|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 5, 2008 6:37:01 GMT -6
Let's all pause for a second and hail Vanderbilt. Their victory the other night demonstrates that you can do things the right way in the most competitive conference in the country and win.
As coaches, I think we all know the calibre that Bobby Johnson is. In many ways, he's the best coach in the SEC and he has been, contrary to what hucksters like Pat Forde write, for a long time. Johnson and his staff have been taking chicken c...p and turning it into chicken salad for some time.
To whom I would like to give kudos now, however, is G. Gordon Gee and the Vanderbilt administration. In 2003 Gee collapsed the athletic department and placed under control of the dean of student affairs. This was a bold move and Gee and his cohort received a lot of criticism from not only the media, but coaches from around the country. I cannot tell you how many guys I spoke with who damned him to hell and said that Vandy would never become anything and that they would only become worse. Well, that has not happened; in fact, in all sports they have only gotten better.
Gee's move was not only bold, but it was right. With only a few academic exceptions every year, Vandy's athletes have the same intellectual acumen as the rest of the student body. They are real student athletes who attend real classes, have real majors, and don't have the tutorial "advantages" that other programs have instituted for their players via exclusive, atheletics only academic centers.
As an academic who was once a football coach, one of the great things that Gee's decision did was that it forced athletes to integrate with the regular student body. Vandy's athletes participate in study abroad programs and other enriching activities that others at other SEC programs not only never do, but never dream about, because, for the most part, they don't belong in college anyway. When I got out of football, one of the things I lamented was how players essentially lived in something akin to a hermetically sealed bell jar; they never interacted with the student body and when they did it was frequently with disasterous results. They were socially and intellectually ill equipped to interact with other people; they never grew as human being during their time in college. Quite sad when you think about. They were "advised" to take majors and classes that do not conflict with football and would require minimal effort. What is amazing about Vandy is that players are encouraged by academic advising, which is not affiliated with athletics, to pursue rigorous programs and enroll in classes regardless of whether they may conflict with the program. In fact, if a player wishes to enroll in a class that is in the afternoon, the program must accomodate his academic schedule. In other words, the player's education is truly his first priority.
My spiel here is clearly more of an editorial and I know that many will disagree with me. That's fine. However, I would like to see other institutions follow Vandy's lead, collapse their athletic department, and place their sports programs under the supervision of the university's academic administration and faculty. BTW, I have a friend who teaches in Vandy's prestigious German Department. He told me that the relations between coaches and faculty is incredible; it's not one of hostility and resentment, as it is, for example, at Alabama (where I have another friend who teaches in the English Department.) Coaches understand what the priority of the university is and the know where they stand within the university's caste system.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 5, 2008 7:30:13 GMT -6
Excellent points. I had the pleasure (well, maybe experience is a better word in some cases) of coaching both scholarship, and non-scholarship ball at the Division 1 level. The scholarship football was a great deal as you have described. 90% of the athletes lived in the same dorm, had very similar schedules, ate together, partied together with other athletes, studied in the athletic academic center with other athletes....
The other school (which now IS a full scholarship school, but at the time was a need based aid school) was a bit different. The athletes seemed to work their way into the fabric of the University a bit better. Coaches didn't push for 'general studies" classes. The students lived all over campus..etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by liberalhater on Oct 5, 2008 7:37:39 GMT -6
So you would like football at the collegiate level just go away?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 5, 2008 8:32:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 5, 2008 9:55:21 GMT -6
Coachd5085 is absolutely correct on my view. I never said that college ball should simply go away. Liberalhater, if you think carefully about my remarks, what you will see is that Vandy is proving that college ball can really be college ball and not something else that exists solely within the liminal space that it is now. The point is that Vandy has the right idea. They recognize what football is, a sport, and that's it, nothing else. Moreover, they have demonstrated that by doing things the right way that can put a viable, entertaining, and inspiring product on the field. Liberalhater, remember, why does the university exist? Does it exist to sponsor athletic teams or conduct research, produce knowledge, and provide an education for its students? For most programs, unfortunately, the "education" in regards to student athletes is pure lip service, pure and simple. If you go on campus you can identify the football players immediately; its not just because of size or race, but mentality. Without the aide of football they would not be there. When they enter, most lack the basic skills to not only succeed academically without the help of assistance centers that essentially do their work for them, but many are unable to engage intellectually and socially with their fellow students on even the most basic levels. Vandy is showing, that even in a conference that has for a long time made a travesty of academic integrity and done more harm than good to the vast majority of those who play, that they can win with real student athletes.
If the college presidents of 'Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, etc had some courage they would follow suite; and if their respective alumni bases had any integrity they would in fact demand that their institutions follow Vandy's lead.
|
|
|
|
Post by liberalhater on Oct 5, 2008 9:56:46 GMT -6
CoachD,
Nobody is happier that Vandy Stanford and Duke and the like are having success.
But Yes. The football programs are only part of the problem, Believe it or not the professors are also part of the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by liberalhater on Oct 5, 2008 10:19:49 GMT -6
But coach,
by your remarks? and your world view of how college football would work? College football goes away.
How did they get out of HS? How did they play 4 years of HS football? It goes right down the line and guess the real revolt needs to start?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcathey on Oct 5, 2008 10:20:16 GMT -6
CoachD, Nobody is happier that Vandy Stanford and Duke and the like are having success. But Yes. The football programs are only part of the problem, Believe it or not the professors are also part of the problem. Not all. That is a very general statement. As someone who at one point was a football coach and one who is now working in the academic area obtaining a Ph.D. to become a professor, thats like saying all football coaches are dumb jocks and you have to talk in small words and the conversation must involve sports in some regard or you will lose them. |
|
|
|
Post by liberalhater on Oct 5, 2008 10:30:22 GMT -6
It takes two to have a conflict.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Oct 5, 2008 10:34:56 GMT -6
But coach, by your remarks? and your world view of how college football would work? College football goes away. How did they get out of HS? How did they play 4 years of HS football? It goes right down the line and guess the real revolt needs to start? There's a lot of smoke and mirrors to get these guys into college in the first place, and you know it. (Not as bad as it used to be.) Once they're there, we see stuff like at Ohio St (assistants writing essays for players), Florida St (people taking online exams for players), and plenty of other, more minor examples. (Even just some of the majors, or simply the lack of any real shot at these kids graduating. It's worse in basketball, but still there in football.) You read the Blind Side right? Remember all the games they played with those online classes from BYU to just replace the kid's english credit here (from F to A), math credit there (F to B), etc. Now, you can argue with some persuasiveness that look, these are kids from a variety of environments and football is their avenue to much better lives and provides opportunities they wouldn't have. In that book, just to use an example I'm guessing most are familiar with, the kid had a horrible background (sleeping on floors, etc). But you could take that view more seriously if the programs cared about them as people once they were there. Now, would college football go away if everyone adopted the Vandy model (i.e. it was somehow mandated). Maybe? I dunno. It would drive talent away; lots of kids who play college ball now simply wouldn't be able to. Also practice time, resources, etc. But the more important question is, why do we have to have this? Is this system worth it? I love college ball, but it's all costs and benefits. I don't know think I'm as vehement as hemlock here, but in high school no one questions the fact that the kids, even if they play football, are expected to take the same classes as other kids and graduate. There are special needs kids, but you have nothing like you have in college, where they take an entirely different curriculum, don't interact with other students, and are not expected to even begin down the line to graduation. |
|
|
|
Post by liberalhater on Oct 5, 2008 10:38:27 GMT -6
If they all took the same classes in HS, then their should be no problem with college.
Well we know that aint true. It doesnt start in college and it doesnt even start in HS.
|
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 5, 2008 10:40:38 GMT -6
Liberalhater, with all do respect, your remarks do not make sense. Could you please clarify.
How are professors the problem. The faculty of a university is its heart. Perhaps a better question to pose is what is your understanding of the university; that is, what is the primary purpose of the university?
I have been on both sides of the equation. I've been a coach and am now a scholar. One of the reasons I chose to leave coaching was that I started to wonder what these kids were doing in college. I used to supervise our relations with our academic support staff and was thus privy to the results of diagnostics tests that our university administered our players in order to ascertain where they were academically. It was horrifying. The vast majority could not write coherently, nor could they read at a level above that which they were testing for in high school. Without serious help and support, both of which were not available to the student body in general, these "students" would never have been able to make it thru our program.
I teach Russian language and Russian literature now. In my literature in translation courses I get a number of players who are enrolled because it satisfies one of our university's composition requirements. I hate to say it, but its really sad; whereas the non-revenue athletes are generally solid students, the bretheren in football and basketball are, for the most part, remedial in their abilities; moreover, they frequently demonstrate little curiosity or even a desire to learn. Asides from football or basketball, they're world is a closed one.
Now, some would counter by saying that our goal then as faculty should be to educate these students. True enough; however, they need to have certain skills and abilities; the job of the university is not to provide them with skills that they should have developed in high school.
Liberalhater, could you please explain in detail how university faculty are a part of the problem. Please refrain from stereotypes and emotive generalities. Specifiicty and reason are appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by liberalhater on Oct 5, 2008 10:48:02 GMT -6
Their was no generalities in your statement. "You can tell who the football players are."
pfft.
|
|
|
|
Post by knight9299 on Oct 5, 2008 10:51:21 GMT -6
It takes two to have a conflict. If I'm reading you right, you're inferring professors causing conflict as well. How are the professors part of the problem? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 5, 2008 10:53:38 GMT -6
CoachD, Nobody is happier that Vandy Stanford and Duke and the like are having success. But Yes. The football programs are only part of the problem, Believe it or not the professors are also part of the problem. Just to be clear...Stanford and Duke are not part of the equation here in this thread. Hemlock was not discussing academic requirements as much as he is the ENTIRE ATHLETIC STRUCTURE. Vandy essentially took their athletic program, organized it similarly to a "club" team or an intramural organization, but has them competing on an intercollegiate scale. As far as the fact that they take the same classes in HS yet don't do well in college...you are 100% correct. The problem here is two fold..one, lax HS oversight, and two, a conceptual shift in America that everyone needs a college education. |
|
|
|
Post by liberalhater on Oct 5, 2008 10:55:23 GMT -6
how about class warfare a.k.a pay differential, refusal to work with the athletic department? the superiority complex when it comes to athletics.....
|
|
|
|
Post by knight9299 on Oct 5, 2008 10:58:38 GMT -6
how about class warfare a.k.a pay differential, refusal to work with the athletic department? the superiority complex when it comes to athletics..... Well if there is no Athletic Department, they can't refuse to work with it. The elephant in this conversation is this: Why is being a football/basketball player enough to overlook this same players deficiencies in academics? |
|
|
|
Post by liberalhater on Oct 5, 2008 11:00:38 GMT -6
I can apply that title nine, race and every other equality issue, knight. Life isnt fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by liberalhater on Oct 5, 2008 11:01:37 GMT -6
whether you like it or not, their is an athletic department or their is no athletics, semantics but real.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 5, 2008 11:03:32 GMT -6
whether you like it or not, their is an athletic department or their is no athletics, semantics but real. Liberal...you are (as usual) taking on topics outside of your paygrade. You did bring up one valid point...but you should have stopped then my friend. |
|
|
|
Post by liberalhater on Oct 5, 2008 11:06:13 GMT -6
no elitism their.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 5, 2008 11:13:35 GMT -6
No coach, PLENTY of elitism there. I don't deny it. Coach you have exhibited a pattern of voicing strong, sometimes incoherent , usually illogical opinions on subject matter that you are uniformed about. YOu make one valid comment , but then say things like "there is an athletic dept, semantics" without realizing the ENTIRELY different worlds that you are calling "semantics" Right now, you are trying to argue about the internal, back-office structure of intercollegiate athletics with people who have worked IN these structures. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but please, base it from a position of knowledge and strength. You won't catch me arguing with Leach about how to best run an airraid style of offense in the Big 12. I am not going to tell Alex Gibbs how to best run the inside zone in the NFL. The issue here is a very novel one... a team comprised of a true representation of the student body, rather than a team comprised of mercenaries "hired" in to entertain the student body. |
|
|
|
Post by coachorr on Oct 5, 2008 11:30:39 GMT -6
Off topic but on. When I was living in the dorms many many years ago, I put on my application that I wanted a roommate of diverse background. I got a Japanese exchange student and it was a lot of fun to get to know him and his friends. It was a good life experience. I went on to get an undergraduate degree in International Relations, study abroad and learn Spanish.
The point being, I think all students are in school for the greater experience it provides to the individual. As an athlete on scholarship, I had some football friends and I had many non-football friends and it all added to my development as a person.
I didn't like the "I'm a football player, I am special", mentality that so many had. That kind of "elitism" can really stunt one's growth as a person.
|
|
|
|
Post by liberalhater on Oct 5, 2008 11:48:33 GMT -6
I have no problem with housing of athletes seperately. ZERO, zilch. I do however have a problem with leaving athletic progams, regardless of what you call them in the hands of elitist, liberals or whatever you want to call them. I believe in the slippery slope. That slope would and will destroy collegiate athletics IMO. The indivdual like it or not, is only given access to educate himself. Nobody can make him do it. You can house however you want. It wont matter. A true student body is diverse by its nature and that include athletes who will normally hang among themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by knight9299 on Oct 5, 2008 11:51:58 GMT -6
I can apply that title nine, race and every other equality issue, knight. Life isnt fair. Sure isn't. But you still ignored the elephant. Why are universities and colleges (places of higher learning) tolerating student-athletes that are there for athletics and nothing else? MONEY! |
|
|
|
Post by liberalhater on Oct 5, 2008 12:03:02 GMT -6
Those evil capitalist.....LOL! They produce money by way of market demand. WHAT A concept. What a concept. Unlike the socialist who think the market is what they deem important.
|
|
|
|
Post by liberalhater on Oct 5, 2008 12:08:58 GMT -6
why do we impose equality standard on universities for no other reason than fairness? You know places of higher learning?
|
|
|
|
Post by 1ispread on Oct 5, 2008 12:13:25 GMT -6
hemlock is right. The University is a higher education insituition not a minor league football club. As far as being elite, I think the star football player lives a more favored life than the top student of the english department. Liberal your rant about professors was ridiculous, when did being educated become a bad thing? But then again someone in a field educating & molding young people using the word hater as part of a screen name is ridiculous. Quit hating enjoy your life, you have the greatest of lifes you are a football coach.
|
|
|
|
Post by morris on Oct 5, 2008 12:21:03 GMT -6
As far as the fact that they take the same classes in HS yet don't do well in college...you are 100% correct. The problem here is two fold..one, lax HS oversight, and two, a conceptual shift in America that everyone needs a college education. They do not all take the same classes in HS nor in Jr High/MS. Most schools have 3 levels of classes and you have athletes in each level. Most state require a certain number of math, english and such credits ot get out of HS but they do not say they have to be Honors Cal or AP English. Least restrictive enviroment, IEPs, 504 plans and a number of other issues allows this athletes to go through HS. How many knew you could have a reader for the ACT/SAT if you have the right paperwork. As far as I know once they get out of HS all that does not mean crap. No readers, scribes, adapted assigments, toolkits and etc. So no they do not all take the same classes nor do they play under the same rules. It does not always have something to do with the student being a football/basketball player. Sorry did not mean the above to sound like I was jumping down someone's throat. |
|
|
|
Post by liberalhater on Oct 5, 2008 12:27:24 GMT -6
I agree. the problems though exstend only to those that the people in education want it to. exstend to. again the free market create the life for the athletes. TOO bad for the rest of them. IF the english dept students want that life style find somebody who will pay for it. Somehow I know the answer.
My rant about professor is dead on.
|
|
