PDA

View Full Version : NY Times Rips Harvard Recruiting Under Amaker



Atlanta Duke
03-01-2008, 04:48 PM
I doubt Harvard was looking for this sort of pub when it hired Coach Amaker

In a New Era at Harvard, New Questions of Standards

The group of six recruits expected to join the team next season is rated among the nation’s 25 best. This is partly because Harvard Coach Tommy Amaker, who starred at Duke and coached in the Big East and Big Ten conferences, has set his sights on top-flight recruits. It is also because Harvard is willing to consider players with a lower academic standing than previous staff members said they were allowed to. Harvard has also adopted aggressive recruiting tactics that skirt or, in some cases, may even violate National Collegiate Athletic Association rules.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/sports/ncaabasketball/02harvard.html

arnie
03-01-2008, 04:55 PM
Typical NY Times hatchet job.

DoubleDuke Dad
03-01-2008, 06:06 PM
Typical NY Times hatchet job.
As usual, their investigative reports are long on accusations and short on facts. I’m only surprised that they didn’t accuse him of having an affair.

To be sure, programs at larger universities would be delighted to have players with the academic standing of Amaker’s new recruits. Scalise said that other Ivy League programs also considered Harvard’s recruits.

Then what’s the problem?

Two former Harvard assistant coaches, Bill Holden and Lamar Reddicks, said they adhered to even tougher standards under Coach Frank Sullivan. Last season’s team, they said, had an average of 206, the highest in the league by a significant margin. Sullivan, who in his 16 seasons won and lost more games than any other Harvard basketball coach, was fired after the season. Amaker did not rehire Holden and Reddicks.

It sounds like sour grapes to me.

The 6-foot-10 center Frank Ben-Eze from Bishop O’Connell High School in Arlington, Va., embodies the change in Harvard’s basketball recruiting. He orally committed to Harvard over traditional powers like Marquette, West Virginia, Virginia and Penn.

In what league does Penn play? In fact, Penn used to be accused of bending the rules all of the time when they were winning the Ivy League title.

Devilsfan
03-01-2008, 06:13 PM
It's the New York Times, what do you expect? This was once a great newspaper, so I am told. Its moto was "only the news that's fit to print". Too bad it has fallen to such a low image as it has today.

Classof06
03-01-2008, 06:19 PM
“Sounds like there’s a lot of jealousy and also sounds like people are trying to protect the status quo for their programs,” Scalise said.

Yup.

Devilsfan
03-01-2008, 06:21 PM
Sounds like there are too many Columbia grads working there.

prefan21
03-01-2008, 06:21 PM
What on earth has happened to the New York Times

Indoor66
03-01-2008, 06:30 PM
As usual, their investigative reports are long on accusations and short on facts. I’m only surprised that they didn’t accuse him of having an affair.

To be sure, programs at larger universities would be delighted to have players with the academic standing of Amaker’s new recruits. Scalise said that other Ivy League programs also considered Harvard’s recruits.

Then what’s the problem?

Two former Harvard assistant coaches, Bill Holden and Lamar Reddicks, said they adhered to even tougher standards under Coach Frank Sullivan. Last season’s team, they said, had an average of 206, the highest in the league by a significant margin. Sullivan, who in his 16 seasons won and lost more games than any other Harvard basketball coach, was fired after the season. Amaker did not rehire Holden and Reddicks.

It sounds like sour grapes to me.

The 6-foot-10 center Frank Ben-Eze from Bishop O’Connell High School in Arlington, Va., embodies the change in Harvard’s basketball recruiting. He orally committed to Harvard over traditional powers like Marquette, West Virginia, Virginia and Penn.

In what league does Penn play? In fact, Penn used to be accused of bending the rules all of the time when they were winning the Ivy League title.

Penn plays in the Ivy League and, along with Princeton, has dominated the league.

FireOgilvie
03-01-2008, 06:34 PM
I honestly don't see a problem with this article. They are showing both sides of the story and I don't think the article is biased.

oldnavy
03-01-2008, 06:36 PM
Thank goodness it wasn't printed in the National Enquirer, someone might have believed it!

Richard Berg
03-01-2008, 06:44 PM
What on earth are you people complaining about? The NYT is one of the nation's finest papers, and the recruiting violations they list are quite specific.

duke74
03-01-2008, 06:53 PM
What on earth are you people complaining about? The NYT is one of the nation's finest papers, and the recruiting violations they list are quite specific.

"All the news that fits the tint"

mgtr
03-01-2008, 07:17 PM
What on earth are you people complaining about? The NYT is one of the nation's finest papers, and the recruiting violations they list are quite specific.

All the news that fits, we print.

dukie8
03-01-2008, 07:24 PM
As usual, their investigative reports are long on accusations and short on facts. I’m only surprised that they didn’t accuse him of having an affair.

To be sure, programs at larger universities would be delighted to have players with the academic standing of Amaker’s new recruits. Scalise said that other Ivy League programs also considered Harvard’s recruits.

Then what’s the problem?

you are kidding, right? you don't think that harvard has slightly higher academic standards than, say, arkansas, memphis or georgia?



It sounds like sour grapes to me.

it certainly sounds like the ex coaches are the source of the story but that doesn't change the fact that it appears that harvard has been recruiting players woefully light on the academic front.

DoubleDuke Dad
03-01-2008, 07:53 PM
What on earth are you people complaining about? The NYT is one of the nation's finest papers, and the recruiting violations they list are quite specific.
You're being sarcastic, right?

DoubleDuke Dad
03-01-2008, 07:59 PM
Penn plays in the Ivy League and, along with Princeton, has dominated the league.
I knew that. I was making fun of the fact that the NY Times reporter lists an Ivy League school, Penn, as a traditional power. If that is the case, then what is the problem with Harvard beating out another Ivy League school for a recruit.

dukie8
03-01-2008, 08:08 PM
I knew that. I was making fun of the fact that the NY Times reporter lists an Ivy League school, Penn, as a traditional power. If that is the case, then what is the problem with Harvard beating out another Ivy League school for a recruit.

because upenn has much lower standards than harvard has until this year. i don't understand why you find it offensive that the nyt (a paper that i usually find to be a complete rag) ran an article today about how the standards that harvard usually follows have more or less been tossed out the window in the name of winning.

it would be like duke football dropping its standards and snatching a recruit from [pick another acc school] that it would not have been able to recruit but for the standards lowering. that would be newsworthy to me.

roywhite
03-01-2008, 08:20 PM
Did pick up a piece of information in the NYT article that I was not aware of---former Blue Devil player Kenny Blakeney is Amaker's "top assistant". Sounds also that they are concentrating on the Washington DC metro area, which would be familiar ground for both Tommy and Kenny.

It's up to Harvard to determine how they want to run their program, but I don't see much wrong with this direction, and wish Amaker well.

mgtr
03-01-2008, 08:25 PM
Seems to me that if you are never competitive in a conference, then you need to change your coach, change your recruiting, or change your conference.

Jarhead
03-01-2008, 08:53 PM
I guess this ends their status as "Duke of the North."

DoubleDuke Dad
03-01-2008, 09:11 PM
I guess this ends their status as "Duke of the North."
That is hilarious. I vote this the best post of this threat.

weezie
03-01-2008, 10:17 PM
Sounds like there are too many Columbia grads working there.

Or maybe just the usual Duke haters.

Capn Poptart
03-02-2008, 01:12 AM
It's a story. Here's the reason for the story (what journalists call the "nut graph"):

"Harvard’s efforts in basketball underscore the increasingly important role that success in high-profile sports plays at even the most elite universities. In the race to become competitive in basketball, Harvard’s new approach could tarnish the university’s sterling reputation."

Harvard has changed its approach, and at the measuring stick for US academics, that's big news. And if Tommy wasn't as careful as he should have been, then that seems to put an exclamation point on things.

cspan37421
03-02-2008, 06:25 AM
I think a lot of you guys have your Duke blue colored sunglasses on. After the situation in Missouri with Quin, this concerns me. You don't want to wake up and find out that the proteges of "your guy" have been doing it with smoke and mirrors. Let alone, your guy.

While Harvard may have made a conscious decision to not handicap themselves anymore with respect to their standards relative to the rest of the Ivy League, it appears clear that there's been some skating close to the edge. Had Blakeney been hired a week or two before there would have been a violation (I'm guessing) and it is hard to imagine that there had not been discussions of him going to Harvard at the time he went on that trip west. It may not have broken any rules, technically, but it is fishy enough for Harvard to sit TA down for a "teaching moment?"

If you care about perceptions and image of the Duke program and K's coaching tree, haven't you wondered whether people will start to point fingers back to the root of that tree? Hopefully nothing could or would be found there, but many folks probably have formed an opinion as to where QS and TA got their questionable recruiting tactics.

4decadedukie
03-02-2008, 08:03 AM
"It is also because Harvard is willing to consider players with a lower academic standing than previous staff members said they were allowed to." -- NY Times

I strongly concur with the many DBR posters who have decried the Times' lack of journalistic integrity, substantiated by comparatively recent "reporting" (such as last month's undocumented allegations against Senator McCain, not to mention their stellar -- always accurate and thoroughly researched -- long-term articles concerning the Duke Lacrosse Hoax). How pervasive this trend may be, I do not know; however, the Times certainly has descended a LONG way from its traditional, self-anointed pinnacle.

To address specifically their piece re Harvard basketball and Coach Amaker, the foregoing quotation -- one of the primary tenets in their "hatchet job" -- has absolutely nothing to do with ethics. Obviously, Harvard is a private university, accountable to its own administrative management structure, including the Harvard Corporation (at the highest level). Therefore, it appropriately establishes guidelines and governing principles for admission (among myriad other matters). If Harvard institutionally decides to modify its undergraduate standards for selected athletes -- and, critically, that is hardly a new or unique phenomenon at top-tier universities -- it is a policy decision, not an ethical one.

For many years, Harvard welcomed a cohort of undergraduates to enhance diversity; these individuals met the requisite qualifications or they would not have been admitted, although they may not have been the absolutely most "paper competitive" (SAT scores and the like) candidates for matriculation. This was the right thing for Harvard to do -- for the University and for American society. I question if the Times then complained about ethical breaches.

4decadedukie
03-02-2008, 08:07 AM
I guess this ends their status as "Duke of the North."

BZ to you, my friend (laughed out loud).

JG Nothing
03-02-2008, 09:53 AM
The defensiveness and denial by some posters on this thread is pretty impressive. I suppose that is all part of being a fan(atic).

sagegrouse
03-02-2008, 10:05 AM
First of all, let me say that I read the NYT every day, both in Colorado and DC, and I really appreciate the effort that goes into putting out a first-class paper, which I believe the Times is. (The really tough Saturday crossword puzzle, despite my best efforts, often kicks my butt -- like yesterday.)

That said, the reporting and the tone of the article is confusing to me. There are a number of competing themes:

1. The easiest of all is the somewhat hypocritical Ivy League approach to athletics: "We have no athletic scholarships." This could be blown out of the water wrt to any of the eight Ivies on any day of any year. For me, its ho-hum, but other readers may find it interesting.

2. The first news in the story is that Harvard has "lowered" academic standards to those of its peers in the Ivy League. Somewhat news, but not earth-shattering. I mean, Penn (where my daughter was a cheerleader) and Princeton have won the Ivy League 20 years in a row (until Cornell broke through this year). Does anybody think they WEREN'T trying to win?

3. The real news is that Harvard has a recruiting class in the top 25 in the country. HOLY COW! IS THIS REALLY TRUE! THAT'S THE STORY!!!!

4. Well, is it true? The article shed no light, in truth, on whether these athletes are actually admitted. Did anybody else not understand this part of the story?

5. The supposed violations are not violations, I believe, but represent Amaker (and Blakeney) using the rules to the fullest. I suspect that every other program in the country would do so, despite the protestations of the coach from Brown. What is interesting is that the Harvard spokesman wants the U. to be "above reproach." So, the problem here is that Harvard follows the rules but is not "above reproach." Ho-hum. Double ho-hum.

Anyway, this is my take: the article contained some interesting and non-interesting material that was pseudo-hyped to make it more sensational than it is. The balance in the story wasn't there.

Seems similar, to me, to the John McCain piece, where the Times Public Editor (ombudsman) excoriated the Times's editors over the unsubstantiated innuendo about an intimate relationship between McCain and a lobbyist. (BTW, also ho-hum.)

sagegrouse

Devilsfan
03-02-2008, 10:22 AM
If Tommy has recruited four of the top twenty five players in the nation, we should double his current salary and bring him back to assist Coach K in recruiting bigs and the like.

Jumbo
03-02-2008, 10:48 AM
I've got to say that I'm flabbergasted by many of the responses in this thread. If the Harvard coach in question were named, I dunno, "Matt Doherty," would we be seeing such reflexive defenses of the coach and comments about how the NYT is a "rag" and how there must be something wrong with the writer?

I know a thing or two about journalism. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this article. It examined what is clearly an odd and interesting idea -- Harvard's landmark recruiting class. It explained that some major changes were behind it -- that the country's premier academic institution is actually more willing to make greater academic exceptions than in the past. That, in and of itself, is newsworthy. It then examined some issues that, if not recruiting violations, were clearly questionable, such as Blakeney playing in pickup games and Tommy approaching the player's father in the supermarket. These subplots apparently were important enough to Harvard's AD that he did not dismiss them out of hand and instead planned to talk to Tommy about them.

Look, I hope Tommy turns Harvard's program around (although I hate the idea of Ivy League schools significantly lowering their admissions standards to take athletes). The one thing that went unsaid in the article was that part of the advantage Penn and Princeton had for years was that they (especially Penn) were willing to take kids the other Ivies wouldn't touch. Part of Princeton's recent collapse (I think) has to do with the tightening of those standards.

Anyway, I'm disappointed that so many people are using this thread as a launching point to simply bash the New York Times based on some other agenda. And it bothers me that so many people don't see that this story was fair and well-reported. As someone said, I guess that's part of being a fan, but I guess I expect more out of people on this site. Oh well.

duke74
03-02-2008, 11:01 AM
Anyway, I'm disappointed that so many people are using this thread as a launching point to simply bash the New York Times based on some other agenda. And it bothers me that so many people don't see that this story was fair and well-reported. As someone said, I guess that's part of being a fan, but I guess I expect more out of people on this site. Oh well.

And I guess that people on this site expect more from what was once the "paper of record." The criticism here (including from me) is the general trend we see in the quality of the reporting and its implicit agenda.

Jumbo
03-02-2008, 11:11 AM
And I guess that people on this site expect more from what was once the "paper of record." The criticism here (including from me) is the general trend we see in the quality of the reporting and its implicit agenda.

But no one has done a remotely solid job of demonstrating the lack of quality reporting in this story. What did the writer do wrong? And what agenda does the New York Times have when it comes to Harvard?

freedevil
03-02-2008, 11:47 AM
This NYT piece is a complete NON-story. A significant majority of athletes admitted to Ivy League schools or the Little Ivies (like Williams, Amherst, etc.) have absolutely no business gaining admission to these institutions. I'm not talking borderline students where athletics push them over the top, I'm talking the admissions office would laugh at these applicants were it not for their athletic prowess.

The fact that Harvard is now expressly doing in basketball under what I am certain it does in sports like football - but also less glorious sports like, say, men's lacrosse, or even women's squash - is simply astonishing I tell you!

And for those of you who think what I'm saying is unsubstantiated, go find yourself a student who is currently enrolled at an Ivy, and I'm sure they will be more than happy to tell you how many athletes openly talk about their 1000 SATs or their less than admirable high school class ranks.

freedevil
03-02-2008, 12:15 PM
But no one has done a remotely solid job of demonstrating the lack of quality reporting in this story. What did the writer do wrong? And what agenda does the New York Times have when it comes to Harvard?

I think many are trying to figure out the Times' agenda, seeing as how the editorial board endorsed McCain one week, and another wing of the paper excoriated McCain the next. :)

dukie8
03-02-2008, 12:16 PM
This NYT piece is a complete NON-story. A significant majority of athletes admitted to Ivy League schools or the Little Ivies (like Williams, Amherst, etc.) have absolutely no business gaining admission to these institutions. I'm not talking borderline students where athletics push them over the top, I'm talking the admissions office would laugh at these applicants were it not for their athletic prowess.

The fact that Harvard is now expressly doing in basketball under what I am certain it does in sports like football - but also less glorious sports like, say, men's lacrosse, or even women's squash - is simply astonishing I tell you!

And for those of you who think what I'm saying is unsubstantiated, go find yourself a student who is currently enrolled at an Ivy, and I'm sure they will be more than happy to tell you how many athletes openly talk about their 1000 SATs or their less than admirable high school class ranks.

yeah, it's a non-story when the most prestigious academic institution in the world lowers its academic standards for basketball players and then winds up with its best recruiting class ever. what do you consider to be story worthy?

freedevil
03-02-2008, 12:23 PM
It's a non-story because the rest of the institution's athletic programs, I guarantee you, has been doing this for years and years. It's only a "story" because one of the popular sports is now on board. Do you honestly think Harvard's football recruits, for the most part, are more than nominally more qualified than some of these basketball recruits? Personally, I seriously doubt it.

Jumbo
03-02-2008, 12:25 PM
It's a non-story because the rest of the institution's athletic programs, I guarantee you, has been doing this for years and years. It's only a "story" because one of the popular sports is now on board. Do you honestly think Harvard's football recruits, for the most part, are more than nominally more qualified than some of these basketball recruits? Personally, I seriously doubt it.

Freedevil, I think you're missing the point. Obviously, Harvard has always had different standards for athletes than other students, and the article says as much (it references an index score). The difference is that this year, Harvard has changed that index score significantly. As Dukie8 said, that alone makes for an interesting story. Add in potential recruiting violations and you've got a really interesting story and one that is certainly newsworthy.

dukie8
03-02-2008, 12:30 PM
It's a non-story because the rest of the institution's athletic programs, I guarantee you, has been doing this for years and years. It's only a "story" because one of the popular sports is now on board. Do you honestly think Harvard's football recruits, for the most part, are more than nominally more qualified than some of these basketball recruits? Personally, I seriously doubt it.

i am not familiar with harvard's football admission standards and clearly neither are you. the difference is that i am not willing to blindly guess that harvard football uses the same standards that the basketball team now uses. regardless, you still are missing the point of the whole article that the basketball team dropped its standards and came up with a top 25 class. as jumbo notes, sprinkle in some questionable recruiting events and now you are talking about a very newsworthy story.

upstateny
03-02-2008, 12:35 PM
Even with their dominance in the last decade or two, I doubt that Penn or Princeton had a top 25 recruiting class in hoops.

Tappan Zee Devil
03-02-2008, 12:46 PM
None of the Ivies are as pure as they would like you to think. My oldest daughter graduated from Yale. One of her Freshman year suitemates was actively recruited by Yale to play women's soccer. She freely admitted that she would never have been admitted to Yale if she were not an All-State soccer player. Also, from talking to and getting to know her parents, I would guess their income at least the same as ours in a much cheaper place to live (Texas). She got a full ride, we got no financial aid.

So it is not only Harvard and it is not new - this was almost ten years ago.

Jim

freedevil
03-02-2008, 01:03 PM
Calm down on the personal attacks dukie8. I know plenty about Ivy league admissions standards, particularly athletic standards after having worked with the admissions office at my own highly regarded college, and I know plenty about the Ivy League's Academic Index in general. And I'm not blindly guessing at all, I'm choosing to retain a level of anonymity on this board, which is my right.

I have re-read the article and am confused as to what the author is trying to accomplish. If the author is revealing recruiting violations, sure, that's a story - but most of that, in my opinion, is a little unsubstantiated given the seriousness of the accusations. But if the author is just talking about some downturn in admissions standards, thanks for telling me gravity exists.

OldSchool
03-02-2008, 01:36 PM
I have re-read the article and am confused as to what the author is trying to accomplish. If the author is revealing recruiting violations, sure, that's a story - but most of that, in my opinion, is a little unsubstantiated given the seriousness of the accusations. But if the author is just talking about some downturn in admissions standards, thanks for telling me gravity exists.

According to the article, Harvard maintained a higher academic standard for basketball players than any other Ivy League school. For a number of the recruits, the article also noted that they had been recruited by other Ivy League schools.

So Harvard is apparently relaxing its academic standard for admitting basketball players down to the level of other Ivy League schools? Wow, stop the presses! That fact may be newsworthy for the Harvard Crimson, but I'm surprised to find it in the NYT.

If Harvard under Amaker has violated NCAA recruiting rules, yes, that would be more legitimately newsworthy. However, I don't recall an instance before in which the NYT has done investigative reporting in the area of NCAA recruiting violations. And the NYT is not willing to come out and allege that rules in fact were violated, but instead insinuates that Amaker and Blakeney operated close to the line (What did Tommy buy at Shop-Rite? Enquiring minds want to know.)

The article emphasizes the fact that none of the six recruits has yet been admitted. In view of what the NYT has become in recent years, one suspects a hidden agenda here -- is the reporter or editor an alumnus of another Ivy League school and hopes to intimidate Harvard into not admitting some or all of these players? If that is the case, where does that leave the NYT? Would that be "an aggressive journalistic tactic" that "skirts" or "may even violate" journalistic ethics?

By the way, in the "small world" or "six degrees of separation" file, the Brown basketball coach quoted is Senator Obama's brother-in-law.

Karl Beem
03-02-2008, 01:41 PM
I think many are trying to figure out the Times' agenda, seeing as how the editorial board endorsed McCain one week, and another wing of the paper excoriated McCain the next. :)

Why should there be an agenda? They're not Fox news.

freedevil
03-02-2008, 01:48 PM
^ Post of the day.

duke74
03-02-2008, 02:00 PM
But no one has done a remotely solid job of demonstrating the lack of quality reporting in this story. What did the writer do wrong? And what agenda does the New York Times have when it comes to Harvard?

I guess I was focusing more on the NYT than this story. I do think that this is a nonstory, however. Sorry for the confusion.

Papa John
03-02-2008, 02:06 PM
To me, the key to this whole story lies in the potential recruiting violations, and I think the writer didn't probe enough on that issue... Why, exactly, was Blakeney in Norfolk and at Gonzaga? I would think it wouldn't be terribly difficult to track down a couple of sources to provide a bit more of an explanation... We're talking about a story that sounds like it's been brewing for awhile, so taking a little more time to flesh out some of those other important details wouldn't seem to be a big deal... I felt it could have been a more substantive article had it been better researched... I do agree that there's certainly a story here, but think if the writer's going to include all of these different speculative angles, he'd better do a little more investigating...

Jumbo
03-02-2008, 02:11 PM
If Harvard under Amaker has violated NCAA recruiting rules, yes, that would be more legitimately newsworthy. However, I don't recall an instance before in which the NYT has done investigative reporting in the area of NCAA recruiting violations.
The Times has done extensive work in recent years on all aspects of recruiting. In particular, the paper did excellent work (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/sports/ncaabasketball/06preps.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)for a couple of years on "diploma mill" high schools.



And the NYT is not willing to come out and allege that rules in fact were violated, but instead insinuates that Amaker and Blakeney operated close to the line (What did Tommy buy at Shop-Rite? Enquiring minds want to know.)

I would consider that good reporting. The paper showed that people were concerned -- including Harvard's AD. At the same time, the paper made it clear that while there was skepticism about a couple of incidents, they have yet to be proven as NCAA violations.


In view of what the NYT has become in recent years,
I'm really not sure what that is supposed to mean here, or how it is relevant in a sports story. I don't want this thread to go to the public policy board, but I couldn't respond to you without addressing this particular comment.


one suspects a hidden agenda here
Why?


is the reporter or editor an alumnus of another Ivy League school and hopes to intimidate Harvard into not admitting some or all of these players?
A quick Google search reveals that Pete Thamel graduated from Syracuse. Somehow, I think he's not too concerned with Harvard becoming a basketball power that would keep his school down. This took a little more digging, but I believe the NYT sports editor is Tom Jolly. According to this (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=105317&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=379400&highlight=)press release, he graduated from Ohio Wesleyan. So, if anyone is making baseless claims here, it's not the New York Times.


If that is the case, where does that leave the NYT? Would that be "an aggressive journalistic tactic" that "skirts" or "may even violate" journalistic ethics?
Nope. Not even close. I'll ask again -- if this coach were named "Matt Doherty," would anyone have any problems with this article?

Jumbo
03-02-2008, 02:14 PM
Why should there be an agenda? They're not Fox news.

Karl, we don't need that. Let's try to keep this from becoming a partisan battle that ends up on the PP board and discuss the merits of the article instead, okay?

freedevil
03-02-2008, 02:17 PM
To answer your question, Jumbo, I would have a problem with this article were Matt Doherty or even Roy Williams the coach. Again, I've worked with admissions officers, and nothing this article talks about - except for what I think are relatively unsubstantiated recruiting violations - is all that significant and begs the question as to why this article was written. You and I simply disagree with the relative importance of the information contained in this article.

OldSchool
03-02-2008, 03:05 PM
The Times has done extensive work in recent years on all aspects of recruiting. In particular, the paper did excellent work (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/sports/ncaabasketball/06preps.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)for a couple of years on "diploma mill" high schools.

This article involved much more investigative reporting than the one you cited.

In light of the declining revenue and budget constraints at the NYT, they have devoted what appears to be disproportionate time and expense to a subject (Has Harvard changed its basketball admission standard to be more in line with other Ivies?) with relatively low newsworthiness value. Actual NCAA violations would, as I say, be more newsworthy but they have nothing to report beyond innuendos of gray areas.


I'm really not sure what that is supposed to mean here, or how it is relevant in a sports story. I don't want this thread to go to the public policy board, but I couldn't respond to you without addressing this particular comment..

It means the recent years of scandals and bias have lost the NYT the benefit of the doubt that they are always operating at high journalistic standards.


A quick Google search reveals that Pete Thamel graduated from Syracuse. Somehow, I think he's not too concerned with Harvard becoming a basketball power that would keep his school down. This took a little more digging, but I believe the NYT sports editor is Tom Jolly. According to this (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=105317&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=379400&highlight=)press release, he graduated from Ohio Wesleyan. So, if anyone is making baseless claims here, it's not the New York Times.

The time and expense devoted to this article which reports little of hard news value raises the question whether it was intended mainly to smear Harvard or Amaker. What ax-grinding motivated this particular story? Who knows - if not intramural Ivy jealousy, there could be a host of subjective motivations. As everyone should have learned from the Duke lacrosse scandal, elements of the national media often have their own agendas which influence which stories they choose to pursue and which aspects of those stories they choose to emphasize in their reporting.

By the way, I for one am not in favor of smearing Matt Doherty or Roy Williams or anyone else.

Jim3k
03-02-2008, 03:47 PM
It means the recent years of scandals and bias have lost the NYT the benefit of the doubt that they are always operating at high journalistic standards.



The time and expense devoted to this article which reports little of hard news value raises the question whether it was intended mainly to smear Harvard or Amaker. What ax-grinding motivated this particular story? Who knows - if not intramural Ivy jealousy, there could be a host of subjective motivations. As everyone should have learned from the Duke lacrosse scandal, elements of the national media often have their own agendas which influence which stories they choose to pursue and which aspects of those stories they choose to emphasize in their reporting.



Stories such as these are moving in multiple directions. The Times, like any newspaper, takes a snapshot which is reasonably accurate at the time it is written.

The fact that a story may later turn into a different story does not reflect on the journalistic ethics or standings of the paper. Lacrosse is a pretty good example. I know a lot of us at Duke resent the Times's bashing which lasted for a while. But as the story changed so did the Times's stories.

The Harvard-Amaker story, too, is only a snapshot. And Jumbo and Sage are both right. It's something worth looking into both as a Harvard sports admissions issue and as a sea change in the way Harvard basketball recruiting is being adjusted.

I'd bet the next story is an explanation from Amaker or the AD regarding why no NCAA rules were broken. Or, perhaps, that the admissions department denies some of the recruits and that they, God forbid, go to Dartmouth or Notre Dame.

BTW, given the fact that the Ivies don't give athletic scholarships, do the same recruiting rules regarding contacts apply to them that apply to Div. 1 schools that do? Div. III schools don't offer athletic scholarships, either. Do the contact rules apply to them?

Ultrarunner
03-02-2008, 04:06 PM
I know a thing or two about journalism...
...Anyway, I'm disappointed that so many people are using this thread as a launching point to simply bash the New York Times based on some other agenda. And it bothers me that so many people don't see that this story was fair and well-reported. As someone said, I guess that's part of being a fan, but I guess I expect more out of people on this site. Oh well.

Okay Jumbo, since you feel there is no bias, let’s (partially because I don't have all day) break down the article and see whether they consistently meet the journalistic standards expected of a flagship news organization. We’ll keep it simple; can they meet the basic standard of providing facts? The who, what, when, where, and why of the story?

It is also because Harvard is willing to consider players with a lower academic standing than previous staff members said they were allowed to. Harvard has also adopted aggressive recruiting tactics that skirt or, in some cases, may even violate National Collegiate Athletic Association rules.
This is the crux of the charges. The rest of the article is devoted to supporting these two allegations. However, the support for the charges is offered after the following innuendo:
Two athletes who said they had received letters from Harvard’s admissions office saying they would most likely be accepted have described tactics that may violate N.C.A.A. rules…
Please note the may violate portion of that sentence. Are there violations or not? By reporting in this manner, the writer has already established the bias against the program by using language that is emotionally loaded (i.e. tactics rather than methods, processes or procedures).

They do, in fairness, quote the AD as saying that standards had been relaxed to allow better performance of the basketball program. However, deciding to match the standards of your rivals does not at first glance appear scandalous. The treatment by the paper in quoting one of Harvard’s competitor’s from Yale is instructive. The quote: Yale Coach James Jones said he had seen an academic change at Harvard. “It’s eye-opening because there seems to have been a drastic shift in restrictions and regulations with the Harvard admissions office,” he said. This quote is bracketed later in the article with an effort to explain the “apparent change in philosophy” of Harvard. It goes into great detail of the standards of the Ivy League and provides information regarding the previous standard.

What’s missing? The specifics of the changes. How much have the standards been relaxed? Does it apply to all the recruits? When did the changes take place? Are the changes temporary or permanent? And the overwhelmed shock of a competitor is over-blown without specific information. A marginal change (I don’t know how large the changes have been – the article never explicitly states the new standards) doesn’t warrant the term “drastic”. And, in the competitive world of college athletics, one coach taking pot shots at another is the rule rather than the exception – even when not earned (i.e. Gary Williams proselytizing that Duke gets all the calls.)

The following paragraph includes an admission that Harvard has changed its standard but with no reference as to the magnitude of the change. Indeed, it takes four paragraphs from the criticism of the Yale coach as to the “eye-opening” and “drastic” changes to this single line that provides some (albeit, limited) perspective: Scalise said that other Ivy League programs also considered Harvard’s recruits.

So for the charge that Harvard is engaged in changes that could “tarnish the university’s sterling reputation”, they offer innuendo from opposing coaches and an admission that standards have changed but no facts regarding the nature of the change regarding its admission process, what the new criteria are, and whether this change is in line with the primary competition that Harvard faces. Indeed, the allegations are in place prior to acceptance of the potential students. A better question would require waiting for an actual outcome: did one or more of the student-athletes not meet the standards set by Harvard and still gain admission? That would be worth reporting. Excessive hand-wringing before the event indicates a willingness to believe that worst-case scenarios (in this case, a complete sellout to the commercial basketball culture) are not only possible but in fact pre-determined.

Moving on to the question of recruiting violations we find that again there is the placement of allegations with little supporting evidence of actual violations. Take, for example, the charge that Kenny Blakeney had improper contacts with recruits. Blakeney had an established relationship with Kenyi’s coach which adequately explains his presence there. Indeed, since they had maintained contact for twenty years, a reasonable question would be to ask whether Blakeney had a history of playing ball there during the summers as he asserted. A second critical point would be to determine precisely when he asked to join the staff at Harvard. Prior to that, different standards (boosters) would apply. Indeed, was the contact with Kenyi in June or July? Did Blakeney discuss Harvard basketball? Again, a critical lack of specifics. If June and before Blakeney was contacted to join the staff at Harvard, I don’t see a violation (though with the NCAA almost anything up to and including thinking about a recruit can be a violation).

In the case of going to Norfolk, the Times elected to quote the coach at Brown and did not supply any factual material other than the event of the trip itself. “If he travels across a state line to play with a kid he’s going to be recruiting, that smacks a little bit of breaking the rules,” Robinson said. He added: “It would not be the way that we would conduct business. In the long run, that hurts you. There’s nothing wrong with pushing the envelope, but if your attempt is to get around the rules, there’s an issue.” Why was Blakeney in Norfolk? The Times should have asked and provided Blakeney’s answer to give us some perspective on the reason for the trip. If no answer were forthcoming, then a presumption toward wrongful contact would be understandable. Without that information, we are left to speculate with the Times influencing the direction with one-sided quotes.

Of Amaker’s six recruits, we have academic questions of one specifically mentioned who also happens to be of foreign birth which will substantially alter his standardized scoring, a question regarding contact of a recruit in an area frequented by Amaker’s assistant (possibly before he was an assistant) and an assertion of a poorly timed shopping trip to Shop-Rite that coincided with meeting the father of a recruit who later went elsewhere. What are the circumstances, then, of the other four recruits? Do the same questions apply to them or were they not included in the article because their recruitment did not support the article's premise that Amaker and Harvard have resorted to cheating?

The Times consistently avoided facts and substituted aspersions from other coaches and included hearsay materials (i.e, Les Rosen said he thought to himself: Who goes to ShopRite in the middle of a basketball tournament?) that significantly and consistently slants the article against Amaker and Harvard.

I’ll leave it to others to determine the writer’s intent for creating the article in the manner he did. To me, it is not relevant. What is relevant is that he engaged in a particularly bad job of reporting.

killerleft
03-02-2008, 04:15 PM
Jim3K said, "But as the story changed so did the Times' stories".

What a can or worms that will open on the wrong board!

Penn Grad
03-02-2008, 04:19 PM
A few things from a Penn grad who, it should be noted, hates the Ivy League and its idiotic rules.

It is unclear whether Harvard violated NCAA rules. They have not yet violated Ivy League rules.

However, the academic index to which the article refers governs the admissibility of athletes (not, however, non-athletes; Ivy hypocrisy number one - we treat athletes and non-athletes exactly the same). Any athlete who does not achieve what is known as the "floor" is simply inadmissible. Currently, at least 3 of Harvard's top recruits are not admissible to Harvard or any other Ivy school. If Harvard admits them anyway, then they will have violated Ivy rules. If the recruits don't get the necessary score and Harvard rejects their applications, no problem (for the school, although big problems for the kids; Ivy hypocrisy number two - we're all about the student-athletes).

All this has been widely known within the Ivy League for months because, as the article notes, the schools frequently recruit the same kids. Penn knows the AI of Harvard recruit Max Kenyi because Penn was recruiting him. Other schools know the AI of Frank Ben-Eze because they were recruiting him.

As for it being sour grapes, if there is a set of rules and Harvard is allowed to unilaterally ignore them, there is a problem. (Ivy hypocrisy number three - schools with the initials H, Y, and P -- no, not Penn -- get a lot more latitude than the other 5 because they're HYP.) I'm guessing that if the scholarship limit were 14 and Carolina decided to give 17, the rest of the ACC would have a problem with that, and rightly so.

Whether Harvard has given Amaker more leeway than the prior coach is Harvard's business. (Snide aside: Whether Amaker can have any more success with good recruits at Harvard than he had in his previous positions remains to be seen.) But if Harvard has given Amaker leeway to take kids who are not admissible under league rules, then it is Yale's business and Brown's business and yes, Penn's business.

And if Harvard's "cheating" gets the league to update rules that are more than 50 years old, that's fine by me.

dukie8
03-02-2008, 05:29 PM
Calm down on the personal attacks dukie8. I know plenty about Ivy league admissions standards, particularly athletic standards after having worked with the admissions office at my own highly regarded college, and I know plenty about the Ivy League's Academic Index in general. And I'm not blindly guessing at all, I'm choosing to retain a level of anonymity on this board, which is my right.

you are guessing. you have no idea what harvard's football admissions policies are and you simply are throwing it out there that you "know" them. citing what they are has absolutely nothing to do with anonymity so i'm not sure why you are citing that as a reason why you can't disclose them.

moreover, the fact that you believe that your daughter's suitemate had a full athletic scholarship further indicates that you really don't know that much about ivy athletic admission standards because the ivies don't have athletic scholarships.

i work with a woman who played lax at harvard and more than happy to ask her tomorrow what she thinks of harvard's athletic admissions policies (you can be sure that i am going to send her the nyt article).

Papa John
03-02-2008, 07:33 PM
I’ll leave it to others to determine the writer’s intent for creating the article in the manner he did. To me, it is not relevant. What is relevant is that he engaged in a particularly bad job of reporting.

You, sir, could work for my publication's research division! ;)

freedevil
03-02-2008, 07:39 PM
Do I know the exact standards dukie8? NO. Am I familiar with what they are relative to other teams within the institution. YES. And very much so. If you would like to continue to question the honesty of my posts, why not just stop reading them?

Since we're on the subject of reading, the fact that you apparently cannot read that I post under the username freedevil and not Tappan Zee Devil is further indication that you need to relax on the personal attacks, i.e. I said nothing about "full athletic scholarships." Tappan Zee did. See the bottom of page 2 of this thread.

Jumbo
03-02-2008, 09:11 PM
Ultrarunner,
Thank you very much for an intelligent, comprehensive and well-mannered response. Although I disagree with much of your analysis, your post still stands as a strong example of the type of discourse we should strive for on DBR. Seriously, thanks.

I don't see the quality of reporting in the same light as you do. Briefly, I don't have a problem with the term "might have" in journalism. Without dragging this too far into PP-land, some of the biggest stories in our country's history have started with a "might have." And I certainly believe that there is sufficient evidence with which to print an article. Remember, this isn't a court of law -- the standards are different.

The question of Blakeney's ethics was sufficient enough to print the story, in my mind. And while I agree that it would have been nice to know why Blakeney was in Norfolk, he was given plenty of opportunities to explain otherwise. He denied that he was recruiting players and said he was unemployed at the time. But if you and I were out for coffee and I told you a story about a guy showing up at a high school gym, playing pickup with a kid, getting hired at Harvard (whether it was a day later or a month later is not relevant) and then recruiting the kid, you wouldn't suspect something was up? Come on.

Similarly, the article provides far more evidence about the academic issues than you acknowledged. Indeed, the writer gives us specific information about index scores used at Harvard and in the Ivy League. That Harvard -- the nation's premier academic institution -- is shifting its academic index to such a degree is news enough. It is also significant that other coaches would make this such an issue. Contrary to what you say, the coaching industry is much more of a brotherhood than a society in which open sniping is the norm. While I would have liked more information on why the other Ivies were recruiting supposedly inadmissible kids (I suspect that they were involved earlier in the process, while the kids' academic numbers were still in flux, but we don't know for sure), that doesn't diminish from an otherwise interesting story. And there certainly is no shred of evidence to suggest that anyone targeted Amaker or Harvard for undue criticism.

Again, thanks for your response.

Tappan Zee Devil
03-02-2008, 09:32 PM
Do I know the exact standards dukie8? NO. Am I familiar with what they are relative to other teams within the institution. YES. And very much so. If you would like to continue to question the honesty of my posts, why not just stop reading them?

Since we're on the subject of reading, the fact that you apparently cannot read that I post under the username freedevil and not Tappan Zee Devil is further indication that you need to relax on the personal attacks, i.e. I said nothing about "full athletic scholarships." Tappan Zee did. See the bottom of page 2 of this thread.

Somehow I feel I am being accused of something here. Actually I never said anything about "full academic scholarships". I was talking about what an athlete told me about her being admitted and about financial aid - which is supposed to be related to need. There are inferences that could be drawn, but ...

Jim

freedevil
03-02-2008, 09:42 PM
moreover, the fact that you believe that your daughter's suitemate had a full athletic scholarship further indicates that you really don't know that much about ivy athletic admission standards because the ivies don't have athletic scholarships.



Dukie8 addressed the following accusation at me Tappan Zee, to try and bolster his claim that I'm lying. It seems like he is actually just confusing himself.

dukemsu
03-02-2008, 10:00 PM
I can't say that the article doesn't have some legitimate points and raises some questions. I agree that if significant violations arise from this, it would look bad for the program and raise concerns based on the fact that they were integral members of the Duke program.

However, I think we need to wait and see. Remember, when Amaker was ousted in Ann Arbor, even those who wanted him gone noted that he not only maintained a clean program there but actually made significant progress in changing the culture of a program that had been unseemly for the better part of a decade (at least). The only complaint about Tommy at UM was that he didn't make the tournament.

Let's see what happens.

formerdukeathlete
03-02-2008, 10:14 PM
because upenn has much lower standards than harvard has until this year. i don't understand why you find it offensive that the nyt (a paper that i usually find to be a complete rag) ran an article today about how the standards that harvard usually follows have more or less been tossed out the window in the name of winning.

it would be like duke football dropping its standards and snatching a recruit from [pick another acc school] that it would not have been able to recruit but for the standards lowering. that would be newsworthy to me.

As an aside, Penn had greater leeway than most Ivies in admitting athletes (in the past) and this was based on relative admissions data (for all students) among the various schools. But, lately, Penn is up there.

Re Duke Football, Cutcliffe seems to be focusing more on academic criteria (than Roof) in choosing high school players to offer, recruit. Perhaps, this is because he has his system, works the kids like heck, and believes he can get more out of players (on the field) if they are well suited for academic work.

sagegrouse
03-02-2008, 10:49 PM
you are guessing. you have no idea what harvard's football admissions policies are and you simply are throwing it out there that you "know" them. citing what they are has absolutely nothing to do with anonymity so i'm not sure why you are citing that as a reason why you can't disclose them.

moreover, the fact that you believe that your daughter's suitemate had a full athletic scholarship further indicates that you really don't know that much about ivy athletic admission standards because the ivies don't have athletic scholarships.

i work with a woman who played lax at harvard and more than happy to ask her tomorrow what she thinks of harvard's athletic admissions policies (you can be sure that i am going to send her the nyt article).

My, my.

Dukie8, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. If you have some light to shed on the subject, please offer it (and apparently your Harvard LAX friend might).

sagegrouse

Ultrarunner
03-03-2008, 12:03 AM
You, sir, could work for my publication's research division! ;)


Well, thank you. Though I think you'd find my resume thin for your purposes. :)

Ultrarunner
03-03-2008, 12:20 AM
Ultrarunner,
Thank you very much for an intelligent, comprehensive and well-mannered response. Although I disagree with much of your analysis, your post still stands as a strong example of the type of discourse we should strive for on DBR... Seriously, thanks.

Jumbo,

We can disagree on the merits while still respecting the other as we do here. One of the things I really enjoy about the board -other than the topic of Duke bball - is that most of the folks that post are generally civil.

I think that you and the other moderators do a great job managing that attitude. It's a rarity in the online world - especially when sports are involved- to have a discussion, rather than trade rants, with each other.

Still think I might be right but I appreciate the discussion.:)

Serously, thanks.

formerdukeathlete
03-03-2008, 09:02 AM
i am not familiar with harvard's football admission standards and clearly neither are you. the difference is that i am not willing to blindly guess that harvard football uses the same standards that the basketball team now uses. regardless, you still are missing the point of the whole article that the basketball team dropped its standards and came up with a top 25 class. as jumbo notes, sprinkle in some questionable recruiting events and now you are talking about a very newsworthy story.

Ivies have been using a ranking formula for about 50 years called the Academic Index (AI). This has been used primarily for sports purposes (establishing and maintaining minimum standards for athletes). The schools calculate an AI for every student. Then the average AI of the athletic teams cannot be more than one standard deviation away from the average AI of the entire class. This is it broadly, though specific rules apply to football. Minimums apply for all sports, below which athletes may be admitted only with dispensation from the Ivy League.

Football allows 30 recruited athletes per year. 8 may be within 1 SD of the AI for the student body; 13 may be withing 2 SD of the student body, 7 may be within 2.5 SD, and 2 may be between 2.5 and the Ivy AI floor.

It is safe to say that Ivy athletes besides basketball and football are mostly well within 1 SD of the student body, so that the average of all student athletes (as a whole) is within 1 SD.

I do not have the specifics regarding basketball ranges or mins. As a general matter, Harvard has had the highest or second highest minimum AI every year since the standard was adopted.

So, yes, I say it is big news if Harvard is deviating significantly from what it has done in the past with respect to basketball. I generally agree with Jumbo, Dukie8 re the article.

freedevil
03-03-2008, 09:23 AM
It is safe to say that Ivy athletes besides basketball and football are mostly well within 1 SD of the student body, so that the average of all student athletes (as a whole) is within 1 SD.

I respectfully and completely disagree with this statement.

formerdukeathlete
03-03-2008, 09:41 AM
I respectfully and completely disagree with this statement.

http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2003/08/28/Sports/Ivy-Council.Amends.LongTime.Bylaws-2154216.shtml

That all student athletes must average within 1SD may have been added in 2003, as well as monitoring that this requirement is met. In the past the monitoring focus had been on football, hockey, basketball

What this means is that because you are admitting football, hockey and basketball athletes more leniently, in order to get the averages up, women recruited for field hockey, students recruited for swimming and other sports are up there. If the average of all team members of all teams of the athletic department must fall within 1SD, then you have to recruit smart kids well within 1SD in the other sports.

wisteria
03-03-2008, 09:44 AM
Don't know what you guys are arguing about.

In case you haven't noticed, Yahoo (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/news?slug=dw-harvardscandal030208&prov=yhoo&type=lgns) sports just reported this as well and sort of suggested investigation. I'm predicting the other major sports media to follow.

freedevil
03-03-2008, 09:48 AM
Former - You're forgetting two important sports: baseball and lacrosse. And you added hockey to your original post. So it's not just about football and basketball where academic standards are far lower. I should clarify my own post, athletes' overall SD may eventually be within 1 degree of all students, but that still doesn't mean these other students (from hockey, football, basketball, baseball, and lacrosse) are not already seriously lacking in academic quality, which is not earth-shattering news, in my opinion. Hence, my belief that this article, outside of alleging recruiting violations, doesn't say much.

greybeard
03-03-2008, 10:02 AM
By the way, in the "small world" or "six degrees of separation" file, the Brown basketball coach quoted is Senator Obama's brother-in-law.

I believe Obama's brother-in-law coaches Princeton. BTW, if Amaker lands the class that he seems to have landed, and this is the precurser of things to follow, it is not just the Ivies who will have something to worry about, yes?

I think that it will be great for the college game to have a school that plays a sensible schedule where kids actually get to have time to do their work can go into the tournament and hurt some people. Why not? I cannot imagine that Harvard or any other Ivy will, apart from Winter break tournaments, schedule anymore than one or two big time opponents. Will be refreshing to take success in college basketball out of the hands of ESPN. Go Tommy, and my big Red, btw!

formerdukeathlete
03-03-2008, 10:05 AM
Former - You're forgetting two important sports: baseball and lacrosse. And you added hockey to your original post. So it's not just about football and basketball where academic standards are far lower. I should clarify my own post, athletes' overall SD may eventually be within 1 degree of all students, but that still doesn't mean these other students (from hockey, football, basketball, baseball, and lacrosse) are not already seriously lacking in academic quality, which is not earth-shattering news, in my opinion. Hence, my belief that this article, outside of alleging recruiting violations, doesn't say much.

mentioned that monitoring prior to 2003 was limited to football, basketball and hockey. And, as a result of a meeting of the deans, etc., the ivy league imposed monitoring of all sports, with the requirement that all student athletes must in the aggregate average within 1SD of the AI for all admitted students.

apparently, historically, fewer admission stretches were made for lacrosse and baseball.

Harvard had the reputation of not deviating far a field.

Yes, exceptions, deviations from the mean occur and are part and parcel of the process. Overall athletes must be within 1 SI. Athletes must satisfy a minium AI or the school must receive special dispensation. Football is allowed only 2 recruits each year who just meet the minimum. Apparently no dispensation is given to football to admit below the minium.

If 3 of 6 of Harvard's b ball recruits do not meet the minimum AI, this really is news. This is much different than Harvard admitting a lacrosse player with say 93 percentile boards which may be more than 1SD from the mean.

RPS
03-03-2008, 10:38 AM
Since my family was actively involved in football recruiting this year (my youngest is an '08 recruit) with over half the Ivy League (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown and Dartmouth), I think I have some perspective to offer. It seems to me that the key motivation behind the story is the fact that Harvard is becoming "a player" in basketball after decades of irrelevance. Of course competing coaches are going to ask questions.

As others have mentioned, the Ivy League provides the academic floor above which players may be admitted, subject of course to what each school's Admissions Office does. That Harvard is willing to be more liberal than in the past with basketball is news. On the football side, the printed standards say that a 1700 SAT is the floor for consideration (among others). Not surprisingly, at the lowest rung on the scale, the player better be a superstar (in Ivy League terms). Moreover, Harvard suggested "no problem" in terms of succeeding once the student enrolled much more than the others (Princeton, for example, took pains to emphasize the difficulty).

HYP, in general, have had academically "better qualified" athletes than the other Ivies largely because they readily could. By that I mean that if a great athlete who is also an excellent student is willing to give up a scholarship to attend an Ivy, s/he is more likely to go to one of the more prestigious Ivies -- namely HYP. That said, athletes aren't likely to be as academically gifted as the general school population at Ivy schools or any other D1 school (remember the Laettner/J.R. Reid bruhaha?).

The other issue in the story concerned recruiting tactics. Based on what I know, what Blakeney did (allegedly?) looks like it wasn't a violation, but is ethically questionable based upon how likely it was that Kenny would go to Harvard when the contacts were made. It smells like the letter of the law wasn't broken but the spirit may have been.

In our experience, no Ivy school broke any rules, but Harvard alone was less than honest with us. Harvard also (legally) had an assistant watch a work-out (clearly and in Harvard gear) during a no contact period. Princeton, on the other hand and in particular, was impressively above reproach. But even they worked hard at marketing. When we got off the plane for our official visit to Berkeley, my son had a voicemail from the Princeton coach waiting (they knew all about the trip) advising that he had been admitted (and wishing him a good visit to Cal).

formerdukeathlete
03-03-2008, 11:02 AM
RPS, are you free to say where your son chose to go to school?

Knowing Gary Walters (AD at Princeton) in one of his prior incarnations, when he was a stickler for SEC / NASD compliance, I can only imagine he is this way vis a vis Ivy League and NCAA compliance.

RPS
03-03-2008, 11:15 AM
RPS, are you free to say where your son chose to go to school?He's going to Cal. The lure of the PAC-10 was too strong. Plus, he's money conscious and he will get some investment reward for the big savings his mom and I are getting. It was also important that we'll get to see every game and Berkeley is a great school. Thanks for asking.


Knowing Gary Walters (AD at Princeton) in one of his prior incarnations, when he was a stickler for SEC / NASD compliance, I can only imagine he is this way vis a vis Ivy League and NCAA compliance.Princeton came in second. They were very impressive throughout. Coach Hughes and Coach Tedford were far and away the most impressive to us with home visits and overall preparation. The attention to detail was remarkable.

OldSchool
03-03-2008, 12:45 PM
I believe Obama's brother-in-law coaches Princeton.

Michelle Obama's maiden name is Robinson, and her brother is Craig Robinson, the Brown head basketball coach. Michelle attended Princeton, perhaps that's the connection you're thinking of.

DoubleDuke Dad
03-03-2008, 01:05 PM
Don't know what you guys are arguing about.

In case you haven't noticed, Yahoo (http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/news?slug=dw-harvardscandal030208&prov=yhoo&type=lgns) sports just reported this as well and sort of suggested investigation. I'm predicting the other major sports media to follow.
Speaking about guilt by association:

Amaker arrived from the Big Ten, which in the past 20 years has had nine major rules convictions among its basketball programs alone, not to mention a point-shaving scandal and the current investigation at Indiana. This is business as usual there and in other power leagues.

Maybe Dan Wetzel is hoping to get a job with the NY Times.

Richard Berg
03-03-2008, 02:17 PM
The other issue in the story concerned recruiting tactics. Based on what I know, what Blakeney did (allegedly?) looks like it wasn't a violation, but is ethically questionable based upon how likely it was that Kenny would go to Harvard when the contacts were made. It smells like the letter of the law wasn't broken but the spirit may have been.
I felt this was the strongest point made in the article, actually. Even if Blakeney had no knowledge of his upcoming Harvard job at the time he allegedly met the recruit for a pick-up game, his actions would still be regulated by the NCAA as a "booster." And of course if he did already have the coaching offer in hand, that would add to the ethical murkiness.

HoopsFan
03-03-2008, 11:41 PM
This NYT piece is a complete NON-story. A significant majority of athletes admitted to Ivy League schools or the Little Ivies (like Williams, Amherst, etc.) have absolutely no business gaining admission to these institutions. I'm not talking borderline students where athletics push them over the top, I'm talking the admissions office would laugh at these applicants were it not for their athletic prowess.

The fact that Harvard is now expressly doing in basketball under what I am certain it does in sports like football - but also less glorious sports like, say, men's lacrosse, or even women's squash - is simply astonishing I tell you!

And for those of you who think what I'm saying is unsubstantiated, go find yourself a student who is currently enrolled at an Ivy, and I'm sure they will be more than happy to tell you how many athletes openly talk about their 1000 SATs or their less than admirable high school class ranks.

I can't comment on the Ivy League Schools but I have to question the comment that a "significant majority" of student athletes at Williams/Amherst NESCAC schools have no business gaining admisison to these schools. I am not naive enough to think that there are athletes at these schools that are admitted for their athletic ability, but if I had to guess I would say it is well below 50%.

Jumbo
03-04-2008, 12:48 AM
I can't comment on the Ivy League Schools but I have to question the comment that a "significant majority" of student athletes at Williams/Amherst NESCAC schools have no business gaining admisison to these schools. I am not naive enough to think that there are athletes at these schools that are admitted for their athletic ability, but if I had to guess I would say it is well below 50%.

That guess is wrong. It has been mentioned in passing throughout this thread, but the vast majority of athletes (at least in major or semi-major sports) at Ivies AND the elite D-III schools would not have been admitted without their athletic prowess. At this point, it is time for my typical plug for the seminal study, The Game of Life (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6903.html).

RPS
03-04-2008, 09:07 AM
That guess is wrong. It has been mentioned in passing throughout this thread, but the vast majority of athletes (at least in major or semi-major sports) at Ivies AND the elite D-III schools would not have been admitted without their athletic prowess.You're essentially correct, of course, but I want to add an important caveat. There are many kids who wouldn't have been admitted but for some important acheivement, talent or skill. Probably every admitted student wouldn't have gotten in without some particular attribute. The Admissions process is necessarily more than GPA/SAT. A national university wants a good geographic distribution. Is it fair to say that a kid from across the country wouldn't have gotten in had s/he lived nearby? How about the great violinist with grades and/or scores well under the median? How about the student that has overcome some tremendous hardship? It's goes without saying that college admissions have gotten exceedingly tough. The Duke Admissions Office has told me that each year they reject a class of kids with better grades and scores than the class they admit. My son, despite 4.0/2100 and half-a-dozen AP exam 5s, probably doesn't get admitted to Princeton (or Berkeley for that matter) without football, but it's not entirely fair to make that statement either. So while it's true that, for example, most Duke basketball players wouldn't have gotten in without hoops, it's also misleading.


At this point, it is time for my typical plug for the seminal study, The Game of Life (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6903.html).And, as always, doing so is spot-on.

Jumbo
03-04-2008, 09:10 AM
You're essentially correct, of course, but I want to add an important caveat. There are many kids who wouldn't have been admitted but for some important acheivement, talent or skill. Probably every admitted student wouldn't have gotten in without some particular attribute. The Admissions process is necessarily more than GPA/SAT. A national university wants a good geographic distribution. Is it fair to say that a kid from across the country wouldn't have gotten in had s/he lived nearby? How about the great violinist with grades and/or scores well under the median? How about the student that has overcome some tremendous hardship? It's goes without saying that college admissions have gotten exceedingly tough. The Duke Admissions Office has told me that each year they reject a class of kids with better grades and scores than the class they admit. My son, despite 4.0/2100 and half-a-dozen AP exam 5s, probably doesn't get admitted to Princeton (or Berkeley for that matter) without football, but it's not entirely fair to make that statement either. So while it's true that, for example, most Duke basketball players wouldn't have gotten in without hoops, it's also misleading.

Right, but as you know from the study, athletes receive greater admissions leeway than any other "group." That said, it sounds like your son is a heck of a student and would have found his way to a great school regardless of football. Congrats on Cal. Uh, beat Stanford? ;)

RPS
03-04-2008, 09:45 AM
Right, but as you know from the study, athletes receive greater admissions leeway than any other "group."Sure they do. That's partly because so many are needed and partly because of the importance placed upon them. Sports are probably the #1 PR and fund-raising vehicles for most universities. As I have noted before, Duke's rise up the national academic rankings neatly corresponds to K's success in hoops. I don't think it's a mere coincidence. Applications and donations, the lifeblood of a major university, both go up dramatically when a school's sports teams succeed.


That said, it sounds like your son is a heck of a student and would have found his way to a great school regardless of football.I like to think so.


Congrats on Cal. Uh, beat Stanford? ;)Beat Stanford indeed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Play).

formerdukeathlete
03-04-2008, 09:59 AM
Right, but as you know from the study, athletes receive greater admissions leeway than any other "group." That said, it sounds like your son is a heck of a student and would have found his way to a great school regardless of football. Congrats on Cal. Uh, beat Stanford? ;)

Background - I worked with the DAAAC for 10 years (1983-1992), and have pretty good contacts with folks quite involved with Ivy League schools, regarding The Game of Life, based on my experience, data points, it certainly seemed to me that African American recruited athletes received the greatest admissions preferences of any group admitted to elite universities. Then, based on my experiences, particularly at Duke, where I seemed to interview a lot of recruited athletes applying to Duke, I diverge. Womens' field hockey, swimmers, womens crew, bascially all non-rev except possibly soccer, recruited athletes received less preference in Duke's admissions process than African American applicants as a whole. For, example, back in 1992, a partner at Hale and Door in Boston daughter wanted to go to Duke. She was recruited by UNC, offered an athletic scholarship at UNC and several schools including Arizona and USC. She had 1170 SATs, and the Duke coach basically said he needed 1250 to "slot her in." The same year, I intereviewed an African American applicant with 1100s who got in.

Getting back to the case of Williams, a member of my high school football team went to Williams with 1200 SATs back in the 70s. He was your starting QB / running back when he was there. I remember our college counselor being surprised he got in. This, I guess represented more than one standard deviation from the mean.

BD80
03-04-2008, 10:38 AM
First: Blakeney, here is an out of work assistant whose skill set is recruiting. Since he is not affiliated with any school (except maybe Duke), he is fully allowed to contact high school kids without limitation. As somebody looking for a job, it only makes sense to try to develop relationships with as many recruitable players as possible. He may have talked to Tommy about a job but hadn't signed anything. As long as he wasn't recruiting for a school, there was no violation. He is allowed to develop relationships.

Aggressive? Yes. Illegal? Absolutely no.


Second: Lowering Standards. Exactly how much have the standards been lowered? Can't say. Yes, SOME of the kids may be below the 195 index that the prior coach used as a lower limit, but the story unfairly suggests worse. Generally, all of the kids in the recruiting class are Ivy league caliber (above 171) as they were pursued by other Ivy league schools. Two of the recruits are clearly above the minimum and have been sent letters confirming as much.

Whether Ben-Eze will be admitted is still up in the air, perhaps there is a procedure for non-English speaking students to have an adjusted index. I doubt it is as sleazy as the growing practice of having recruits declared learning-disabled to avoid admission standards.

The notion that the class is "top 25" no doubt reflects the fact that it is a 6 man class. It appears that only Ben-Eze is ranked in the top 100. Tommy is doing the job he was hired to do, bring better basketball players to Harvard.

Mike Corey
03-05-2008, 06:08 PM
Harvard and the Ivy League will now be investigating (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3278340) the men's basketball program for potential recruiting violations.

dukie8
03-06-2008, 11:42 PM
Harvard and the Ivy League will now be investigating (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3278340) the men's basketball program for potential recruiting violations.

sorry for the delay in replying but i have been on the road. my apologies to freedevil and tzd for mixing them up. in any event, i think that it is fair to conclude that at this point, harvard basketball being investigated for recruiting violations certainly is a story. when was the last time an ivy school got nailed for recruiting violations?

i actually spoke to my female colleague who played lax at harvard. she really didn't have much insight into the standards and minimums at harvard other than to say that she thought that the hockey team used to push the limits much more than the football or basketball team. apparently one of her friends who was on the hockey team was particularly, shall we say, academically challenged. her line to me was something along the lines of "if 171 is the minimum and is based on gpa and sats, then her friend must have had a 5.2 gpa because his sats were so bad."

Mike Corey
03-11-2008, 03:06 PM
Per the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/sports/ncaabasketball/11harvard.html).


Rob Jackson, who coached Ben-Eze with the D.C. Blue Devils, said in a telephone interview Monday that Ben-Eze called him last week to tell him he had changed his mind about Harvard.Reached by telephone Monday, Ben-Eze declined to comment.

Ben-Eze was mentioned last week in a New York Times article in which former Harvard coaches and members of the Ivy League said that the Crimson had lowered its academic standards. Ben-Eze said last month that he had not received what is called a likely letter from the admissions office at Harvard, essentially guaranteeing admission.

Jackson said Ben-Eze’s decision had nothing to do with academics. “Academically it was never an issue at Harvard,” he said. “He was definitely up to standards. He just sat down and did some thinking. He’s a bright young man and very smart.”

Jackson said that even though Ben-Eze struggled with injuries this season and tore a knee ligament in the final game, he expected to receive scholarship offers from prominent programs. Jackson said that in the past day, he had received calls from Connecticut, Boston College, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, DePaul and Rutgers about Ben-Eze’s availability.

weezie
03-11-2008, 04:35 PM
Well, that should make all the brainiacs happy.

flash
03-11-2008, 05:10 PM
You just knew that there would be a call from Calhoun.