John Oliver's Rant on the NCAA

[fisheyes]

Hilarious with some obvious truths:
(And no mercy for the Cheaters of course!)

http://theweek.com/speedreads/544406/john-oliver-mercilessly-tackles-march-madness-student-athletes-ncaas-shady-business-model

[NancyCarol]

It was brilliant. And in addition to exposing the cheaters brought forth some real issues that need to be addressed. I knew all this on some level of course, but seeing it set forth again just made me sick to my stomach. It looks like change is going to have to come from the fans. Can we all get behind compensation of some sort for the people who entertain us, energize us, and make us feel like we are "part of" something wonderful or are we going to sit here and continue to let this farcical enterprise continue? Yeah, that's probably rhetorical.

[dukelifer]

Hilarious with some obvious truths:
(And no mercy for the Cheaters of course!)

http://theweek.com/speedreads/544406/john-oliver-mercilessly-tackles-march-madness-student-athletes-ncaas-shady-business-model

Lots of uncomfortable truths here. I enjoy college sports but the money is out of control and all of it puts even greater pressure on the "student athlete" and University. Schedules are determined by TV - not the schools. TV pays the bills and they call the shots. Players are expected to practice more- travel more and endure more. It is naive to think that UNC is the only school who have created fake classes to keep players eligible. Coaches want to be in a position to get the bigger paycheck - and ask more from the players. The vast majority of players will never reap the benefits of what they did on the field or court and many of those will live with injuries or disabilities that will affect the quality of their lives. There is no question that something needs to change.

[Duvall]

Lots of uncomfortable truths here. I enjoy college sports but the money is out of control and all of it puts even greater pressure on the "student athlete" and University. Schedules are determined by TV - not the schools. TV pays the bills and they call the shots. Players are expected to practice more- travel more and endure more. It is naive to think that UNC is the only school who have created fake classes to keep players eligible. Coaches want to be in a position to get the bigger paycheck - and ask more from the players. The vast majority of players will never reap the benefits of what they did on the field or court and many of those will live with injuries or disabilities that will affect the quality of their lives. There is no question that something needs to change.

So clearly the answer is to get rid of the NCAA and put ESPN in charge.

[Kfanarmy]

Hilarious with some obvious truths:
(And no mercy for the Cheaters of course!)

http://theweek.com/speedreads/544406/john-oliver-mercilessly-tackles-march-madness-student-athletes-ncaas-shady-business-model

Won't watch it.

I tried to watch his show a couple of times and decided it simply isn't worth the effort, even if he's attacking a common foe. His one sided monologues could make any informed person feel dumber after watching.

[Duke95]

John Oliver is the closest thing to actual investigative journalism we have in the US media.

[FerryFor50]

Won't watch it.

I tried to watch his show a couple of times and decided it simply isn't worth the effort, even if he's attacking a common foe. His one sided monologues could make any informed person feel dumber after watching.

Depends on where you are getting your information, I suppose... ;)

[PackMan97]

It is naive to think that UNC is the only school who have created fake classes to keep players eligible.

Is there another school out there that wins national titles with a 96% graduation rate and never has any academic issues keeping their star athletes eligible? Another school that when faced with clear examples of plagiarism takes no action? Notre Dame has suspended and expelled players that were caught cheating recently. Duke lost Greg Newton for a year. NC State routinely has academic casualties. Even then, other schools that keep kids eligible don't always have them graduate because taking all the "easy" courses doesn't lead toward a degree.

Only at Carolina did they make a completely fake degree program so that athletes could both stay eligible, but also progress toward a degree and graduate. That is the difference. Just ask UConn how important that APR measurement has become. UNC's situation isn't about a "few fake courses" it's about an entire fraudulent academic department and course of study.

[Kfanarmy]

John Oliver is the closest thing to actual investigative journalism we have in the US media.

Too funny. Yet sadly could be true.


Depends on where you are getting your information, I suppose... ;)

Unfortunately, as we move closer and closer to the societal awareness of Idiocracy, true…

[FerryFor50]

Too funny. Yet sadly could be true.



Unfortunately, as we move closer and closer to the societal awareness of Idiocracy, true…

Just watch the video. Worth it for:

- the unadulterated NCAA criticism
- the UNC swahili hate
- the video game sandwich

[gumbomoop]

Only at Carolina did they make a completely fake degree program so that athletes could both stay eligible, but also progress toward a degree and graduate.... UNC's situation isn't about a "few fake courses" it's about an entire fraudulent academic department and course of study.

Although your overall point here is accurate, AFAM was neither "a completely fake degree program" nor "an entire fraudulent academic department." The vast majority of AFAM courses were legit, requiring real academic work on important subjects.

My complaint here is only with the overgeneralizations. Having offered what I hope you will think a constructive, if serious, correction, I will compliment you and Pack investigators for the facts you've brought to light and the leads you've provided to other investigators. Even given the obviously self-interested nature of Pack and Devil critics who have mercilessly and justifiably blasted the supercilious Carolina Way and chortled over its revealed waywardness, you and we have mostly behaved more honorably than, say, embarrassing proportions of UNCCH administrators and tenured faculty members.

[blazindw]

Watched LWT this morning...LOVED the segment on the NCAA. It's also important to note that he usually does one main focus each week and spends about 10 minutes on that topic. He basically dedicated the last 25 minutes of his 30 minute show to tearing down the NCAA brick by brick. Outstanding!

[Henderson]

Another brilliant segment. I'm so glad HBO gives him a full week to prepare, because the results show. The staff obviously digs deep. I hope someone doesn't convince him to do several shows per week. He's in a groove in his current format.

The portion on UNC-CH was priceless. The more their problems filter into the general population via high volume media, the better. And John Oliver gets a lot of play.

[PackMan97]

Although your overall point here is accurate, AFAM was neither "a completely fake degree program" nor "an entire fraudulent academic department." The vast majority of AFAM courses were legit, requiring real academic work on important subjects.

My complaint here is only with the overgeneralizations. Having offered what I hope you will think a constructive, if serious, correction, I will compliment you and Pack investigators for the facts you've brought to light and the leads you've provided to other investigators. Even given the obviously self-interested nature of Pack and Devil critics who have mercilessly and justifiably blasted the supercilious Carolina Way and chortled over its revealed waywardness, you and we have mostly behaved more honorably than, say, embarrassing proportions of UNCCH administrators and tenured faculty members.

I don't disagree that I overgeneralized. I was of course referring to the athlete-only version of AFAM.

That said, Given the fact that the cheating has been documented back to the late 80s and the AFAM department was not founded until the mid 90's (I think it was '93 or '94), I am not sure what the truth is. Was a program created to house fake degrees and some legit students were put in to make it look real (a Potemkin village if you will), or a legit program was hijacked and had an athlete only path toward a degree inserted. Just food for thought. It's a chicken/egg thing in my opinion. Would AFAM has existed without the cheating or would the cheating exist without the AFAM? My guess is the cheating would endure even if it had found another host and AFAM may or may not have even become a department.

FWIW - This year NC State is dropping their African Studies major (it was never a department) and making it a degree concentration instead. I believe State has less than a handful of students enrolled in it as a degree program.

[Duke95]

Although your overall point here is accurate, AFAM was neither "a completely fake degree program" nor "an entire fraudulent academic department." The vast majority of AFAM courses were legit, requiring real academic work on important subjects.

I'm curious to see the evidence of this.

[duke79]

Quite entertaining to watch, and, IMHO, he makes quite a few valid points (although perhaps somewhat oversimplified) about the NCAA and the influence of big money on college athletics. Loved the part about UNC and the Swahili classes and great ending segment on the new video game, "March Sadness". I hate to be cynical but there is so much money flowing through big-time college athletics that I don't think we'll ever see meaningful reform of the whole model.

[Duke95]

Hmmm.

An industry where the coaches (and NCAA administrators), about 90% of whom are white, benefit from the work of players, who a) are unpaid, b) are largely unprotected, c) receive a marginal education in many cases, d) are a majority black...where have we seen this before, I wonder....

[gumbomoop]

I'm curious to see the evidence of this.

At one point, maybe 3 years ago, I looked into syllabi for more than a few UNC AFAM courses. Now it's true that a syllabus doesn't prove a course is challenging. But I've had plenty of experience reviewing syllabi across numerous departments, and will claim that, when read judiciously, you can tell a fair amount about the rigor of a course, the appropriateness of topics covered, its requirements, the professor's expectations, the grading standards. I'll generalize this way: none of these syllabi screamed, "joke," and several looked a good bit more challenging than some I've reviewed from faculty in departments the legitimacy of which was not questioned.

Admittedly, I'm not prepared to spend the kind of time -- months, years? -- it would take to try to gather whatever such evidence of rigor might still be accessed. If you'll gather 40 or 50 syllabi from 10 or 12 instructors from 2000-2010, I'll review them and report on what I think can be gleaned re the quality of the course.

I've argued since the scandal broke several years ago that the majority of instructors/professors in AFAM were unfairly tainted by the Nyang'Oro scam. I think at least one other instructor in that department was disciplined for having some knowledge of the Chairman's fraud, but I cannot remember the details. Some UNC faculty came to the defense of their maligned colleagues.

I suppose the fact that the AFAM department was reorganized and reconstructed might lend credence to suspicions about the department generally up to 2010 or so. But once the fraud was revealed, it's not surprising, nor particularly suspicious, that a major review and reorganization was conducted from the ground up. AFAM was so tainted that that had to occur. And yes, I'd be curious to compare 2005 syllabi on Topics XYZ with 2015 versions thereof. But only curious, as I'm unwilling to expend time and energy to sate my curiosity. Especially since I'm already convinced that I wouldn't see substantially more quality in the recent syllabi, and equally convinced that most people have made up minds on the issue your and my post here address.

[Duke95]

At one point, maybe 3 years ago, I looked into syllabi for more than a few UNC AFAM courses. Now it's true that a syllabus doesn't prove a course is challenging. But I've had plenty of experience reviewing syllabi across numerous departments, and will claim that, when read judiciously, you can tell a fair amount about the rigor of a course, the appropriateness of topics covered, its requirements, the professor's expectations, the grading standards. I'll generalize this way: none of these syllabi screamed, "joke," and several looked a good bit more challenging than some I've reviewed from faculty in departments the legitimacy of which was not questioned.

Admittedly, I'm not prepared to spend the kind of time -- months, years? -- it would take to try to gather whatever such evidence of rigor might still be accessed. If you'll gather 40 or 50 syllabi from 10 or 12 instructors from 2000-2010, I'll review them and report on what I think can be gleaned re the quality of the course.

I've argued since the scandal broke several years ago that the majority of instructors/professors in AFAM were unfairly tainted by the Nyang'Oro scam. I think at least one other instructor in that department was disciplined for having some knowledge of the Chairman's fraud, but I cannot remember the details. Some UNC faculty came to the defense of their maligned colleagues.

I suppose the fact that the AFAM department was reorganized and reconstructed might lend credence to suspicions about the department generally up to 2010 or so. But once the fraud was revealed, it's not surprising, nor particularly suspicious, that a major review and reorganization was conducted from the ground up. AFAM was so tainted that that had to occur. And yes, I'd be curious to compare 2005 syllabi on Topics XYZ with 2015 versions thereof. But only curious, as I'm unwilling to expend time and energy to sate my curiosity. Especially since I'm already convinced that I wouldn't see substantially more quality in the recent syllabi, and equally convinced that most people have made up minds on the issue your and my post here address.

Fair enough. But as your point was a critique of "over-generalization", I have to point out that you have essentially done the same thing. Given the problems with the AFAM department, I would say the burden is on it to provide ample evidence to confirm that the program is indeed legitimate. I am certainly not the one making the claim as to the department's legitimacy, but if you are, then I would say you have the burden to gather the evidence to support your position. I am simply pointing out that the scandal has raised questions about said legitimacy.

[gumbomoop]

Fair enough. But as your point was a critique of "over-generalization", I have to point out that you have essentially done the same thing. Given the problems with the AFAM department, I would say the burden is on it to provide ample evidence to confirm that the program is indeed legitimate.

Well, to generalize isn't the same as to over-generalize. I had to provide a general response to your request for evidence, as I do not possess the syllabi evidence I (yes, claim to have) reviewed 3 years ago. Further, I intended to, and think I did, provide concrete categories of information about course-quality that can be gleaned from syllabi.

I agree with you that the reconstructed, formerly designated AFAM department is probably in the midst of a several-years legitimacy test at UNC. I predict it passes, easily, and would be interested in seeing a few years hence some sort of account of the post-Nyang'Oro restart.

Finally, I have a lot more faith in the overall academic/intellectual rigor facing most UNC AFAM students, circa 2000-2010, than I do in several of the programs listed as the 2015 majors of the recently announced ACC All Academic Team. I repeat: Duke is among a very small group of ACC universities where at least a significant portion of its student-athletes are students with pressing academic loads.

[Duke95]

UNC's AFAM/psychology/grad school problems aside, John Oliver's segment is poignant. The NCAA is largely in the business of exploiting its unpaid work force.

The excuse that the "student-athletes" are getting an "education" in return is absolute garbage.

[gumbomoop]

I am certainly not the one making the claim as to the department's legitimacy, but if you are, then I would say you have the burden to gather the evidence to support your position. I am simply pointing out that the scandal has raised questions about said legitimacy.

I don't feel any such burden, for reasons I've already stated above, but I will concede that I will be interested in whether the Smith-Willingham book has a chapter on whether Smith's faculty colleagues over in AFAM were among those who got "cheated."

That Crowder and/or Nyang'Oro felt compelled to forge signatures and change grades does provide circumstantial evidence that most instructors' standards had to be undermined for the scam to proceed. Do you agree that that is interesting, even compelling, evidence that many AFAM courses were legitimate, with solid standards, that had to be undermined? That Nyang'Oro had to cheat precisely because his legitimate colleagues wouldn't cheat?

[Duke95]

That Crowder and/or Nyang'Oro felt compelled to forge signatures and change grades does provide circumstantial evidence that most instructors' standards had to be undermined for the scam to proceed. Do you agree that that is interesting, even compelling, evidence that many AFAM courses were legitimate, with solid standards, that had to be undermined? That Nyang'Oro had to cheat precisely because his legitimate colleagues wouldn't cheat?

I would not agree with that. Evidence of fraud by certain members does not constitute evidence of honesty by others. It simply means that some fraud was uncovered. Whether others committed a fraud still remains a null hypothesis that must be investigated. However, I would find it very doubtful that the entire AFAM program was involved in the fraud. UNC is by and large a very good academic institution, but one that has been ill served by having to bend its academic rules under the whip of the athletic department.

[gumbomoop]

I would not agree with that. Evidence of fraud by certain members does not constitute evidence of honesty by others. It simply means that some fraud was uncovered. Whether others committed a fraud still remains a null hypothesis that must be investigated. However, I would find it very doubtful that the entire AFAM program was involved in the fraud. UNC is by and large a very good academic institution, but one that has been ill served by having to bend its academic rules under the whip of the athletic department.

Evidence of a particular kind of fraud -- grade changes and forged signatures -- constitutes circumstantial evidence that the scammer knew good and well that departmental colleagues would be appalled by what he was doing, because they thought they were teaching challenging courses on important topics, took student assessment seriously, etc. [Concession here: challenge, rigor, care, quality were unlikely to have been uniformly high in AFAM -- taking back the concession here -- any more than in any department.]

If you "find it doubtful that the entire AFAM program was involved in the fraud," then presumably you agree with PackMan97's concession that his original characterization -- "an entire fraudulent academic department " -- was inaccurate.

I fully agree with your final sentence, and PackMan97's overall point, as it refocuses attention on the athletic department origins and purpose of the scam.

[75Crazie]

I don't feel any such burden, for reasons I've already stated above, but I will concede that I will be interested in whether the Smith-Willingham book has a chapter on whether Smith's faculty colleagues over in AFAM were among those who got "cheated."

That Crowder and/or Nyang'Oro felt compelled to forge signatures and change grades does provide circumstantial evidence that most instructors' standards had to be undermined for the scam to proceed. Do you agree that that is interesting, even compelling, evidence that many AFAM courses were legitimate, with solid standards, that had to be undermined? That Nyang'Oro had to cheat precisely because his legitimate colleagues wouldn't cheat?
I have read four chapters of "Cheated" so far, and in those chapters Smith/Willingham go pretty far out of their way to avoid tarring the entire department with the Nyang'oro brush. In fact, they have claimed at least a couple of times that the AFRI/AFAM department has (or at least had) top-level professors and staff and that many (if not most) students in the program got good educations. Maybe later in the book they start discussing the impacts of the cheater fallout on the department as a whole ... but in those four chapters they have pretty much focused the attention solely on Nyang'oro and Crowder, as far as the department goes (along with, of course, the athletic complex and the university leaders).

[MarkD83]

I used to be on the side of adding up the cost of a college education (tuition, room and board etc.) and putting that on the side of the ledger that showed how much athletes "are paid". Now that my kids are in college and I have had the discussions about financial aid, loans and value of an education.... I realize the tuition values are highly inflated and manipulated numbers which should be tempered when considering how much a student-athlete is compensated.

For example, there are foreign students that travel to the US for university educations. (No this is not a rant about foreign students.) If their families have the means to pay for them to travel abroad for school they also have the means to pay higher tuition, so universities start to ask what the market can bear, NOT what is an equitable charge for the value of the education. This means the tuition values are over inflated. So instead of the $100K to $200K that folks put as a price tag, one needs to assign a more equitable number to the value. Once this is done I begin to swing my view to the side that just getting the education is not fair compensation for student-athletes.

[jgehtland]

Once this is done I begin to swing my view to the side that just getting the education is not fair compensation for student-athletes.

A free education is an adequate compensation for a student-athlete who:

* is allowed to benefit from it by having a schedule that a normal human being could deal with adequately
* is not simultaneously:
** generating a billion dollars a year in revenue by playing that sport and
** disallowed from pursuing it professionally

The CBA that mandates the one-and-done rule is the straw on that camel's saddle. So, a student-athlete HAS to generate that billion in revenue before they are allowed to seek their own paycheck (and please, don't give me overseas leagues as an alternative). That's indentured servitude at best.

[weezie]

AND, he even made Jalen Rose sound semi-coherent!

[sagegrouse]

Fair enough. But as your point was a critique of "over-generalization", I have to point out that you have essentially done the same thing. Given the problems with the AFAM department, I would say the burden is on it to provide ample evidence to confirm that the program is indeed legitimate. I am certainly not the one making the claim as to the department's legitimacy, but if you are, then I would say you have the burden to gather the evidence to support your position. I am simply pointing out that the scandal has raised questions about said legitimacy.

Where are you going with this? Are you talking about UNC or about academic departments or programs on the same subject in just about every college in America? Many of these colleges, of course, do not have major athletic programs.

[SoCalDukeFan]

A free education is an adequate compensation for a student-athlete who:

* is allowed to benefit from it by having a schedule that a normal human being could deal with adequately
* is not simultaneously:
** generating a billion dollars a year in revenue by playing that sport and
** disallowed from pursuing it professionally

The CBA that mandates the one-and-done rule is the straw on that camel's saddle. So, a student-athlete HAS to generate that billion in revenue before they are allowed to seek their own paycheck (and please, don't give me overseas leagues as an alternative). That's indentured servitude at best.

I don't like the one and done rule but am perplexed as to what the NCAA can do about it.

However if the NCAA wants to say that we have student-athletes playing the games then the NCAA should insure that the athletes have the opportunity to be students. For example, strict limitations on practice time requirements and games times and schedules that are conducive to the academic interest and not the TV interest. Why have play in games for the NCAA tournament which could require a team to play on the road Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday. Why do basketball games start at 9 pm? Why is football played on Tuesday and Thursday nights? The NCAA should not have its head in the sand regarding academics. It can not say that because we have student-athletes and so if a few non-athlete students got a gift A then its all right to give many athletes the same gift A. The NCAA should also review admissions and make sure that admitted athletes are prepared to be successful students.

Basically I think the NCAA should take one of views, big time college sports are played by big time players who generate billions of revenue and we want to maximize the revenue or college sports are played by student athletes and we want to maximize the educational opportunity. If the former, then pay the players. If you are not going to pay the players, then pursue the latter with dedication.

SoCal