|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 5, 2008 12:38:24 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. You are correct in the specifics of the issue. However, the underlying principal that L.H was conveying is correct. To graduate from H.S, you must generally perform in the same academic realm as the general student body. I agree with him in this regard...that the kids are getting out of H.S without being prepared for the college academic rigors.
|
|
|
Post by airman on Oct 5, 2008 13:11:05 GMT -6
I love the message that Vanderbilt sends about college sports and education.
Personally I believe scholarships should be done away with or strictly based on need as long as the recruit meets the academic standards. At Duke they have an out. they allow 1% of the student body to not meet the strict standards. now this does not mean they are going to recruit dummies either.
The reality is college football and basketball are a business in which athletes are disposable. there is always some other guy who can take your spot. schools make money off the backs of the players. people counter that they get a free education but often times the level of commitment to sports over takes the studies.
ND coach Charlie Weiss is a prime example. a couple years ago he had this stud tight end. He told him it was possible to be both a football player and a architecture major. when the kid got to school he found out very differently. labs were during practice and Charlie expected him to skip them. the kid decided his major was going to get him a lot further then football would and Weiss was very upset with him.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Oct 5, 2008 13:27:12 GMT -6
I'm not sure if it's worth arguing with. There's a few thoughts here:
(1) I agree that hemlock's Q about it largely hinging on the primary purpose of a university. Is it there to educate people or to provide an entertaining sports product. I would have thought the former but, push comes to shove, lots of people really want that entertaining sports product.
(2) When it comes to private universities, I think you can't really tell them what to do. If they want to have one set of standards for their students and another set for a bunch of athletes who not only are not prepared to be there in the first place but expected to do nothing while they are there. But for public universities, where each person in the state helps pay for the education and the basket weaving classes that athletes take, then I'm surprise people don't get angrier about this. The irony of course is that it seems to be private schools like Duke, Vandy, etc who have the higher standards.
(3) I'm surprised liberhater isn't more against this. I assume you are against affirmative action. The argument there is that supposedly unqualified students are let into a school, take a spot away from a more qualified student, and are held to a different standard based on some reason other than their merit. Well, why is that different than what goes on with these athletes? Does anyone realistically think that the average member of the Michigan football program can compete academically with the rest of their highly qualified student body?
(4) The heart of all this is only partially what Vandy and Duke have done. I think what they are doing is commendable, but I wouldn't ask every school to do it. People want the entertaining sports product, and they need bodies to do it. The problem is trying to staff these teams with "student-athletes."
Ask yourself what defines a big time college football player: He lives in campus in housing for other members of his activity, and he eats with them. He is recruited to be there, shopped around, and interviewed (watch film, visits, etc). Once there, there are expectations with the kinds of hours he's required to put in (practice, training, etc). He is not expected to graduate, and the importance is how well he performs publicly. The university will use his image to sell various products--tickets, apparel, merchandise.
What does he sound like? A student? Or an employee?
I think the latter. Vandy and Duke should do what they do; it's impressive. The others should end the game, and just hire players. I guess people would object to an institution of higher learning owning and operating minor league football teams, but to me, it'd be more honest than what currently goes on. (Keep in mind too all the NCAA's myriad complicated rules which are in place to keep up the idea that somehow these really are student athletes.)
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Oct 5, 2008 13:32:08 GMT -6
You are correct in the specifics of the issue. However, the underlying principal that L.H was conveying is correct. To graduate from H.S, you must generally perform in the same academic realm as the general student body. I agree with him in this regard...that the kids are getting out of H.S without being prepared for the college academic rigors. I agree and disagree. I disagree insofar as the idea is that every high school graduate should be--or even could be--qualified academically to attend say, the University of Wisconsin, or UCLA, or Michigan, Purdue, Vandy, Wake Forest, etc. There really should not be the expectation that they would be. Florida St and Miami are both very good schools academically; I'm not sure why there's the expectation that if you're a top football player in florida then you also are academically qualified to attend one of those schools. I know there are some instances when people don't academically qualify, but those standards are ridiculously low. To me, the reality is that high school is for everyone: every single person in this country needs to be educated there as best as possible. But even if you think college is for everyone, surely the sames colleges aren't there for everyone? It's actually a testament to our country that we have colleges spanning the spectrum from Harvard and Yale to good schools to midlevel schools and down to junior college. I think high schools could do a better job preparing people for college, but I don't think that means that it is for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 5, 2008 13:47:03 GMT -6
You are correct in the specifics of the issue. However, the underlying principal that L.H was conveying is correct. To graduate from H.S, you must generally perform in the same academic realm as the general student body. I agree with him in this regard...that the kids are getting out of H.S without being prepared for the college academic rigors. I agree and disagree. I disagree insofar as the idea is that every high school graduate should be--or even could be--qualified academically to attend say, the University of Wisconsin, or UCLA, or Michigan, Purdue, Vandy, Wake Forest, etc. There really should not be the expectation that they would be. Florida St and Miami are both very good schools academically; I'm not sure why there's the expectation that if you're a top football player in florida then you also are academically qualified to attend one of those schools. I know there are some instances when people don't academically qualify, but those standards are ridiculously low. To me, the reality is that high school is for everyone: every single person in this country needs to be educated there as best as possible. But even if you think college is for everyone, surely the sames colleges aren't there for everyone? It's actually a testament to our country that we have colleges spanning the spectrum from Harvard and Yale to good schools to midlevel schools and down to junior college. I think high schools could do a better job preparing people for college, but I don't think that means that it is for everyone. I agree 100%, and I believe i stated that somewhere on this site (something about the fallacy that everyone should be in college) What I was referring to was those COLLEGE ATHLETES not being prepared for the academic rigors of college. You are correct, why should this be "expected". My answer to that is simply if they are being admitted, than it should be expected that they handle the workload...and I believe that was LH's point.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Oct 5, 2008 14:12:33 GMT -6
Okay, I get you now
|
|
|
Post by fatkicker on Oct 6, 2008 7:54:58 GMT -6
of course it's about the money.....
these classroom bozos are bringing their respective universities millions.....
what is the line from "the program"? when's the last time you saw 80,000 people gather to watch a chemistry exam?
if all of michigan's tickets were 50 dollars each......at 110, 000 tickets.....that's 5.5 million before a coke, nacho, or shirt has been sold......so, you could call it a minor league football club as long as this kind of money comes in 5 to 7 times a year....not counting the bowl payouts......
why not thank 'em for their service to the university instead of giving them a hard time?
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Oct 6, 2008 8:35:17 GMT -6
So you would like football at the collegiate level just go away? I don't know that you should be commenting on anything to do with college athletics, as I seriously doubt that you actually went to college. Actually, replace the term college in that last phrase with high school and we'll all have a more accurate picture. I can't believe the moderators on this site still put up with your particular brand of idiocy.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 6, 2008 12:30:38 GMT -6
I see that LiberalHater has yet to respond to my challenge. That is unfortunate, for I was truly hoping for enjoyable exchange of ideas.
Just one note. It is a fallacy that DIA programs financially benefit their institutions. They are more like the military industrial complex that Eisenhower spoke of shortly before he left office. Virtually all the profit they generate is pumped back into the Athletic Department in order to build and maintain their complexes. Yes, universities get a great deal of exposure and revenue from licensing fees and stuff; however, none of this money is injected directly into academic programs, etc. That is part of the problem. If the revenue that sports generate were used to actually support and benefit the academic programs that constitute the institution itself then you could make an argument for the current system as necessary evil.
It should be noted that I love football, as all you do; however, I always strive to remember what it is and what it is not.
|
|
|
Post by coachcathey on Oct 9, 2008 11:17:37 GMT -6
Some information on those "classroom bozos", www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/dec/essay.phd.htmlLess than one percent of the population (some say less than .5 percent)holds a Ph.D. so you could say elitist, because yes, it is a very elite position. You are indeed someone who is the expert in an area that nobody else is. The reason colleges exist in the first place is to educate students, just because they are an athlete should not give them more rights than any other student. The athletic departments puts little money back into academic field. When it does, it is directly related to the student athletes, (athletic student centers, etc.) where general students do not have the capability to attend.
|
|
|
Post by unc31 on Oct 9, 2008 12:21:50 GMT -6
hemlock, you are full of baloney. I have sent 22 kids to play Division 1 football in my career. All of them were legitimate students. You are making a severe generalization that football players are not academic enough to even be in college. You are wrong, and I resent that on behalf of all the great student athletes in America.
Oh and by the way, who in their right mind would be enthusiastic about learning Russian Lit anyway. Not anyone I would want to hang out with, lol.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 9, 2008 13:08:13 GMT -6
You know, I can either let this slide, or respond. There was nothing personal in anything that I posted. I'm happy that you have managed to send 22 kids to play DIA. That's great. I may have recruited a couple of them, who knows. But your comments reveal what you think about education in general. The comment, "who in their right mind would be enthusiastic about learning Russian lit" says a great deal about what you think college is for. This has nothing to do with my own discipline. Your comments suggest a disdain for the humanities in general, as well as for a liberal arts education.
I have coached in my career a number of fine student athletes; unfortunately, they were the exception, not the rule.
From the tone of your posting, I suspect that college is more about "credentialization" rather than education. That is, students should simply attend so that they may get their little piece of paper that certifies them to get a job. You are entitled to that opinion, but that is all that it is, an opinion and nothing more.
I also sense in your posting a certain hostility towards education as a whole, and in particular towards those you fear know more than you; your criteria for voting for a candidate, to quote Keith Olbermann, is whether or not you would like down a can of Schlitz in the backyard while tending to your ribs. Perhaps you are a Sarah Palin supporter, that is, somebody who relishes a lack of curiosity, celebrates ignorance, and disdains knowledge. Is this so? Please, be honest so that we may have a genuine discussion.
|
|
ystick2
Sophomore Member
Posts: 191
|
Post by ystick2 on Oct 9, 2008 14:05:56 GMT -6
Why would anyone place themselves in a verbose form of exchange with someone as verbal as Hemlock? Wait a minute - did that make sense?? 8)
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Oct 9, 2008 18:15:03 GMT -6
You know, I can either let this slide, or respond. There was nothing personal in anything that I posted. I'm happy that you have managed to send 22 kids to play DIA. That's great. I may have recruited a couple of them, who knows. But your comments reveal what you think about education in general. The comment, "who in their right mind would be enthusiastic about learning Russian lit" says a great deal about what you think college is for. This has nothing to do with my own discipline. Your comments suggest a disdain for the humanities in general, as well as for a liberal arts education. I have coached in my career a number of fine student athletes; unfortunately, they were the exception, not the rule. From the tone of your posting, I suspect that college is more about "credentialization" rather than education. That is, students should simply attend so that they may get their little piece of paper that certifies them to get a job. You are entitled to that opinion, but that is all that it is, an opinion and nothing more. I also sense in your posting a certain hostility towards education as a whole, and in particular towards those you fear know more than you; your criteria for voting for a candidate, to quote Keith Olbermann, is whether or not you would like down a can of Schlitz in the backyard while tending to your ribs. Perhaps you are a Sarah Palin supporter, that is, somebody who relishes a lack of curiosity, celebrates ignorance, and disdains knowledge. Is this so? Please, be honest so that we may have a genuine discussion. This is not a political board. Please get back to football.
|
|
|
Post by unc31 on Oct 9, 2008 21:22:36 GMT -6
Oh, trust me I am very much a proponent of education. However I am not pompous enough to ridicule or stereotype any group as "not belonging" in the educational arena. I graduated cum laude my friend and have coached at a college where academics certainly take higher priority than football. Not even in that heralded institution did I encounter anyone on the faculty with your self-important, yet delusional thinking.
Sir, you think way more highly of yourself than you should. If you were a coach, you were not very passionate about it. Therefore you were most likely an ineffective coach. Any true football coach cannot just walk away. You were simply dabbling and probably getting it handed to you by guys like me. Save your retorts. They are boring like you.
|
|
|
Post by 1ispread on Oct 10, 2008 22:46:51 GMT -6
"You were simply dabbling and probably getting it handed to you by guys like me" thats some great smack! "getting it handed to you by guys like me" I love that line. Seriously though I believe hemlock is passionate in any endeavor he takes on whether its coaching football, teaching Russian lit or digging a ditch. I bet he gives it his all & is plenty effective. Reading his posts I doubt if he ever simply dabbled in anything he got into. "probably getting it handed to you by guys like me" I do like that line its great. We better keep you under wraps. You might drive us all out of coaching as mean as you are.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 10, 2008 23:40:51 GMT -6
Oh, trust me I am very much a proponent of education. However I am not pompous enough to ridicule or stereotype any group as "not belonging" in the educational arena. I graduated cum laude my friend and have coached at a college where academics certainly take higher priority than football. Not even in that heralded institution did I encounter anyone on the faculty with your self-important, yet delusional thinking. Sir, you think way more highly of yourself than you should. If you were a coach, you were not very passionate about it. Therefore you were most likely an ineffective coach. Any true football coach cannot just walk away. You were simply dabbling and probably getting it handed to you by guys like me. Save your retorts. They are boring like you. Umm..hemlock coached at a BCS school. There is no "dabbling" involved. The fact that he is no longer interest in coaching in NO way related to his effectiveness. What exactly is a "true" football coach. YOu say you sent 22 players to Div 1. May I ask, how many players have you actually COACHED at the Div 1 level? May I ask how much time you have spent within the realms of Div 1 coaching, since that is the basis of the entire thread.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 11, 2008 7:17:52 GMT -6
Hi guys. This message is for everybody, including the gentleman with whom I was polemicizing and perhaps for a moment lost my cool. Unc31, you are clearly passionate about your profession and the kids you coach. Coaches should always have their kids' back. I know I always did, even when I would go home and ask myself whether the kid had a chance to succeed in school. The bottom line for me was that WE recruited the kid and we owed to him and his folks to do everything we could to help get him through.
Now, my Sarah Palin comment was, as Phantom noted, perhaps a bit much. However, nothing I said before was directed personally at any one individual's student-athletes. As spreadattack has so wisely stated, as he so frequently does, football as it is has a leveling effect in that it affords many kids the opportunity to move up that otherwise would does not exist. This is indeed very true. The problem, however, is that the industry that has developed around football and has institutionalized it in its present form is hardly that idealistic; it's decidedly more cynical.
Coaches are by an large excellent people; however, the institution of college football puts pressures on them that force them to do what is practically necessary in order to survive. The fact is, for some reason or another, most, not all, athletes at DIA schools are borderline students; on the flipside, the student athletes who play for the academies or in the Ivies lack the explosiveness, speed, and raw athleticism that the industry and the fan today now craves. Because of the football complex that has developed within institutions, coaches have to win no matter what and do whatever they need to do in order to keep their kids eligible. That means pushing them into majors that they know are not too demanding and suggesting courses that will boost the GPAs of those questionable students above the infamous thin red line required in order to play. I'm fully aware of the challenges that coaches face; I was on one staff that did whatever it needed in order to win, including signing up kids for meaningless classes such as tennis, bowling, and water polo. I"m not kidding, these classes exist. All of them for one or two credits, but that was all that was needed to get the kid above a 2.0. I was also on a staff that in my opinion today did things the right way; our head coach played by the rules, demanded that his boys take the right classes, and did try to hide them in anyway. Well, as I'm sure you know, we got fired because just did not have the kids to compete for a full four quarters everyday. Such is life. That's why I respect what Vandy is doing so much. The administration is fully aware of the fact that they will not compete succesffuly every season. While there is certainly pressure on Bobby Johnson and his staff to compete, the administration understands what is priorities are. T
Student athletes are great and I hale their accomplishments. I'm sorry if I became a bit too persnickety before in my reply to unc31. I also appreciate the support of many of the people who have posted backing my views, but they are just that, views and nothing more.
Thanks a lot.
|
|
|
Post by unc31 on Oct 12, 2008 22:30:16 GMT -6
I coached for two years in the Southern Conference and for two years in Conference USA. At least 6 guys that I coached are still playing in the NFL. I am coaching HS football because I chose to do so. As passionate as I am about the game and as much as I loved coaching college football, my family had to come first. While coaching collegiately, my wife was raising my 3,7 and 8 year olds while I was spending up to 18 hours per day at my job. Coaching HS football afforded me to do what I love, but more importantly to see my kids, participate in their rearing and to be home every night. I have no regrets.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Oct 13, 2008 8:27:14 GMT -6
Okay, I think this thread has exhausted its usefulness. I think hemlock is an intelligent and passionate guy, and got a little too fired up on a point, and unc too is a pretty convicted guy, and went after him (and not without reason). But I don't think we need a thread where we question everybody's motives for coaching, not coaching, etc.
I think the moral of the story is that what Vanderbilt is doing is great and inspiring--they have a good football program, they are a great (private) university that is already quite selective, and their athletes are generally high quality students and people. It's a testament to everyone involved. From there, there are examples of first class coaches, student athletes, administrators, and some not so first class ones. We won't solve it today, and I guess I'd prefer it if this thread was locked and we moved on to some football.
|
|