Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 48 of 48
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    I put a Draconian attendance policy on the syllabus to scare the kids and then I proceed to ignore it at the end of the semester, because, with very few exceptions, the ones who don't show up perform poorly so the problem takes care of itself. At Duke, NC State, and Mississippi State, I enrolled very few varsity athletes and no revenue varsity athletes, for whatever reason. I did tutor two football players in Ron Butters' IntroLing. UMSL is DII and I think I've had a couple softball gals. Athletes have extensive academic support staff at their disposal.

    Given the more-selective student body, a place like Duke is going to have more kids who screw off all semester and waltz into a final and ace it. I wasn't one of those kids at Duke, and while I did miss some classes when I didn't feel well, I didn't do so frivolously, because I felt to do so was a waste of my late grandfather's money. He left me just about exactly enough money to get through Duke on the principle and I was crap-my-pants-lucky to graduate without debt.

    I dispute the notion that classes are harder simply because they're at Duke. Of course, it depends what "harder" means. If it means "harder to get a good grade" my classes at NC State and two at Carolina were much harder than those at Duke, for me.

    I gave 2 As in the Baby Syntax course last fall, which is what I suspect led to the Dean asking me to be on a committee about Latin Honors. I would teach the course more or less the same way were I still a grad student at Duke, adjunct at State, faculty at Mississippi State, or faculty here. I'd probably be [even] more lenient about life issues at UMSL than I would at other places given student demographics, but I'm me--it would be the same class, basically. The kids need to learn the same stuff.

    Some professors grade easier and some harder. This has nothing to do with the inherent difficulty of the highest level of the actual disciplines. The name of the school has next to nothing to do with anything. I had a colleague at Mississippi State who taught History of the Language and gave 16 Fs in a class of 20.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by FerryFor50 View Post
    So how many one and dones before the NBA rule was instituted? And how many "straight to NBA"?

    I think it's become much more prevalent since the 80s and 90s...

    And I'd argue that 10 last year and 4 from the same school could qualify as "more prevalent."
    Here's is what Tommy posted in the most recent one and done opinion thread (his recent numbers are somewhat different because I only included those who were drafted):


    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    In 1996, three freshmen came out: a juco guy nobody's heard of, plus Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Stephon Marbury. Three high schoolers, including Kobe Bryant, came out.

    In 1997, two freshmen and one high schooler (Tracy McGrady) came out.

    In 1998, three freshmen (one at a juco) and four high schoolers came out.

    In 1999, four freshmen (including Corey Maggette) and two high schoolers came out.

    In 2000, three freshmen and two high schoolers came out.

    In 2001, nine freshmen and six high schoolers (including 3 of the first four draft picks -- Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, and Eddie Curry) came out.

    In 2002, six freshmen (four of whom you've never heard of) and four high schoolers (including Amare Stoudemire) came out.

    In 2003, three freshmen came out: a guy named Jonathan Hargett, and two guys named Carmelo Anthony and Chris Bosh. Five high schoolers came out, including LeBron James.

    In 2004, five freshmen (including, sigh, Luol Deng and Kris Humphries) and nine high schoolers (including Dwight Howard and Shaun Livingston) came out.

    In 2005, three freshmen (including Marvin Williams) and eleven high schoolers came out.



    At this point, the "one and done" rule came into effect. So then:



    In 2006, two freshmen came out.

    In 2007, nine freshmen, including Greg Oden and Kevin Durant, came out.

    In 2008, 14 freshmen, led by Derrick Rose, came out.

    In 2009, five freshmen came out.

    In 2010, eleven freshmen, led by John Wall, came out.

    And in 2011, Kyrie Irving (again, sigh) led a group of nine freshmen to come out.
    I'll give you that it is more prevalent than before the age restriction, so maybe there is some correlation between the four or so players per year who wouldn't have gone to school if they didn't have to and a flouting of the student athlete ideal, although I'm not sure I'd bet on it.

    I'm not sure how four from one school makes it any more prevalent than the fourteen with two from UCLA and KSU in 2008, especially when all four went in the first round of the draft. If it were a situation where freshman were leaving to be second round picks or go undrafted in increasingly large numbers, I'd be more apt to agree that it does a disservice to the student athlete concept. However, that doesn't seem to be the case with the numbers being relatively stable from year to year.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by dcdevil2009 View Post
    Here's is what Tommy posted in the most recent one and done opinion thread (his recent numbers are somewhat different because I only included those who were drafted):




    I'll give you that it is more prevalent than before the age restriction, so maybe there is some correlation between the four or so players per year who wouldn't have gone to school if they didn't have to and a flouting of the student athlete ideal, although I'm not sure I'd bet on it.

    I'm not sure how four from one school makes it any more prevalent than the fourteen with two from UCLA and KSU in 2008, especially when all four went in the first round of the draft. If it were a situation where freshman were leaving to be second round picks or go undrafted in increasingly large numbers, I'd be more apt to agree that it does a disservice to the student athlete concept. However, that doesn't seem to be the case with the numbers being relatively stable from year to year.
    I guess we'll just have to wait to see the sample size grow after the one and done approach's success this year.

    I suspect a drop in one and dones this year because there are really only 3-4 guys who could possibly be good enough to consider it.

    But we'll see...

  4. #44

    "Football and Swahili"

    Another interesting perspective on the "student athlete."

    This article recants an anecdote from former UNC football player, Deunta Williams, who said that the UNC football players could only take courses approved by the athletic department, so that coursework would not interfere with practice. Swahili was taken as the language requirement, "Because the athletic department tutors are strong in Swahili."

    The writer, Joe Nocera, suggests that athletes be allowed to major in their sport - football major, basketball major, etc. as dancers do at other universities. (He also believes college athletes should be paid.)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/op...wahili.html?hp

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by FerryFor50 View Post
    I'm not attacking student athletes. I'm attacking one and dones and how they cheapen the term student athlete.
    Quote Originally Posted by dcdevil2009 View Post
    I think it tends to be individuals and not the system that cheapen the idea of the student athlete.
    I agree that the source of the problem lies in individuals, and not necessarily the system*. But I disagree about which individuals are to blame.

    (*Although by now the problem has become pretty deeply ingrained in the system as well.)

    Sometimes I wonder why it is the one-and-dones themselves who receive all the blame for "cheapening" the term student-athlete. The way I see it, they are only illustrating the fact that the term has actually been pretty cheap for a few decades now. I would say that the people who performed the actual "cheapening" itself were the NCAA and BCS executives, who all started signing big time television contracts the moment that college sports became profitable. IMO, they were the ones who actually destroyed the idea of the student-athlete.

    The players themselves are only playing the game according to the way the board was set up.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Jderf View Post
    I agree that the source of the problem lies in individuals, and not necessarily the system*. But I disagree about which individuals are to blame.

    (*Although by now the problem has become pretty deeply ingrained in the system as well.)

    Sometimes I wonder why it is the one-and-dones themselves who receive all the blame for "cheapening" the term student-athlete. The way I see it, they are only illustrating the fact that the term has actually been pretty cheap for a few decades now. I would say that the people who performed the actual "cheapening" itself were the NCAA and BCS executives, who all started signing big time television contracts the moment that college sports became profitable. IMO, they were the ones who actually destroyed the idea of the student-athlete.

    The players themselves are only playing the game according to the way the board was set up.
    Agreed. They're using the system and the system uses them.

    But who gets left holding the bag? The fans and the legitimate student athletes.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by Jderf View Post
    I would say that the people who performed the actual "cheapening" itself were the NCAA and BCS executives, who all started signing big time television contracts the moment that college sports became profitable. IMO, they were the ones who actually destroyed the idea of the student-athlete.

    The players themselves are only playing the game according to the way the board was set up.
    I think it's sometimes forgotten that the NCAA is technically a non-profit entity, and although the executives are garnering huge (some would say obscene) salaries, most of the money from those multi-billion dollar television contracts is actually going back to the member schools, which they are in turn using to fund non-revenue sports. Considering that almost all university athletic departments operate at a loss, it's unclear whether many of the non-revenue college sports could actually exist, especially when so many programs are already being cut for financial reasons with TV money flowing in.

    As to your point about players playing according to the way the board was set up, I agree, but just because they're able to do something, doesn't mean they should. As other posters in this thread have mentioned, one might not need to go to class to get an A in a course. However, one person's absence can cheapen (detract from might be a better description) the learning environment for the rest of the class. To use Kentucky as an example, if Daniel Orton can do as little work as he was alleged to have done and yet still remain eligible, it cheapens the effort guys like John Wall and Brandon Knight put in academically during their relatively short tenures as student-athletes. So, while taking advantage of a flawed system might be excusable, that shouldn't also mean it's acceptable.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    A Dose of Reality?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jderf View Post
    I agree that the source of the problem lies in individuals, and not necessarily the system*. But I disagree about which individuals are to blame.

    (*Although by now the problem has become pretty deeply ingrained in the system as well.)

    Sometimes I wonder why it is the one-and-dones themselves who receive all the blame for "cheapening" the term student-athlete. The way I see it, they are only illustrating the fact that the term has actually been pretty cheap for a few decades now. I would say that the people who performed the actual "cheapening" itself were the NCAA and BCS executives, who all started signing big time television contracts the moment that college sports became profitable. IMO, they were the ones who actually destroyed the idea of the student-athlete.

    The players themselves are only playing the game according to the way the board was set up.
    Quote Originally Posted by FerryFor50 View Post
    Agreed. They're using the system and the system uses them.

    But who gets left holding the bag? The fans and the legitimate student athletes.
    Quote Originally Posted by dcdevil2009 View Post
    I think it's sometimes forgotten that the NCAA is technically a non-profit entity, and although the executives are garnering huge (some would say obscene) salaries, most of the money from those multi-billion dollar television contracts is actually going back to the member schools, which they are in turn using to fund non-revenue sports. Considering that almost all university athletic departments operate at a loss, it's unclear whether many of the non-revenue college sports could actually exist, especially when so many programs are already being cut for financial reasons with TV money flowing in.
    I guess one could start with a blanket eight-word statement:

    There are built-in contradictions in "big-time" "college" "athletics."

    And these contradictions will never be resolved.

    Next question? Not to be impolite to those making sweeping statements, which I believe are sincere, but most proposals for radical change are unrealistic. Now in an alternative universe, with sports clubs in each town and/or city teams in every sport, college athletics could and would be radically different. But I just described Europe and parts of Latin America, not the US.

    In the US, big-time college athletics -- football, natch -- took hold in the 1920s and hasn't relinquished its grip on the American public. And, I don't see any forces that will make college athletics less than really big-time. And of course, college alums live 50 years or much longer after graduation and will continue to expect their schools to give it the old college try.

    In this context, one-and-done is a detail, and while it is causing anguish among schools and fans alike, all the parties can do is work within the constraints. "Play for pay" is not a detail but causes many, many problems. "Academics" is one of the big contradictions in that the best players are not often the best students, or even decent students, or even very interested in studies. "Big-time" means big money, which pays the bills but creates concerns about who's driving the university carriage. I remember when the Auburn president had to resign when he took a trip to meet another football coach and appeared to undermint Turbeville, the current coach. "Athletics," even in so-called minor sports, seems like a full-time job and even more so in football and basketball. BTW I have a lot of respect for athletes that can do well on the court and still handle the academics, the press, the social life and so on -- really an accomplishment.

    sagegrouse

Similar Threads

  1. Anthony Davis is AP POY
    By superdave in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-31-2012, 05:04 PM
  2. 2011 Duke Student-Athlete Graduate...Reflections
    By Verga3 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-06-2011, 06:47 PM
  3. Duke is #2 in student athlete graduation rates!!
    By GODUKEGO in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 03-19-2010, 07:59 AM
  4. Duke Student-Athlete Holiday Memories & Photos
    By Verga3 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-31-2008, 10:04 PM
  5. Student-Athlete Academic Challenges
    By Verga3 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-27-2008, 09:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •