Proposal to close the NCAA Eligibility Center and discontinue APR

[swood1000]

This started in the Wainstein thread but then was brought over here. The existing posts follow.


http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by LastRowFan http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=854956#post854956)
swood: I find this appalling, but is admitting unqualified student-athletes an NCAA violation of any sort? I doubt preferential admissions for athletes (which we all have) could be construed to be an impermissible benefit, though when it is this bad ... perhaps?



http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by swood1000 http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=854712#post854712)
Here's an interesting email found by BlueDevilicious, concerning a football player reading at the 3rd-4th grade level whose performance appalled even the prof teaching remedial reading. He asks "I would like to know on what basis ______ was admitted to Bridge if his academic ability is as low as his writing indicates." Bridge refers to the summer bridge program:


What I find most interesting about this, however, is the admonition by Christopher Riddick that "Email is not the most appropriate venue and I advise to discontinue any discussion of this over email." This shows that this discussion has crossed the line into those subjects that are kept under wraps.

Currently, initial eligibility is based on a combination of SAT score and high school GPA, as defined in By-law 14.3.1.1.2. With a high enough GPA an athlete can be eligible with a very low SAT. For example, an athlete with a GPA of 3.55 will be eligible if his or her SAT score is 400, which is the lowest possible score, awarded for showing up and signing one's name to the test. Such a person would probably be lower than a 3rd grade reader.

I read an interesting article by David Ridpath (http://www.forbes.com/sites/bdavidridpath/2016/01/23/abolishing-initial-eligibility-standards-not-a-bad-idea-if-done-right/#7183fa151e9a), who argues in favor of dropping the above test and allowing coaches to recruit whomever they want, as well as dropping the Academic Progress Rate (APR). He would adopt two measures. The first is that any incoming freshman who is more that one standard deviation from the profile of that institution’s incoming freshman class would be ineligible for competition and only have limited practice and conditioning opportunities. Eligibility for such a person would be extended to five years. (It does seem that this would work against schools with higher incoming academic standards, but on the other hand such a person might really be unable to get an actual education at that school, at least without the extra remedial year.)

The second change would be that every NCAA member institution must, to remain in good NCAA membership standing, publicly disclose through their Faculty Senates athlete specific academic data in the aggregate in comparison to the general student body. He claims that this can be done without identifying the individual athlete by name and meet the standards of the Family and Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA or the Buckley Amendment). The data that would be required to be disclosed by team would be
 
• average SAT and ACT scores by sport,
• Federal Graduation Rates by sport,
• graduation success rates by sport,
• independent studies taken by sport,
• a list of professors offering the independent studies and their average grade assigned,
• admissions profiles,
• athletes' progress toward a degree,
• trends in selected majors by sport,
• average grade distributions of faculty by major,
• incomplete grades by sport,
• grade changes by professors,
• and the name of each athlete's faculty adviser.

He argues:


All of this information mentioned above can be released without violating FERPA and frankly it is the best measure to keep institutions in line because transparency and the possibility of being exposed doing things like using soft majors, clustering athletes into those majors, friendly faculty, and pathetically low GPAs would be exposed and no university president or athletic director wants to be exposed as valuing athletics over academic primacy. Currently it is easy to do that while manipulating the system. Many revolting athletic academic issues would not have happened with academic disclosure. The 18 year athletic academic scandal at North Carolina would have been stopped immediately, if even allowed had disclosure been in place, just as it stopped on a dime once is was exposed by the press.

The best and most detailed explanation of Academic Disclosure and how it can work is in the outstanding 2003 Wisconsin Law Review Article (http://legalwritingeditor.com/files/2012/05/article_salzwedel_buckley.pdf) by Drake Group founder Dr. Jon Ericson and attorney Matthew Salzwedel entitled, Cleaning up Buckley: How the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Shields Academic Corruption in College Athletics. This article is a great primer that explains why disclosure is needed and why it is the single best method to insure academic integrity regarding college athletics on our campuses of higher learning.

He also mentions another article (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25457033/college-sports-discussing-eliminating-ncaa-academic-standards-for-freshmen) also advocating the dropping of the NCAA's current initial academic standards for freshmen and making the number of scholarships depend on graduation rates. He advocates having a low number of scholarships by default, which number can be increased by good graduation results, which he claims would turn this into an incentive for positive performance rather than a punishment for bad performance. What do you think?

I guess the one standard deviation test would be problematic for some schools. For example, at Duke if the "profile of the incoming freshman class" shows a verbal SAT of 730 and a standard deviation of 100, that means that recruits scoring below 630 (or 1260 total) have to take a remedial year? Maybe they define "profile" differently.


It seems to me that both the standard deviation suggestion and the scholarship provisioning idea would both create problematic incentives (e.g. fake classes to graduate players and get more scholarships), and also severely impede recruitment at academically elite schools. They seem like reasonable starting points for discussion, though.

I can't see any problem with reporting all of that academic data. That seems like a very good measure. Adopting it, while also abolishing general NCAA academic eligibility (admission) requirements, might provide a clearer view of the actual state of affairs across collegiate sports. Armed with a few years of that data, it might be possible to create a better set of policies without too many unintended consequences.


The rationale underlying the listed "Academic Disclosure" items is that they will make it impossible to hide fake classes designed to graduate players and get more scholarships.


Of course, and it certainly seems that the disclosures would help in that regard. Rules aren't physical laws, though. They can be circumvented and, to paraphrase Ian Malcolm, humans will "find a way." It might be that the disclosures would be sufficient to prevent fake classes, but additional incentive to graduate players would still increase the incentive to cheat, whether or not the incentive was acted upon. Human systems are complex; I'm not prepared to bet on the disclosure system working flawlessly, though I'd expect it to be a vast improvement.


Right. Every system has its weakest points. I guess the issue becomes: which system would be easier to fool or has the most weak points. Some of the advantages of the proposed system would be:

• There would be a greater incentive to make the changes necessary to graduate athletes. For example, if the undergraduate population graduates at 70 percent and the athletic population graduates at 45, they don't get to replace scholarships until they get to the place where they meet what the rest of the school does. Athletes incapable of taking normal courses and making legitimate academic progress would typically not be recruited.
• There could be less incentive to cheat since coaches would have an incentive to pass on athletes who really will not be able to prosper at that institution. Consequently there might be fewer athletes who need to cheat just to stay eligible.
• The academic disclosures would give full transparency to what the institution is doing to educate the athletes. No university president or athletic director wants to be exposed as valuing athletics over academic primacy. Currently it is easy to do that while manipulating the system.
• Grouping all of the athletes in the "easiest" majors regardless of their preferences or inclinations would be immediately spotted. This would work against the tendency of the current system to graduate students in an area of study that doesn’t lend to an effective career.
• A large number of student-athletes with pathetically low GPAs would be spotted.
• Professors who were willing to take on more independent study students than they could reasonably handle, as happened at UNC, would be spotted.
• Professors who gave everyone an A would be spotted.
• Classes without a professor, as happened at UNC, would be spotted.
• Grade changes following incompletes could not be done silently.
• The amount of time that first year academic redshirts were allowed to spend with the team would be reduced, thus improving the chance that the remediation will be effective. Those who are under prepared for the rigors of college academics would have a year without having to practice 40-50 hours a week, engage in extensive traveling, etc., which currently dooms their education. This might be a real boon to many athletes, allowing some of them to be recruited by schools who would not recruit them now (because they are academically behind or because their SAT/GPA combination is too low).
• We would get rid of the APR, which can be gamed (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8248046/college-sports-programs-find-multitude-ways-game-ncaa-apr).
• If all athletes are given five years of eligibility instead of four, it would result in more athletes being able to get their degrees.
• The NCAA's eligibility clearinghouse, expensive and unnecessary, would be done away with.
••The NCAA Eligibility Center, which used to be called the Clearinghouse, was created to approve courses offered by high schools and certify athletes' transcripts. In 2006, the NCAA Board of Directors gave the Eligibility Center authority to investigate schools with questionable academic rigor and declare athletes attending those schools ineligible. The reason: A growing number of “diploma mills,” which tend to be prep schools looking to get on the map in basketball and where high school recruits can get degrees from with ease.


•• Today, the Eligibility Center examines about 100,000 high school recruits each year, with about 10 percent of them becoming non-qualifiers, according to the NCAA. The NCAA said the “vast majority” of cases are completed within the Eligibility Center's standard 10 business days, but it's not uncommon for cases to need additional review. About a dozen NCAA employees work specifically on reviewing transcripts and flexible staffing allows approximately 60 people to help during peak periods.

•• Some say that the NCAA's current initial eligibility standard is "a joke" because it's set way too low for most public universities. http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25457033/college-sports-discussing-eliminating-ncaa-academic-standards-for-freshmen



I should have started a new thread. I'll do that. The subject is not college admissions but a proposal that many of the problems we see in college athletics, including the problems uncovered at UNC, would disappear if the NCAA stopped putting academic restrictions on freshman recruiting and substituted a combination of mandatory public disclosure of certain academic facts about athletes, along with a system whereby number of allowable scholarships increases if graduation rates increase. It relates to UNC in that it is suggested that those issues would not have been possible with these changes, but UNC's bad behavior and the punishment it should receive is the focus of this thread.




But wouldn't that encourage the kind of phony classes/degrees that are the heart of the UNC scandal?
See the post two posts above yours, beginning "Right." The theory is that the proposed changes would have made the UNC scandal impossible.

[Olympic Fan]

The theory is that the proposed changes would have made the UNC scandal impossible.

I don't see that all. During the scandal, UNC athletes graduated at a higher rate than the student body ... and UNC proclaimed it was because of a great support system.

How would you system prevent schools from setting up the kind of empty classes that were at the heart of the UNC scandal? If a school is determined to keep unqualified athletes eligible -- as UNC did -- they could create a myriad of fake classes. Dropping NCAA entrance requirements would merely open the door to even more functionally illiterate athletes -- at least the NCAA weeds out a few (not nearly enough) under the current system. It's obvious that a win-at-all-cost school has no shame and no problem subverting the academic process to meet any lofty NCAA academic requirements.

I think your proposal would make it MORE likely that schools like UNC would cheat academically -- and easier to get away with it.

Chris Kennedy once told me that the foundation of the NCAA system was the determination of the schools to do the right thing. If that determination is absent -- as it obviously is in Chapel Hill -- there is no limit to what that school can get away with -- no matter what rules you put in place.

[swood1000]

I don't see that all. During the scandal, UNC athletes graduated at a higher rate than the student body ... and UNC proclaimed it was because of a great support system.

How would you system prevent schools from setting up the kind of empty classes that were at the heart of the UNC scandal? If a school is determined to keep unqualified athletes eligible -- as UNC did -- they could create a myriad of fake classes. Dropping NCAA entrance requirements would merely open the door to even more functionally illiterate athletes -- at least the NCAA weeds out a few (not nearly enough) under the current system. It's obvious that a win-at-all-cost school has no shame and no problem subverting the academic process to meet any lofty NCAA academic requirements.

I think your proposal would make it MORE likely that schools like UNC would cheat academically -- and easier to get away with it.

Chris Kennedy once told me that the foundation of the NCAA system was the determination of the schools to do the right thing. If that determination is absent -- as it obviously is in Chapel Hill -- there is no limit to what that school can get away with -- no matter what rules you put in place.
In the first place it's not my proposal, although I think I agree with it. What aspect of the UNC academic scam could have taken place if all these disclosures had been in place? Athletes clustering in independent study classes that were paper classes with no faculty member but only Crowder to grade them would not have been able to slip under the radar. In the first place, a faculty member would have to be specified for each independent study and average grade assigned would have to be disclosed. Classes in which athletes were clustering would come under public scrutiny. What could cause athletes to cluster like that? Crowder would not have been able to tell athletes that they didn't have to show up for classes and instead submit a paper to her because she would not be able to quietly give a grade to those students without the regular professor or anybody else knowing about it. Cases in which Crowder and others went in and made grade changes would be announced to all. Questions would be raised as to why so many athletes were majoring in AFAM. Athletes with a third grade reading level would not be recruited unless the coach was convinced that an academic redshirt year would be enough to bring them up to college level. Consequently, there would be fewer people in the system who simply could not survive without skullduggery, and so paper classes would not be indispensable. The administration would not be able to turn a blind eye to red flags that everyone could see, as they can under the current system.

The bottom line is that with this information disclosed there would be no way of having students clustering in easy classes without that being obvious to everyone and questions being asked. And there would be no way of forcing students to choose easy majors without having to answer a lot of questions. Do you think that clustering would not be apparent, or that it would be easy for the coaching staff to just shrug off the questions and continue as before?

[Olympic Fan]

In the first place it's not my proposal, although I think I agree with it. What aspect of the UNC academic scam could have taken place if all these disclosures had been in place? Athletes clustering in independent study classes that were paper classes with no faculty member but only Crowder to grade them would not have been able to slip under the radar. In the first place, a faculty member would have to be specified for each independent study and average grade assigned would have to be disclosed. Classes in which athletes were clustering would come under public scrutiny. What could cause athletes to cluster like that? Crowder would not have been able to tell athletes that they didn't have to show up for classes and instead submit a paper to her because she would not be able to quietly give a grade to those students without the regular professor or anybody else knowing about it. Cases in which Crowder and others went in and made grade changes would be announced to all. Questions would be raised as to why so many athletes were majoring in AFAM. Athletes with a third grade reading level would not be recruited unless the coach was convinced that an academic redshirt year would be enough to bring them up to college level. Consequently, there would be fewer people in the system who simply could not survive without skullduggery, and so paper classes would not be indispensable. The administration would not be able to turn a blind eye to red flags that everyone could see, as they can under the current system.

The bottom line is that with this information disclosed there would be no way of having students clustering in easy classes without that being obvious to everyone and questions being asked. And there would be no way of forcing students to choose easy majors without having to answer a lot of questions. Do you think that clustering would not be apparent, or that it would be easy for the coaching staff to just shrug off the questions and continue as before?

First, I apologize for attributing the idea to you, although if you want to defend it, so be it.

But the bolded part is totally misleading. Many of those classes were originally (and deceitfully) listed as lecture classes. And NONE were graded by Debbie Crowder -- I mean, we now know they were, but they weren't originally reported to be (and weren't supposed to be). Even an independent study course is not necessarily bogus -- one of the toughest courses I took at Duke was independent studies. The prospectus listing that course at UNC is not going to say, the only work you have to do is turn in a paper that we already have on file for you to use.

Yes, there would be clustering in AFAM ... but clustering in itself is not evidence of cheating. A lot of anti-Duke people tried to make a big deal of Duke basketball players clustering in sociology back around the turn of the century.

And that overlooks the extent of the UNC scandal. It's NOT limited top AFAM (although when Wainstein tried to expand his probe, he was told not to). There is evidence that UNC created phony classes in drama, at least one naval studies course, geography and Jan Boxill's philosophy course. If the school is going to create phony classes, they can spread them out.

I don't see ANYTHING in the proposal you like (even if you didn't come up with it) to prevent what UNC did for 20-30 years. UNC can just give the phony courses impressive titles, link them to an accommodating professor (plenty to choose from) and go merrily along.

As I said, I think it makes things worse!

[BLPOG]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I agree with the disclosure aspect of the proposal but find the other parts lacking - I think it is too optimistic to assume that the added incentives to cheat would outweigh the cheating costs. That's just speculation though.

Of course, even the disclosures present difficulties (that's not an argument against making them, only their efficacy). Swood1000, in your excellent breakdown of likely effects, you mentioned the idea that "professors who gave everyone an A would be spotted." I think that might be wishful thinking. Athletes' grades would have to be analyzed in comparison to other students' grades, both broadly and within individual courses. In some (perhaps many) instances, athletes might select courses on the basis of historically high grades for all students, obfuscating the matter of preferential treatment. I know that in at least one academic analysis of the grade inflation phenomena, UNC was found to be among the most egregious "offenders." We can also deduce from the emails in the Wainstein supplemental documents that the UNC crowd was willing to use lower grades as long as they were sufficient to maintain eligibility. The actual mathematics of the analysis required for detection in many cases is non-trivial and sometimes irrelevant due to truly easy classes.

I think this issue speaks to the need for some level of standardized academic assessment across all NCAA athletes (we know the SAT/ACT aren't doing that effectively). Maybe the NCAA should mandate something like the Wonderlic. On the one hand it seems like adding an undue burden to athletes, but on the other hand I don't see any ready alternative for generating an effective comparison. The goal wouldn't be so much to say "you need to score X" to remain eligible, but rather to identify athletes for whom cheating might be particularly appealing using a test actually administered by the NCAA (or at least not the institution or easily-fooled SAT/ACT testing centers; perhaps rival institutions could administer exams?).

[Indoor66]

We can parse, dissect, analyze, propose, criticize, or hope; but in the end, cheaters are going to find a way to cheat. There are no systems that cannot be abused by someone willing to chance discovery. If the reward is large, the amount of risk the might be assumed is also larger.

The new proposals discussed by Swood make some sense and might well improve the present system. But, that said, if you want to game the system and enough people in enough positions agree to game the system, it cannot be stopped. Enforcement of laws, rules or anything depends on the cooperation of those subject to the laws and rules. Discovering the broad scale gaming of the system is really a hit or miss happenstance.

If you doubt me, look over at the dump on the hump and you can see an illustration of the height and breadth of a willingness to cheat and to attempt to hide it.

[Duke95]

The UNC paper class scandal has aptly illustrated how worthless "graduation rates" are.

Universities are (or should be) about education, not graduation. As long as the focus of athletics is on graduation, any "progress" is an illusion.

[swood1000]

First, I apologize for attributing the idea to you, although if you want to defend it, so be it.

But the bolded part is totally misleading. Many of those classes were originally (and deceitfully) listed as lecture classes. And NONE were graded by Debbie Crowder -- I mean, we now know they were, but they weren't originally reported to be (and weren't supposed to be). Even an independent study course is not necessarily bogus -- one of the toughest courses I took at Duke was independent studies. The prospectus listing that course at UNC is not going to say, the only work you have to do is turn in a paper that we already have on file for you to use.

Yes, there would be clustering in AFAM ... but clustering in itself is not evidence of cheating. A lot of anti-Duke people tried to make a big deal of Duke basketball players clustering in sociology back around the turn of the century.

And that overlooks the extent of the UNC scandal. It's NOT limited top AFAM (although when Wainstein tried to expand his probe, he was told not to). There is evidence that UNC created phony classes in drama, at least one naval studies course, geography and Jan Boxill's philosophy course. If the school is going to create phony classes, they can spread them out.

I don't see ANYTHING in the proposal you like (even if you didn't come up with it) to prevent what UNC did for 20-30 years. UNC can just give the phony courses impressive titles, link them to an accommodating professor (plenty to choose from) and go merrily along.

As I said, I think it makes things worse!


As I mentioned in the other thread, I agree with the disclosure aspect of the proposal but find the other parts lacking - I think it is too optimistic to assume that the added incentives to cheat would outweigh the cheating costs. That's just speculation though. ...


We can parse, dissect, analyze, propose, criticize, or hope; but in the end, cheaters are going to find a way to cheat. There are no systems that cannot be abused by someone willing to chance discovery. If the reward is large, the amount of risk the might be assumed is also larger. ...But, that said, if you want to game the system and enough people in enough positions agree to game the system, it cannot be stopped. Enforcement of laws, rules or anything depends on the cooperation of those subject to the laws and rules. ...

The proposition is that if sufficient access to academic data is given to a person who is motivated to uncover fraud, the kinds of problems that were found at UNC would be exposed to the light of day and so could not continue, if they could begin at all. The requirement is not to end all academic fraud, but to make it so difficult to do undetected that it would not be a viable mechanism for large-scale use in getting athletes graduated.

There are two parts to this problem. The first is, because of FERPA and for other privacy reasons, the lack of access to all the information we might want access to. The second is, if we had access to all information, would we then be able to spot all techniques designed to give a grade without requiring legitimate college level work? Let's focus on the second part of the problem and assume that we can access all information that we would like to. Certainly it won't do any good to urge greater access if even that wouldn't enable us to spot these problems. Then maybe we can work backward and determine the minimum access that we would need.

Let's assume that UNC had hired a committee composed of hard-core and committed Duke devotees, had tasked them with finding and uncovering any academic fraud involving athletes, and had given them carte blanche to look at any documents or records they wished, and to interview anybody. Would they have been able to spot the paper classes and the other issues described in the Wainstein Report? Clearly they would focus on uncovering the true character of all the classes. They could interview Crowder and Nyang'oro about how they were conducting all the Independent Studies, they could read all the papers, they could see all the grades assigned and grade changes made, and they could talk to students afterward to see how much they understood about the subject of the paper (in order to determine if they had written it at all). They would investigate whether Nyang'oro was handling more independent study classes than any professor could legitimately handle.

In interviewing the professors of all classes attended by athletes, and by attending some of the classes, they would discover those students who never showed up for class and who didn't show up for the exam because the class had been turned into a paper class for them. They could interview the students of classes in which the professors had given everyone an A in order to determine how much they had learned about the subject. They would discover those classes in which the subject matter was a joke and those classes in which no learning was required. They could compile statistics and make facts public.

Could Boxill, for example, still give a B where a D was appropriate? Yes. Could she give a B where a low F was appropriate? It would be more difficult, since an interview could determine that the student did not know the rudiments of the subject.

Although this kind of exposure would have still allowed some amount of academic fraud, the question is whether it would have effectively put an end to paper classes and other gross types of fraud, making this not a practicable approach to getting athletes graduated on a large scale.

[swood1000]

The argument has been made, by David Ridpath (http://www.forbes.com/sites/bdavidridpath/2016/01/23/abolishing-initial-eligibility-standards-not-a-bad-idea-if-done-right/#7183fa151e9a) and others, that the problems that surround accepting student-athletes who are not ready for college level work, including the arranging of classes for them that require no real work, as well as well as the susceptibility of the educational process to actual systematic cheating, could be resolved if a method could be found to make the educational process transparent. Of course it is not possible to eliminate all academic fraud, but the idea is that if these activities could not be hidden from the glare of the spotlight they would become so difficult to engage in undetected that this would not be a viable mechanism for organized or large-scale use in getting athletes moved along and graduated.

If such a method could be implemented, and if the number of scholarships available to teams started at a low number and increased as more athletes were graduated, then coaches would have an incentive to not recruit athletes who could not do college-level work (at least without a remedial year or two for catching up, during which they could not compete or engage in full-time team activities) because their failure to graduate would keep the number of scholarships at a low number. For the moment, let's assume that there are no privacy considerations or FERPA rules standing in the way. Would the following have resulted in a transparency that would have prevented all the fraudulent activities engaged in by UNC?

Suppose that UNC had hired a committee composed of hard-core and committed Duke devotees, had tasked them with finding and uncovering any academic fraud involving athletes, and had given them carte blanche to look at any documents or records they wished, and to interview anybody. Would they have been able to spot the paper classes and the other issues described in the Wainstein Report? Clearly they would focus on uncovering the true character of all the classes. They could interview Crowder and Nyang'oro about how they were conducting all the Independent Studies, they could read all the papers that were submitted, they could see all the grades assigned and grade changes made, and they could talk to students afterward to see how much they understood about the subject of the paper (in order to determine if they had written it at all). They would investigate whether Nyang'oro was handling more independent study classes than any professor could legitimately handle.

In interviewing the professors of all classes attended by athletes, and by attending some of the classes, they would discover those students who never showed up for class and who didn't show up for the exam because the class had been turned into a paper class for them. They could interview the students of classes in which the professors had given everyone an A, in order to determine how much they had learned about the subject. They would discover those classes in which the subject matter was a joke and those classes in which no learning was required. They could compile statistics and make facts public.

Could Boxill, for example, still give a B where a D was appropriate? Yes. Could she give a B where a low F was appropriate? It would be more difficult, since an interview could determine that the student did not know the rudiments of the subject.

Although this kind of exposure would have still allowed some amount of academic fraud, the question is whether it would have effectively put an end to paper classes and other gross types of fraud, so that it would not have been feasible to recruit athletes who were unprepared for college level work (and unwilling to take the preliminary catch-up classes) and expect that there would be any way of getting them graduated.

What do you think? Could methods be found to circumvent even this level of scrutiny?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Sorry for a simplistic reply to a very detailed series of posts, but I was thinking about this the other day...

When was the last time you heard of an athlete from ANY school being suspended or disciplined for academics? Does it even happen anymore? Or do all the school just excel at keeping their student athletes' heads above water?

It is all a charade at this point. The NCAA is a dinosaur with selective hearing and revenue athletes are indentured servents. I think any system that expects MORE from the NCAA rather than less is a losing proposition; they aren't equipped to be enforcers and are by all accounts terrible when they are called into that role.

I used to think the system was in dire need of repair. Now I think it needs to be blown up and built anew.

[swood1000]

Sorry for a simplistic reply to a very detailed series of posts, but I was thinking about this the other day...

When was the last time you heard of an athlete from ANY school being suspended or disciplined for academics? Does it even happen anymore? Or do all the school just excel at keeping their student athletes' heads above water?

It is all a charade at this point. The NCAA is a dinosaur with selective hearing and revenue athletes are indentured servents. I think any system that expects MORE from the NCAA rather than less is a losing proposition; they aren't equipped to be enforcers and are by all accounts terrible when they are called into that role.

I used to think the system was in dire need of repair. Now I think it needs to be blown up and built anew.
OK, but one reason they don't get suspended or disciplined for academics is that empty courses are available for them to glide through effortlessly. Under the proposed system, classes without content could not remain under the radar.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

OK, but one reason they don't get suspended or disciplined for academics is that empty courses are available for them to glide through effortlessly. Under the proposed system, classes without content could not remain under the radar.

But seriously, who was the last athlete at a big conference school to get dinged for academics? Last one I can recall at Duke was Ricky Price.

[swood1000]

But seriously, who was the last athlete at a big conference school to get dinged for academics? Last one I can recall at Duke was Ricky Price.
Well, it strikes me that there have been a few academic ineligibilities along the way. There was Rysheed Jordan (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball-news/4646397-rysheed-jordan-ineligible-st-johns-grades-ncaa), for example. But the dearth of instances would only point to the need there is for transparency in the courses student-athletes take.

[sagegrouse]

Lawrence O'Donnell is the liberal icon who fills the 10 PM EST slot on MSNBC. He gave a brief speech on the subject over the air. "I graduated from Harvard College. Harvard teaches 5,000 courses. Many of these courses are very demanding, but I will tell you that there are 1,000 courses taught at Harvard that are the easiest courses imaginable. They are almost impossible to fail."

This is Harvard. What are the prospects for introducing meaningful academic rigor in every course taught elsewhere?

[Papa John]

Sorry for a simplistic reply to a very detailed series of posts, but I was thinking about this the other day...

When was the last time you heard of an athlete from ANY school being suspended or disciplined for academics? Does it even happen anymore? Or do all the school just excel at keeping their student athletes' heads above water?

It is all a charade at this point. The NCAA is a dinosaur with selective hearing and revenue athletes are indentured servents. I think any system that expects MORE from the NCAA rather than less is a losing proposition; they aren't equipped to be enforcers and are by all accounts terrible when they are called into that role.

I used to think the system was in dire need of repair. Now I think it needs to be blown up and built anew.

Norte Dame suspended five scholarship football athletes two seasons ago for engaging in academic improprieties. All but one would have been starters or key reserves on a team that many hoped might be able to compete for a championship, The season prior to that, Notre Dame played without the QB who started for them in the National Championship game against Alabama because he was forced to withdraw from the school for two semesters and reapply for admission due to an academic impropriety. Yes, it happens... At schools where they care about educating their student athletes.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Well, it strikes me that there have been a few academic ineligibilities along the way. There was Rysheed Jordan (http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball-news/4646397-rysheed-jordan-ineligible-st-johns-grades-ncaa), for example. But the dearth of instances would only point to the need there is for transparency in the courses student-athletes take.

Thanks for the example. Almost the exception that proves the rule; seems that 15 years ago, there were several (dozens?) of instances at high-profile schools each semester.

Anyway, my points stands - the NCAA is inept and inefficient at the policing is it supposed to do now. The idea that these investigations take so much time that the athletes that they are investigating have moved on is completely absurd. Expecting the organization to take on more responsibilities and accomplish it under any sort of time-frame seems like fantasy to me. And dumping more money and resources into the NCAA seems laughable.

Granted, I don't have any sort of solution, but I just don't see it happening this way. Even if schools are "self-reporting" all the details as outlined above, someone has to be policing the self-reporting. Self-reporting seems like a bad solution to rampant cheating, as only those striving to follow the rules would be penalized.

[swood1000]

Thanks for the example. Almost the exception that proves the rule; seems that 15 years ago, there were several (dozens?) of instances at high-profile schools each semester.

Anyway, my points stands - the NCAA is inept and inefficient at the policing is it supposed to do now. The idea that these investigations take so much time that the athletes that they are investigating have moved on is completely absurd. Expecting the organization to take on more responsibilities and accomplish it under any sort of time-frame seems like fantasy to me. And dumping more money and resources into the NCAA seems laughable.

Granted, I don't have any sort of solution, but I just don't see it happening this way. Even if schools are "self-reporting" all the details as outlined above, someone has to be policing the self-reporting. Self-reporting seems like a bad solution to rampant cheating, as only those striving to follow the rules would be penalized.
But do you agree that a setup like the one I described, with a committee composed of hard-core and committed Duke devotees, would render these activities transparent and would have prevented the scandal at UNC?

[swood1000]

Lawrence O'Donnell is the liberal icon who fills the 10 PM EST slot on MSNBC. He gave a brief speech on the subject over the air. "I graduated from Harvard College. Harvard teaches 5,000 courses. Many of these courses are very demanding, but I will tell you that there are 1,000 courses taught at Harvard that are the easiest courses imaginable. They are almost impossible to fail."

This is Harvard. What are the prospects for introducing meaningful academic rigor in every course taught elsewhere?
Right but the system outlined is only concerned about courses being taken by athletes. And if it uncovers one in which the subject matter is a joke or in which students get a passing grade without learning anything, it exposes that to public condemnation. Do you think that athletes could continue to take such courses under this type of scrutiny?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Let's assume that UNC had hired a committee composed of hard-core and committed Duke devotees, had tasked them with finding and uncovering any academic fraud involving athletes, and had given them carte blanche to look at any documents or records they wished, and to interview anybody. Would they have been able to spot the paper classes and the other issues described in the Wainstein Report? Clearly they would focus on uncovering the true character of all the classes. They could interview Crowder and Nyang'oro about how they were conducting all the Independent Studies, they could read all the papers, they could see all the grades assigned and grade changes made, and they could talk to students afterward to see how much they understood about the subject of the paper (in order to determine if they had written it at all). They would investigate whether Nyang'oro was handling more independent study classes than any professor could legitimately handle.

Why on earth would UNC do that? Sure, it would likely work. So would inviting the NCAA to walk to all the classes with their student-athletes and having them proof-read their papers they turn in. So would making everyone super-duper promise to only do their own work and making the professors swear to give fair and honest grades.

Transparency in all these things is a great goal, but I really don't see a realistic way that you can enforce it other than some honor code, which UNC clearly isn't interested in participating in.

[swood1000]

Why on earth would UNC do that? Sure, it would likely work. So would inviting the NCAA to walk to all the classes with their student-athletes and having them proof-read their papers they turn in. So would making everyone super-duper promise to only do their own work and making the professors swear to give fair and honest grades.

Transparency in all these things is a great goal, but I really don't see a realistic way that you can enforce it other than some honor code, which UNC clearly isn't interested in participating in.
Ridpath proposes the following disclosures. How far would this get us?
 
• average SAT and ACT scores by sport,
• Federal Graduation Rates by sport,
• graduation success rates by sport,
• independent studies taken by sport,
• a list of professors offering the independent studies and their average grade assigned,
• admissions profiles,
• athletes' progress toward a degree,
• trends in selected majors by sport,
• average grade distributions of faculty by major,
• incomplete grades by sport,
• grade changes by professors,
• and the name of each athlete's faculty adviser.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Ridpath proposes the following disclosures. How far would this get us?


I don't disagree that those are pretty good metrics and good information to have. I'm just pointing out that SOMEONE has to be the external body that verifies this information, and I don't see where that's going to come from.

For the sake of ending this discuss with you, yes, sure, accurate data of this sort would be a great step towards identifying fraudulent classes and other academic shenanigans designed to keep athletes "eligible" (whatever that means these days). I just don't see that being any more likely than UNC inviting hand-holders from Duke to keep their kids on the straight-and-narrow.

[sagegrouse]

Right but the system outlined is only concerned about courses being taken by athletes. And if it uncovers one in which the subject matter is a joke or in which students get a passing grade without learning anything, it exposes that to public condemnation. Do you think that athletes could continue to take such courses under this type of scrutiny?

As you certainly recognize, "the NCAA is an institution created by the colleges to enforce the rules approved by the colleges." [Kevin White] Where would the impetus originate for subjecting the content of courses taken by athletes to a high level of scrutiny? And, if the best universities in the US all have "undemanding" courses, why would any college vote for a proposal to empower the NCAA to review the content of courses taken by athletes?

[swood1000]

As you certainly recognize, "the NCAA is an institution created by the colleges to enforce the rules approved by the colleges." [Kevin White] Where would the impetus originate for subjecting the content of courses taken by athletes to a high level of scrutiny? And, if the best universities in the US all have "undemanding" courses, why would any college vote for a proposal to empower the NCAA to review the content of courses taken by athletes?
I think that part of the issue is that there is an important difference between courses considered "undemanding" by a person who scored upwards of 1500 on the SAT and courses considered "undemanding" by someone who scored 900 on the SAT.

What if the NCAA decided that those schools who were willing to allow an independent third party to "audit" the course activity of their athletes would have more athletic scholarships than schools who did not? How many schools do you think would decline and what reason would they give?