges to play for their teams. For many, sports is the only way they can get a college education. I’m all for schools upholding a high standard, but even more, I believe those schools have an obligation to aid those who aren’t the “cream of the crop” but are willing to work hard (which you must admit, athletes are good at).

Ben, at 2:00 pm EDT on August 8, 2007

Three comments

Why isn’t the National Letter of Intent day changed to the same as standard admissions (May 1)? That would bring these into sync.

Why it took until July to deny some applicants is another question. Perhaps they were wait listed?

A university the size of South Carolina should have a very good idea of what admissions criteria will apply and can use these to admit/deny special cases such as athletes quickly.

Puzzled, at 2:25 pm EDT on August 8, 2007

Education of Athletes

Universities with big-time football and basketball programs have no interest whatsoever in educating their athletes. If they did, there is no way in hell they would let them compete as freshmen. Of course, they provide academic assistance but I’m afraid that much of this assistance is akin to assisting a marathon runner by lending him a bicycle.

Peter Wolfe, Professor of Mathematics at University of Maryland, at 3:15 pm EDT on August 8, 2007

Be Real

The real point, these athlete may or may not care about receiving a degree. They are choosing to go to USC to play for the coach, simply because they want to play football not earn the degree. Any of you trying to convince yourself that there is some reason more compelling or lofty, dream on. Most marquee atheletes believe with the right coach they have the right connection to make the NFL. A college degree or 30 million dollars? These are inexperienced kids in a generation that wants life now—college degree or professional athelete. They are not choosing the degree.

Dr. C, at 3:15 pm EDT on August 8, 2007

Quote from above:

“Spurrier had essentially promised admission in February ... The coach had done so, he said, because the athletes had been cleared to play under the NCAA’s Division I eligibility requirements for freshmen — a standard that ought to be sufficient for admission to the university, Spurrier suggested.”

Spurrier equates NCAA eligibility with admission standards, something it was never intended to do.

Most universities pre-read athletes’ records before coaches spend time recruiting those deemed inadmissible. Most will offer admission ahead of the normal schedule when it is warranted. My sense is that Spurrier is not talking about timing. He was caught making promises that he could not keep and had no business making without the consent of the admissions staff.

lapgr8ful, at 3:55 pm EDT on August 8, 2007

Give me a break.

I taught for a number of years at one of the biggest football powerhouses in the nation, and anyone who thinks that the athletic department is offering the majority of its male athletes a true chance at an education is deluded at best. Many of the football players, in particular, were marginally, if at all, literate, and that is no exxageration. These young men are led through high school based upon their athletic prowess, then shunted into easy courses at the university, or even worse, turned over to profs who are in the pocket of the athletic department. Furthermore, they are constantly receiving the message that they are important for their athletic ability, while floundering in the most intensely anti-academic atmosphere that one could find. Most will never play professional sports, yet all are encouraged to believe that this a real possibility for them. And of course, if one of these young men should get hurt while playing, he will soon find himself bereft of his funding and without the support of the university, most likely to soon leave with no degree and no future prospects. Most male athletes, at least most football players and large universities, are victims—used up and discarded as soon as they are no longer useful to their school.

Scottt, Ast. Professor, at 4:10 pm EDT on August 8, 2007

Gerbera

Thank you. its obvious from your comments that some colleges have a solution to this problem whih can embarass the school and be very unfair to the applicant.

the problem is very easy to solve and now seeing the problem they should all put a in a process to solve it.

Stephen, at 5:40 pm EDT on August 8, 2007

The clincial v. the real

The “academics” who have posted here appear to have no idea what it is like to part of a positive, goal-oriented community.

To wit: DOOK and Carolina basketball. Both programs have annual events for former team members (yes, Michael Jordan attends) to re-affirm community. Military groups — the funny old guys in uniform who risked all so that Ward Churchill can deny Italian-Americans free speech — also do this.

For USC football, or any D-1 program: to be part of a cultural tradition — the highs and lows, the rituals and discipline, the roar of the crowd — is a human experience apparently beyond the cognitive comprehension of many “academics.”

This is, yet one more “mountain from a molehill.” Spurrier will never be a college marketing director (lets truth out, occasionally) and USC will never win prizes for efficiency. Life goes on.

L.L., at 9:20 pm EDT on August 8, 2007

Many of the comments here seem based on the premise that the only way for this kid to succeed in life (i.e. get in the NFL) is to go to a Div 1 school. However, talented athletes get into the NFL from Div 1-AA and Div 2 schools every year, while other talented athletes flunk out of the Div 1 school and fade away.

Take a look at South Carolina’s graduation rate for black football players and their NCAA APR (below 20th percentile). He is not recruiting kids who could get into Duke.

Div 2 fan, at 5:00 am EDT on August 9, 2007

Foot Boys

As a graduate student who has worked with the athletes at the University of South Carolina, there seems to be a vast difference in terms of academic abilities for members of the football and basketball teams vs. every other sports team in existence at USC. Truthfully, the football players are by no means up to snuff at USC in terms of academics. The athletics dept. pays people to go to class WITH THEM (!) to take notes for them. They have no real interest in developing intellectually. It is not entirely their fault, they are merely pawns in a system that starts prior to arriving at postsecondary institutions. Overwhelmingly, the members of the football and basketball teams are minorities that have never been held accountable for academic performance. It is truly sad. Athletes for other sports team, seem to have it together, they take school seriously and excel at their sport. Earlier this week, there was a report in the local paper regarding some USC football players not being allowed to practice because of missed classes this summer.

As for Spurrier, all he cares about is his fat paycheck, the six figure salary his son earns, and his ego. The football players and basketball players have so many services and additional help available, that you would think it would be easy for them to be straight A students. Other athletes (male and female) are very well without the use of nearly half the resources as the F & B ball players.

Spurrier obviously thinks his word is gold. Just because he said the students were in they were in. The faculty will not yield to any pressure by the athletics department. We know how they can be an unbreakable force, when they need to be.

Spurrier needs to find talented, yet intelligent athletes, bottom line.

Carolinian, at 5:05 am EDT on August 9, 2007

Huh?

” .. Spurrier needs to find talented, yet intelligent athletes, bottom line.”

Most of my students are good kids, but I have to ask: are you suggesting that the first-string at Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Texas, Oklahoma, Cal, Oregon, Nebraska, and Washington are all rocket scientists?

C’mon. Get real. Giving these kids a decent place to live and the discipline to take responsibility for themselves (something a goodly number of faculty and administrators ought to re-learn) are big jobs, in and by themselves.

Also: FB/BB pay for all the other sports, including women’s sports. If the minor sports want to flip-off FB/BB — go right ahead, they’ll be immediately bankrupt.

L.L., at 9:10 am EDT on August 9, 2007

Squeeze play on academically oriented

I haven’t seen any mention of the impact on other qualified students. We recently attended an admission session at a “selective institution.” A parent asked if coaches were allotted admission slots. The presenter saidcoaches were involved in the process and their “recruits” were generally admitted if they met the minimum standards. The parent and their student immediately left, presumably to go see the coach.

If every coach is allotted just two slots, and some sports and colleges would obviously have more, that effectively squeezes out a large number of other students who might otherwise be admitted. These other students would most likely make better use of the educational resources the institutions claim to offer only “to those who will make the best use of the opportunities they are given.” If athletes have not demonstrated the discipline and/or ability to make use of the educational resources in high school, why should others be denied admission for their benefit?

Barbara Fried’s article in the May/June 2007 edition of Change magazine proposes the correct question, “Why should the ability to hurl a football a little bit farther than the next guy play any role in allocating educational opportunities, let alone a decisive one?”

Parent of non-athlete, at 3:10 pm EDT on August 9, 2007

I do wish we were giving them discipline—which sports can surely do. Sadly with all of the coddling, shepherding to classes, tutors, note takers, etc—we have been teaching exactly the opposite. While we still have a chance to do this, it is becoming less and less.

Decent place to live?? That could be debatable on certain campuses LOL. We need to get back to the core values of sports and what it can do for a young person’s development instead of having it hinder it.

I do agree that Spurrier should recruit to the standard—whatever that might be and currently NCAA standards are below USC admission standards. If that is changed—so be it, but it should not be dictated by Spurrier.

B. David Ridpath, Asst Professor at Ohio University, at 4:05 pm EDT on August 9, 2007

Yo, homey

” .. Decent place to live?? That could be debatable on certain campuses LOL ..”

Why, of course. All those rap songs about “the ‘hood” are just clever facades to divert money from higher-ed to less-educated persons. And Bill Clinton and Madonna should lecture college students about abstinence, Michael Moore on eating disorders and health care.

Yo mama raised a genius, home-boy. Peace!

L.L., at 8:30 am EDT on August 10, 2007

You go LL—Funny stuff

I was being sarcastic LL—geez about dorm living—just a joke. Try not to be too sensitive and have a little sense of humor, you will live longer. On a serious side—there are huge issues—You still don’t address my discipline point and I am curious are you faculty? ex athlete? military? I am all three and you seem to want to attack people personally. Let’s just have a civil debate on the issues. Don’t be afraid to reveal your real name. That is what free speech is all about.

You go LL because yo mama did raise a genius!!!.

B David Ridpath, Asst Professor at Ohio University, at 11:30 am EDT on August 10, 2007

As a South Carolina alumnus (’80), a former head coach and current administrator in 2 other intercollegiate athletic departments continuously since 1982 after graduate school, I hope USC keeps the ‘Ole Ball Coach but maintains or increases admission standards in the future.

However, the two young men promised admission in February, regardless of who is at fault, shouldn’t have been denied admission in July by the institution. Unfortunately, the students are the real losers in this fiasco regardless of where they landed afterwards. Student-athletes planning for admission and meeting minimum NCAA standards, only to have it cancelled in July should be reason alone for admission in ‘08-’09 ONLY. Based on documentation of an empowered employee’s word (Spurrier), meeting minimum NCAA standards should be enough THIS year for those two to have gained admission (with an asterisk...aka Barry Bonds) followed by a complete internal USC review of the process for ‘08-’09 to avoid repeating the error in the future.

Win/win...the Ole Ball Coach stays and the two young men experience institutional integrity and honor however intentional or inadvertent the information was delivered by Spurrier. The two “special admits” would not dilute the academic environment of the campus. If it happened again in the future and the coach issued a threat of leaving, show him the door. The University of South Carolina has made tremendous improvements over the last two decades and no one person is worth keeping if it means sacrificing the institutional integrity they’ve worked so hard to build.

As is, this is a national laughingstock for Carolina with the dirty laundry being washed in public because of zealous athletic and sanctimonious academic leaders.

Ed, at 5:40 pm EDT on August 10, 2007

College athletes

Stephen says, “The university made a commitment/promise...” No, Stephen, the university did not. The coach did, and did so on the apparent base of not having learned his employer’s admission rules. No employee authentically speaks for his employer when he is in the process of violated his employer’s rules.

A little-examined social cost of admitting academically unqualified athletes is that those same athletes then displace fully qualified students from participating in the same college sports that are relying on unqualified students. Higher education has an integrity problem that has yet to be resolved.

Marvin McConoughey, at 9:55 pm EDT on August 10, 2007

Stop making sense

Absent their implicit undermining of underprivileged minorities — groups such as Drake appear to fail the grasp the outcomes of their odd thinking.

That is: if suddenly they got their wish (highly unlikely) and big advertising money left D-1 sports — all the minor sports (men’s and women’s) would immediately lose funding and be bankrupt.

What would happen to tennis, wrestling, swimming, golf, etc.? There wouldn’t be any money for equipment and trips — they’d have to immediately go out and raise it themselves. “Non-revenue” sports really means “unprofitable money-loser.”

Further — having lost a major part of big-college culture — why would students pay tuition premiums at a Michigan, Indiana, Texas, Penn State, et al., v. Regional State College or Hometown Community College? After all — English, history, pre-education, et al., are also taught in those institutions, often with more engagement and concern for students. At less cost.

At bottom, what is most nonsensical is attempting to dismantle an activity supported by millions of Americans without their consent. It is difficult to think of a faster way to defund one’s program. But then again — overall education outcomes would probably improve.

So rave on. True colors are being displayed.

L.L., at 9:35 am EDT on August 12, 2007

Raving on LL

LL talk about true colors—the ony one undermining unerprivileged minorities is people like you who continually drink the kool aid by perpetuating a myth that athletics is the the “only way out.” Frankly sir that is pathetic especially if a person is not even getting real access to an education. The trickle down effect is simple and clear—especially in the inner city—we spend more on athletics and less on academics and therefore generations are suffering for an athletic pipe dream that will likely never come true. As the great Arthur Ashe and later Wayne Embry said—they resent the implication that athletics—not education—has become some social program for minorities at the expense of education. Arthur Ashe supported prop 48 (he even said the standards were not high enough) because minorities can succeed academically with and without athletics. His quote “set the bar high and they will reach it,” was poignant and right on target—and proven to be beneficial through research. Your odd thinking just perpetuates a popular fraud that continues to pigeonhole generations of people by margainalizing them into one potential way of success—when it should be education first and foremost. Is it any wonder why our schools are crumbling, people leave without degrees, or an education, etc—but then those millions of people would be “happy.” Shame on groups like TDG for wanting actual access to an education for all, not some modern day plantation system that is exploiting college athletes for millions of dollars while more often than they get nothing-not even that great “education” and way out that is advertised. I can’t tell you how many of my former athletes are right back where they started from because of the exploitation they endured and leaving without a degree or basic skills to succeed. Where are the fans? Where are the coaches? Where are you LL? The big question here is why did these two kids not meet USC standards? How was their high school? How much $$$ did this school spend on football in relation to education? How much time were they spending on football pursuits?

We don’t have to worry about other sports being bankrupt as they are already and being dropped at a regular clip—and revenue sports are making more than ever before even though there is more money being made. So why are sports being dropped? Simple, all the money is going into the machine without any check or balance. It is not Title IX, it is out of control spending. Checking that spending through taxation (what a nice source of revenue for inner city neighborhoods) can control costs, maintain the enterprise, and help all sports and all people from allbackgrounds. As Jim Delany the commissioner of the Big 10 said—taxing college sports. “may actually help us manage our budgets better.” Thus LL—benefitting everyone.

Many things in college are non-profit—oh wait, higher education is almost totally a non profit venture. Are you saying we should not support those other sports? What about kids, yes lots of minorities, who play those other sports. You don’t appear to be too concerned about them. Is it, “just drop those money losers and keep two or three sports going.” Would that be ok for you? Considering that it would affect more students, including minorities, that just simply managing the out of control expenses of a few sports.

I am all for keeping a part of American Culture—if done properly. There are many things in American culture that need to be changed—too many to mention. Is it really that bad to want college sports to be what they are intended to be? Is is so bad to want to improve educational outcomes to benefit kids for life? Sounds like a dirty phrase to you.

I am also curious why you think schools would implode if athletics are changed for the better. You seem to allude that kids would not go to school, not pay tuition, etc. but all reasearch (my own, Knight Commission, NASSS, etc.) has been clear that athletic success of ones school is actually a very low priority for incoming students as to why they attend while student attendance at athletic events drops every year.

Please back up your assertions with facts and examples and don’t be afraid to identify yourself (as I asked before). I would gladly continue the dialogue so please contact me privately and we can discuss as I am ready to back up all of my assertions with facts and not throw out the race card just because someone doesn’t agree with me. In actuality—groups like TDG want to stop the race based bias that has been caused by this system.

Millions of Americans actually believe college sports are out of control and more needs to be done to fix the problems (KC, 2002). That is hardly without consent. Frankly I would love to put it to a vote where I am certain those of you that support exploitation of young men and women would lose.

So as you say “Rave on. True colors are being displayed.” If I am wrong—please contact me and we can discuss.

B. David Ridpath, Asst. Prof at Ohio University, at 7:20 am EDT on August 13, 2007

Not a single number cited

” .. We don’t have to worry about other sports being bankrupt ..

So convincing, even without a single digit, being cited.

ASAP, let’s terminate all “non-revenue,” unprofitable, and money-losing NCAA college sports, including men’s wrestling and all women’s sports. The Drake Group and Title IX groups have made them, more costly than they are worth.

Then, let’s boot-out all the special-admit minority athletes. Many of whom, contrary to the sloth-like Public Education Monopoly, could turn out as worthwhile as this —

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24...ssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

After this — laying off the excess academic deadwood in remedial English and “recreation” education type programs will be necessary, due to financial exigency.

Besides, there is a gross oversupply of these folks. Any replacements will be easy to find.

Nice job, being so convincing without numbers. Michael Moore should be envious.

L.L., at 12:35 pm EDT on August 13, 2007

NCAA Standards

Having served as a high school administrator I can tell you from the “inside” that you are all missing one key factor. The NCAA standards actually include requirements that students pass with at least a “C” Advanced Algebra, Organic Chemistry, 4 progressively difficult years of English, and more. The problem is that the belief that “college” is many of these athletes’ only hope of life outside of the “hood” is not limited to college recruiters. Their high school coaches, parents, and even some administrators pressure teachers and guidance counselors to give these borderline students a “break” by watering down their instruction and assignments, while revising their letter grades upwards. I’ve seen many teachers “guilted” into succumbing to this pressure, sometimes to avoid accusations of a lack of compassion for kids of another race or socioeconomic class. In Chicago Public Schools, for example, Mayor Daley requires ALL CPS graduates to have met all NCAA course requirements, yet, upon graduating, many cannot pass the GED-level college entrance exams in Math and Reading. As a result, countless misled potential athletes are forced to take courses that will not count for credit, many never reaching “credit” level, instead dropping out and returning to “the streets” before ever reaching their dreams of an eventual career OR athletic stardom. Their teachers, counselors, coaches and recruiters gave them no “break” by pushing them through courses they didn’t understand, leaving them hopelessly ill-prepared for either college or gainful employment, all in the name of the rare 7-figure salary, which I suspect is shared by some of the key stakeholders. What would serve these “right-brained” students far better would be to allow them to complete a vocational curriculum that would at least equip them with the means to be self-sustaining, just in case their dreams of athletic stardom, (while also completing a degree in Political Science, Accounting, or Pre-Med), don’t happen to work out.

Kathleen Loftus, Columnist at EdNews.org, at 7:10 am EDT on August 14, 2007

Excellent stuff Kathleen—well said

Kathleen—this will be saved. Great description of the trickle down effect that impacts the process at your level.

Now on to LL

Sorry LL I thought you were so smart you wouldn’t need to be reminded that almost 150 wrestling programs have been dropped in the past 15 years, over 100 men’s swimming programs, almost 100 other “unimportant, non revenue money losers” (but I guess those athletes and minorities don’t matter??) and for a more salient example—look at Oregon where football lockers cost over 25K apiece but they are dropping sports. That is just a little example—but those sports are being dropped in spite of “more money supporting those sports.” So do you have a counterpoint?

Read Kathleen’s response and she says it far better than I as to what the core issues are. It is beyond me that you have fell into that belief that athletics is the only way out when we should be focusing our energies on what the likely outcome is for these young men and women—which is a long life without sports. Sports can be an impetus, but when it becomes the end all be all hen you have problem. You don’t respond to my Arthur Ashe comments or research that shows the educational improvements in minorities by enforcing challenging, but attainable standards.

Yes many can make it with watered down curriculums and being coddled through the system because of athletic ability, but it is rare considering I saw 65 special admits at Marshall (all AA men) and only five graduated. Of those five only one would say he has even a viable career above minimum wage. What about folks like Chris Washburn, maurice Clarett, etc. Clearly you cannot go through life with blinders on and think it is all ok by this “wonderful social program” that is broken and does not benefit minority athletes like you think. I lived it everyday, I saw the exploitation, and I saw what happened and is happening in the same vernacular that Kathleen so eloquently describes.

Again—please call me, email me privately, and let’s continue the dialogue. I can provide many more facts and details that this short forum doesn’t provide. Tell me your background, your reasoning, your facts. See if you can convince me, but I am sure after to see the real story you will understand that we are not serving minorities. or for that matter any athlete well.

B. David Ridpath, Asst Prof at Ohio U, at 7:45 am EDT on August 14, 2007

Michael Oher

BTw I love the Oher story and I am very familar with it as I lived near Memphis for a couple of years and taught at Miss State. A great example of how athletics can be an impetus to education and how one made the most of an opportunity. For those who have no desire for an education they should be allowed to go professional or to a minor league ASAP. After one can get an education at any time and should be encouraged to do so.

Also I hope you don’t really mean to dropped all those sports that others have made more “important than they should be.”

Corporate America would be proud!!

B. David Ridpath, Asst. Prof at Ohio University, at 7:50 am EDT on August 14, 2007

Actual, real numbers

Example 1 of 50 — Penn State

http://www.budget.psu.edu/openbud...=20062007&fundtype=03&Type=B

Eliminate the advertising money from football and the entire NCAA program collapses financially. Period.

The Public Education Monopoly (PEM) did not care about my students. Now, I have to clean up after the PEM’s sloth-like habits.

Political gas-bags can yammer all they want about educational standards. The PEM has no incentive to improve.

And since the PEM donates heavily to one of two major political parties (guess which one), they cannot be required to improve. So they don’t.

It is students that are in the middle. They have to get the diploma, just to apply for management jobs, thanks to political gas-bags and Grigg v. Duke Power.

So they have to endure a PEM that would rather count the days to retirement than actually update their pedagogy.

Who “rescued” Michael Oher? Not the PEM. A group of white, conservative, Christian Republicans! Who support Ole Miss football!

I tell my students, upfront, the odds of them making the pro ranks are very slim — like 1000-to-1. My goals are to make their current lives better and to take responsibility for themselves so their lives will be better in the future. Not fun. We get by.

As noted previously — NCAA enforcement is higher and real. A TA-friend had to “F” a star player — and live to tell the tale. And NFL eligibility has been loosened, viz. the NBA.

So, IMHO, The Drake Group (TDG) can go back to savaging GWB, Karl Rove, and the chattering working-class that is increasingly unwilling to pay for their tired old “critiques.”

If more people thought like TDG, there would be no ESPN. But since TDG got started, ESPN has gotten much bigger. Why?

L.L., at 10:45 am EDT on August 14, 2007

Some agreement LL—but you are off base still

Well we do agree on some things as I am never one to support and praise PEM as you call it because there are drastic problems. Even though I am a product of public ed. there are vast issues to numerous to mention.

One of those problems however is the myth you continue to perpetuate as discussed above. we only need to look in the mirror to see a big reason why public schools are failing and that is the continual “only way out of the “hood” mentality as Kathleen said.

Oher had an opportunity and he made the most of it. You used him as an example of why athletics are beneficial and can serve as an impetus for an education. It is a good example regardless of who comes to his aid—as I have for many in the time I worked in and coached in Division I college athletics.

You are very wrong on budgets. Sure at Penn State, one of maybe 10 self sustataining athletic corps, where the department pays everything—you argument is semi valid—however they make enough money where it isn’t an issue. Still if a PSU drops a sport—it isn’t because of less money because they are making more, it is because they decided to divert funds in a never ending arms race that is crippling the rest of college sports. Congrats to the corporate american mentality of those schools which have distanced them further front the institution, less focused on education, and more on the bottom line.

Why you are wrong is the 90% of other schools, including the ones I worked at, is that they are subsidized by the institution and through student fees. Those monies have been and are sufficient enough to support many sports in the spirit of how athletic depts. are supposed to be run (within the institution). So what has happened? In a misguided attempt to keep up with schools they can never keep up with financially the monies made by revenue sports and sometimes dwindling subsidies (although many times in my experience there were actually increases to pump into two sports) are going into that arms race—primarily into two sports that most likely will never win a championship and the big money pie. GMU and Boise were anomolies (fun to watch), but now everyone thinks they can do it and vicious cycle continues.More and more sports get dropped,. More and more opportunities lost. So no LL—it would only collapse if we allow it and frankly we are allowing it in spite of record revenues at some places.

I ask what is fundamentally wrong, as you have done apparently, with giving kids a chance by access to a real education? What is fundamentally wrong with a 2.0 GPA, real academic advisement (not coddling), a five year scholarship, freshman ineligiblity, etc. What is so radical about doing exactly what you are doing—preparing kids for the eventuality that pro sports may not be there, or at least fleeting, so there is a reason to prepare for their future? These standards, like prop 48, will have a trickle down positive effect on academic indicators. We gain nothing, and most importantly the athletes gain nothing, by a football coach and a national organization concerned more about revenue and winning controlling academic standards.

You appear to want it both ways—and it is not working and it is getting worse. Again I invite you to give me a call or if you want come to Memphis in April for the inagural College Sports Research Institute conference so you can share your thoughts.

B. David Ridpath, Asst. Prof at Ohio University, at 8:35 am EDT on August 15, 2007

NCAA enforcement

LL—I forgot to ask—this is my area of expertise—how again is NCAA enforcement real? I am glad your TA survived and that is good, but look no further than Tiffany Mayne, Maurice Clarett, Linda Bensel Meyers, Frank Splitt, Jan Kemp, and even myself and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

These new standards (APR) are just an eligiblity facade because it does not measure clustering, jock curriculums, and watering down of standards for athletic purposes ala what will happen at USC because Spurrier will get his way. So we can perpetuate the PEM fraud in higher education, thus continuing the cycle over and over again. PEM will never get better while this mentality is advocated.

If we are so concerned about opportunity in sports—give them the ability to go pro immediately or get paid in a minor league for development—IF they come to college they have to be real committed students, who are there for an education while playing sports. I still fail to understand why that is so radical.

B. David Ridpath, Asst. Prof at Ohio University, at 10:25 am EDT on August 15, 2007

Today is today

Yo — all I know, the NCAA is watching the big dogs (e.g., Michigan, Penn State, Cal). So, I am doing what the NCAA wants. I tell the kids, closed-circuit video monitoring could be next — so do the work, please.

TDG got a better idea for helping the Michael Ohers of the world — just do it. Right now, I have to deal with today — that means students who barely got out, thanks to Mr. Budweiser.

GMU and BSU — not my ‘hood, not my concern, to paraphrase 50 Cent on Letterman.

And the fourth time — the NFL is loosening eligibility rules, viz. the NBA. So I expect there will be more LeBrons. Life will go on.

L.L., at 1:30 pm EDT on August 15, 2007

We have a plan

Please tell me what the NFL is doing to loosen eligiblity rules. No smack—I am just not aware of anything beyond the silly and unconstitutional age limits.

Also if you think the NCAA is watching the big dogs—you are correct, but they are watching them to make sure the facade is continuing. Keep the athletes eligible and don’t worry about a legitimate education, and forget about them once eligibility ends.

TDG does have a plan to help Micheal Oher—do you? He is the perfect example of someone being exploited for athletic prowess. What if was given a legitimate education and a real shot at success in PEM. Bill Gates says the same thing—we as a country need to fix our school system to give our kids and country a chance.

Have you even looked at and analyzed what we are proposing? Is it really radical, or is it simply wanting college students playing college sports—something everyone can do, even those from PEM because the standards will force that ala prop 48.

We want achieveable academic standards and a focus on access to an education the priority. Our standards—if enforced, would drastically change the landscape for the better—especially for minorities by the trickle down effect. This continuing myth that athletics is the only way out is killing whatever good we have in PEM. Those aren’t my words, those are my good friend Richard Lapchick’s words and there is no greater advocate for minority inclusion and advancement out there.

So to Michael Oher—we will communicate at the highest level you have to be a student first and that is where success lies for you. If TDG standards are adopted and enforced, pathetic scenarios that Kathleen describes become less and less because then we are killing the myth.

I know I am not the only that thinks anyone—regardless of socioeconomic status can be a success and athletics does not have to, nor should not ever be viewed as the “only way out—or it will continue to be just that for young men like Micheal Oher, or the 65 I told you about before, most of whom are worse off after being exploited by the system.

Where do you teach LL? Let me know privately. I admire your attempt to defend your classroom and tell athletes the real story. Keep doing it as we need more courageous faculty.

B.David Ridpath, Asst. Prof at Ohio University, at 11:00 am EDT on August 16, 2007

NFL Eligibility Requirements

LL isn’t giving you specifics on the easing of NFL eligibility requirements because its not going to happen.

If anything, the NBA is moving in the direction of the NFL.

Any assertion to the contrary is either ignorant or intentionaly false.

Nate, at 10:05 pm EST on January 28, 2008

Jobs Related to Star Athlete, You’re Admitted. Er, Never Mind

or search for jobs directly.

Director of Admissions Services (Gillette College)
Northern Wyoming Community College District

The Director of Admissions Services reports directly to the Vice-President for Enrollment Services and is responsible for the ... see job

Faculty Position- Department of Exercise and Sport Science
Azusa Pacific University

Azusa Pacific University seeks applications for Department of Exercise and Sport Science. see job

Student Services Officer
Yale University

General Purpose
Reporting to the Director of Admissions, assist in recruitment, outreach, admissions and office ... see job

Admissions Representative
Corinthian Colleges

Everest Institute, a respected member of the Corinthian Colleges’ network of schools, is dedicated to helping students ... see job

IT Freshman Coordinator/Admissions Counselor
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Associate Registrar
Troy University

Troy University Phenix City Campus seeks applicants for Associate Registrar. This is a full-time, professional staff position ... see job

Executive Director of Enrollment Management
Savannah College of Art and Design

The Savannah College of Art and Design is seeking candidates for an Executive Director of Enrollment Management. see job

Production Manager II — Assistant Director of Multimedia Services
University of South Carolina

A leader in academe, the University of South Carolina holds the Carnegie Foundation’s highest research designation and is ... see job

Asst Athletic Dir/Facilities & Events (66890) P&a-3
Central Michigan University

This position is responsible for daily operations and scheduling of athletics facilities. see job

Short Term and/or Part Time Coach
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities