The Confidential

The ACC Sports Blog

02 Nov 2011
4 Comments

Future Big East vs. Future ACC

The recent addition of Syracuse and Pittsburgh to the ACC is great news for the future.  It is hoped that this move will rejuvenate football, strengthen basketball, add new lucrative markets, solidify the northern core of the conference, and perhaps lead to Notre Dame joining to really add juice to football.  That’s the easy part.

The fact of the matter is that it also weakens the Big East.  While the Big East was likely to lose a team or two anyway, the ACC’s move means that the Big East lost four total teams.  In addition, three of those teams–all but TCU–are great basketball schools too.  The Big East’s loss is the ACC’s gain.  But, forget basketball for a moment, this is all about football.

As of yesterday, the Big East has apparently sent out 6 invitations.  It is expected that these are football only invitations to Boise St., Air Force, and Navy.  It is also expected that these are all-sports invitations to UCF, Houston, and SMU.  While many have characterized this as a move of desperation, how will the future Big East stack up against the future ACC in football moving forward?

Actually, let’s take a step back.  From a prestige standpoint, the new ACC will absolutely crush the Big East.  Even the middle of the pack of the ACC will be name schools, such as Virginia, Maryland, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Syracuse, etc.  These are schools that have had football success in the past 15 to 20 years.  BCS appearances.  Bowl games.  National titles even.

Also, this is not about marketing and money.  The new Big East will have new markets, but not domination in markets.  Nobody carries NYC, home of Rutgers.  Louisville splits Kentucky with, well, Kentucky.  Cincy is second chair to Ohio State.  Houston and SMU are behind Texas, Texas A&M, and sometimes Oklahoma in the major Texas markets.  Boise St. is a small market.  Navy and Air Force are national, but nobody is turning in to watch Navy play anyone other than Army or Notre Dame.  USF and UCF still have to get over the big three in Miami, FSU, and Florida.  Needless to say, this is not about $$$ yet.  The ACC wins hands down.

But let’s just look at it from an on-field football performance scenario.  According to the CBS, the new Big East will have the current #5, #14, and #23 teams in the AP poll.  The new ACC will have #11, #12, and #22.  That’s pretty close.  Perhaps even an edge to the Big East?

To go beyond the top 25, one needs to look at the CBS Rankings.  While The Confidential does not pretend that these have any real merit, it is one (albeit very subjective and debatable) measuring stick.

The new Big East has #4 (Boise St.), #8 (Houston), #26 (Cincy), #42 (SMU), #47 (Rutgers), #53 (USF),  #67 (Louisville), #78 (Air Force), #81 (UCF), #92 (UConn), and #93 (Navy)

The new ACC has #10 (Clemson), #12 (Virginia Tech), #24 (Georgia Tech), #32 (UNC), #41 (FSU), #45 (Miami), #46 (Wake Forest), #51 (Syracuse), #58 (Virginia), #75 (NC State), #77 (Pitt), #87 (Duke), #101 (Maryland), and #104 (BC).

Top 25: ACC 3, Big East 2 (could easily be 3)

Top 50: ACC 7 (could be 8 with Syracuse), Big East 5.

Edge for the ACC.  Although it should be noted that the ACC does have more teams.  And the Big East does not have teams in the bottom 25.

The bigger question, of course, is whether Boise St., Houston, and SMU can sustain their current rankings.  The ACC knows that it will have 2 or 3 ranked teams every year.  By moving to 12 teams, the Big East makes it far more likely that they will avoid the embarrassment of finishing a season shut out of the top 25.

Finally, let’s not ignore schedule here.  If all teams played a schedule at the same level, there is little doubt that these rankings would get shaken up considerably.  Boise St. has played Georgia.  Cincinnati lost to NC State, despite the 50 placement gap in these CBS rankings.  Cincy destroyed NC State, but lost to struggling Tennessee.  FSU lost to Oklahoma.  Miami lost to Kansas State.  UNC beat Rutgers.  However, given that the Big East teams will not have the elite opponents on the schedule, they are going to benefit by having a better, but emptier, record.  This is something that the ACC will just have to overcome. But, all-in-all, it sure looks like the Big East is not going to fall off the map here.

What do you think?

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Conference Realignment, Football and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
01 Nov 2011
6 Comments

Proposal to “Cure” the BCS

The BCS annoys many people, but it was designed to ensure that the #1 team and the team #2 team face each other whenever possible.  Before the BCS, the bowl tie-ins created a situation where the #1 team and the #2 team might not play.  In recent years, there has usually been an ability to match the #1 and #2 teams.  The debate has turned to how to decide the #1 and #2 teams, particularly where a Cincinnati, TCU, or Boise St. was left out.  But, for the most part, the BCS has worked.

The problem for the BCS is that it awards money to conferences based on the matchups NOT featuring team #1 and team #2.  The six major conferences get paid no matter what.  This has been unfair to the major conferences when an 8-4 UConn team has gotten to represent the Big East.  This was unfair to the conferences that had 10 win teams placed in inferior bowls or matched up against an inferior foe.  This is also unfair to the lesser conferences, that have watched 10 or 11 win teams miss out while a worse team gets in.

The Confidential has a solution:

  1. The SEC, Big 10, ACC, Big XII, and Pac-12 get AQ bids with a full share payout.
  2. The Big East and MWC-CUSA are “semi-qualified conferences” get AQ bids with a full share payout, except 3, 4, and 5 below.
  3. The BCS representative of the Big East and MWC-CUSA merger must have 2 or fewer losses to participate.
  4. If either or both conferences cannot produce a champion that qualifies, the BCS is free to take a different team.
  5. Where a different team is taken, the conference of that school and the conference that lost its AQ status for that year (and only that year) split a share.
  6. If either of the semi-qualified conferences place a team in a BCS bowl for 5 straight years, the standard will be relaxed to 3 or fewer losses.
  7. If either of the semi-qualified conferences fail to place a team in a BCS bowl for 3 out of any 5 consecutive years, the BCS conferences can–by majority vote–exclude them from semi-qualification.
  8. There is no prohibition against any conference having 3 teams in BCS games in any given year.

This would allow the Big East to stay regional by taking Temple, Navy, East Carolina, UCF, Memphis, SMU, and Houston.  The Big East can decide which ones get full membership vs. football only.

The other conference can have 10-20 teams, led by Boise St., that would anchor the West and Midwest (except SMU/Houston).

The merits of BCS membership would be decided by the teams and conferences and provide for long-term stability.

The 5 BCS conferences will not be stuck with an 8 or 9 win team from the semi-qualified conferences, and will instead get to have its own superior teams placed that year.  Plus, in those circumstances, more money than under current system.

Posted by acaffrey in Football and tagged , , ,
01 Nov 2011

West Virginia Sues Big East

Apparently, West Virginia is serious about leaving the Big East in time for 2012.  West Virginia has now filed a lawsuit against the Big East seeking to confirm that it may do so.  The import of this lawsuit is that it may lead to negotiations with West Virginia that ultimately pave the way for Pitt and Syracuse to join the ACC sooner.

The Confidential is not impressed with the merits of the West Virginia lawsuit.  It reads as little more than an air of “gripes” against the Big East, which–while perhaps legitimate–do not have anything to do with the negotiated 27-month period before exiting.  The 27-month period recognizes that schools can become dissatisfied and leave.  Unlike an at-will employee, West Virginia just has to provide 27-months notice.  As a practical matter, the waiting period gives the Big East ample time to find a suitable replacement and readjust schedules.  The waiting period is certainly logical.

However, the Confidential is also not persuaded that this is a lawsuit that West Virginia expects to win.  Instead, West Virginia expects the Big East to countersue for the damages caused by West Virginia not abiding to the 27-month waiting period.  This is where things get much more beneficial for West Virginia.

As a primer, it is a misconception that one cannot breach a contract.  A person is free to breach any contract he or she wants.  Among the purposes of a contract are to give the other party the right to sue for damages if there is a breach of contract.  In the absence of a contract, West Virginia could do what it wants.  With a contract, West Virginia may be sued for damages.

The mere fact that West Virginia intends to breach a contract is not proof of the Big East’s damages.  Think about it logically.  You hire a landscaper to mow your own once a week for $25 for the summer.  The landscaper calls you up and says I cannot do it anymore.  You hire another landscaper, who charges $45 a week because his slate is full.  Your damages are $20/week because of the breach of contract.  You could sue for that (but wouldn’t due to the low amount, obviously).  However, what if you hired a neighborhood teen to mow the lawn for $25 a week and this teen does just as good a job as the landscaper?  In that instance, you would not incur damages from the breach.  So the landscaper is off the hook, even though he breached the contract.

With respect to West Virginia’s situation, the Big East would have to prove damages caused by West Virginia not fulfilling its 27-month waiting period.  If West Virginia agrees to stay for 10 months, rather than 27 months, the Big East would have to prove the damages caused by West Virginia’s refusal to stay that extra 17 months.

But with good lawyering and a competent judge, West Virginia should be able to show that these damages do not include the damages caused by West Virginia leaving the conference generally.  The contract allows West Virginia to leave.  The only issue is leaving early.  If so, West Virginia should not be responsible for a reduction in television contract revenue or change in bowl structure.

If West Virginia cannot be replaced by 2012, this would leave a vacancy for the Big East.  In that circumstance, the schools might have to hire replacement opponents for football.  The costs there might be an element of damages, but no more than a few million dollars.  Basketball is unlikely to present this problem.  West Virginia would gladly agree to pay an extra few million to leave the conference.

Perhaps the schools could seek differences in attendance.  But that would be awfully hard to prove.  If 35,000 people show up to watch Rutgers host replacement Florida International, how does Rutgers prove that West Virginia would have drawn more?  Attendance is driven by the rankings on the schools.  If Rutgers was having a poor season, the quality of the opponent would not matter as much.  If West Virginia is having a down season, they are less of a draw for the home team.  And one can only guess as to the records when the schedules are revised.  Plus, who is to say what week each game would be.  It all gets very speculative and difficult to prove with much certainty.  It does not make it impossible, but it would give the Big East reason to negotiate.  In the end, it can be expected that this lawsuit will lead to a quicker resolution of the departure period and additional cost of doing so than would have been otherwise reached.

Returning to the ACC, the quicker that West Virginia and the Big East sort this out, the quicker that a “precedent” can be set for Syracuse and Pitt to depart.  If, for example, West Virginia settles with the Big East for $4 million extra, Pitt and Syracuse can approach the Big East with the same offer.  In essence, the ACC, Pitt, and Syracuse get to allow West Virginia and the Big XII do their dirty work for them.  The West Virginia lawsuit may lead to earlier realignment for the ACC.

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Conference Realignment and tagged , , ,
31 Oct 2011

ACC Football Rankings

This is particularly complex with Pitt and Syracuse not yet in the ACC, but it can still be done.  Here is how we view the ACC football schools as of October 31, 2011:

1.  Clemson–The Confidential is sticking with Clemson here.  Losing to Georgia Tech was disappointing, but not disastrous.

2. Virginia Tech–hard to move the Hokies after they only barely beat Duke.

3. Georgia Tech–the win over Clemson gets things back on track.

4. Florida State–dominant win over North Carolina State suggests that better times are ahead.

5. Miami–the loss to Virginia is a step backward.

6. North Carolina– Almost moved the Tarheels ahead of Miami.  Impressive win over Wake Forest.

7.  Syracuse– Hugely disappointing loss to Louisville.  They get the edge with the win over Wake Forest.

8.  Wake Forest–Needed that North Carolina win to get to the next level.

9.  Virginia– With wins over Miami and Georgia Tech, this is the one team that may be significantly underrated at this point.  The Confidential is feeling a bit guilty here.

10. Pittsburgh— A win over UConn without their best player gets them the nod here, but it may be a short-lived stay this high.

11.  Duke—Playing the Hokies close is better than getting shellacked by the Seminoles.  We still expect NC State and Duke to flip.

12. North Carolina State–hard to not penalize a team that did not score.  I am sure the Wolfpack will rise up a few slots soon enough.

13. Boston College– the head-to-head matters, but the fact that Maryland just seems to have quit on Edsall carries the day.

14. Maryland- Beating Boston College to go to 3-5 was imperative.  This team is reeling.

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Football, Rankings and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
30 Oct 2011

No ACC Teams in New AP Top 10

The October 30, 2011, AP poll has now been released:

AP Top 25 Ranking

Rank Team Record Pts Last Week
1. LSU (47) 8-0 1439 1
2. Alabama (10) 8-0 1401 2
3. Oklahoma St. 8-0 1305 3
4. Stanford 8-0 1278 4
5. Boise St. (1) 7-0 1241 5
6. Oregon 7-1 1148 7
7. Oklahoma 7-1 1096 11
8. Arkansas 7-1 1035 8
9. Nebraska 7-1 976 13
10. South Carolina 7-1 861 14
11. Clemson 8-1 851 6
12. Virginia Tech 8-1 755 15
13. Michigan 7-1 718 17
14. Houston 8-0 611 18
15. Michigan St. 6-2 586 9
16. Penn St. 8-1 553 21
17. Kansas St. 7-1 536 10
18. Georgia 6-2 446 22
19. Wisconsin 6-2 420 12
20. Arizona St. 6-2 384 23
21. USC 6-2 323 20
22. Georgia Tech 7-2 230 NR
23. Cincinnati 6-1 128 24
24. West Virginia 6-2 111 25
25. Auburn 6-3 107 NR
Others Receiving Votes:

  • Texas 99,
  • Southern Miss 67,
  • Washington 52,
  • Ohio St. 37,
  • TCU 26,
  • Texas A&M 25,
  • Florida St. 4,
  • Notre Dame 1
ACC observations:
  • It is not at all surprising that Clemson dropped in the polls, given the loss to Georgia Tech.
  • And it is perfectly reasonable for Georgia Tech to move back into the standings at #22.
  • Despite narrowly beating Duke, Virginia Tech moved up a few spots in the standings as well.
  • And Florida State’s big win over North Carolina State has them back receiving a few votes.
  • As such, the ACC has 4 of the top 32 teams right now.  Decent, but not outstanding.
General observations:
  • Hard to disagree with the top 5 right now.
  • Boise St. is a BIG Georgia fan, needless to say.
  • Kind of surprising to see Michigan State drop below Michigan.  The Spartans just got done with a four-game stretch involving Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nebraska.  Going 3-1 is fairly impressive.  That Notre Dame loss certainly hurts.
  • The new Big 12 has 5 of the top 30 teams.  The new SEC has 7 of the top 31 teams, including 4 in the top 10.
Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Football, Rankings and tagged , , , , , ,
30 Oct 2011

And then there were none… Clemson loses to Georgia Tech

They say that college football is great because every week is a playoff game.  The Confidential tends to agree.  With a few exceptional situations or seasons, only undefeated teams have a chance of being one of the top two teams and, therefore, eligible to play for the national championship.  The season starts with all undefeated teams and gradually whittles its way down to just a few.  Going into Week #9, the ACC was fortunate enough to still have an undefeated team: Clemson.  After Week 9, however, the ACC has been eliminated from the national title picture because Clemson lost to Georgia Tech, 31-17.

At 7-2, the Georgia Tech win over now 8-1 Clemson should not be seen as a total surprise.  And the story should be about Georgia Tech.  Unfortunately, college football is a sport of tiers, with Clemson vying to join the top tier for 2011.  So, with all due respect to Georgia Tech, the lead on this story is Clemson losing, rather than Georgia Tech winning.

But The Confidential will give Georgia Tech its due praise.  After losing at Virginia and Miami, it looked as if the Yellow Jackets 6-0 start was a bit of a mirage.  Neither Virginia nor Miami is in the conference title picture.  With Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Georgia remaining on the schedule, there was certainly a chance of finishing with a very mediocre season result.  In defeating Clemson, Georgia Tech took the first step towards avoiding a second-half collapse.

Amazingly, Georgia Tech was able to beat Clemson with virtually no passing game.  Although Georgia Tech does not put up significant passing numbers in most games, averaging about 120 yards per game, they only passed for 60 yards against Clemson.  That’s not a misprint.  60 yards.  Instead, this win was a product of 300 rushing yards, with more than half coming from quarterback Tevin Washington.  Although he has averaged about 60 yards per game rushing, Washington ran for 174 yards against Clemson.

Another story was turnovers.  As it often the case with a football game at any level, Clemson’s four turnovers told much of the story. In the first quarter, Clemson recovered a punt at its own 36 yard line.  On the second play, it fumbled, allowing Georgia Tech to start a drive at the 19 yard line.   This led to a touchdown.  After intercepting a Georgia Tech pass in the fourth quarter in a two-possession game, Clemson had the ball at the Georgia Tech 9-yard line.  On the very next play, Clemson threw an interception.  Give Georgia Tech credit though.  After getting that 4th quarter interception, they marched the ball down the field in a drive consuming nearly 9 minutes of fourth-quarter time.  Even though that drive did not result in a score, it gave Clemson too little time to mount a comeback.

And just like that, the ACC’s hopes of having a team in the national title game evaporated.  Clemson remains in the hunt for a BCS bowl appearance.  The November 10 matchup between Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech will go a long way towards determining who plays in the ACC championship game.

 

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Football and tagged , ,
29 Oct 2011

Boston College Gets First 2011 ACC Win

This has been a tough season for Boston College.  No doubt about it. After going bowling last year, Boston College traveled to College Park to take on a Maryland team that has been only slightly better this year.  This made-for-radio battle between two struggling teams was Boston College’s best remaining chance for a win over an FBS school and a conference win.  To its credit, Boston College rose to the occasion and beat Maryland, 28-17.

In fairness, Boston College has been playing without standout running back, Montel Harris.  Harris had nearly 3,600 rushing yards coming into this season.  Today’s win was fueled by 243 yards of rushing from sophomore Rolandan Finch.  Finch nearly doubled his season rushing output in this one game.

With the weather inclement, Boston College was unable to mount any type of passing game.  Boston College attempted 12 passes for only 32 yards.  That is not a misprint–32 yards of passing!  This Boston College run was all about the running game.  With Finch and Andre Williams combining for more than 300 yards of rushing.

For Maryland, the season just gets worse.  Maryland drops to 2-6 overall, with wins against a suspension-depleted Miami team opening week and FCS Towson.  This was the fourth straight conference loss for the Terrapins.  Of course, the first three losses were against unbeaten Clemson, highly ranked Georgia Tech, and Florida St.  But today’s loss got the much-easier final stretch of games off to a poor start.

In fact, it will be interesting to see what the fan reaction to Randy Edsall will be.  Working in Edsall’s favor is the fact that Maryland was 2-10 in 2009.  However, sandwiched around that season were bowl games.  This is not a historically bad season, as was the case with Rich Rodriguez in Michigan, who never could recover the confidence of the fan base after a very poor first year.  But Maryland was 9-4 last year and went bowling.  The fan base has a basis to argue that the cupboard could not have been THAT bare.  Should be interesting times in College Park as the season winds down.

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Football and tagged , , ,
28 Oct 2011

Tarheels Top Preseason AP Poll

The Preseason AP poll has been released and the North Carolina Tarheels were ranked #1.

The Complete Poll is as follows:

1. N. Carolina (62), 1,620
2. Kentucky, 1,501
3. Ohio St. (1), 1,482
4. UConn (2), 1,433
5. Syracuse, 1,338
6. Duke, 1,301
7. Vanderbilt, 1,120
8. Florida, 1,086
9. Louisville, 1,055
10. Pittsburgh, 1,027
11. Memphis, 997
12. Baylor, 892
13. Kansas, 755
14. Xavier, 747
15. Wisconsin, 720
16. Arizona, 616
17. UCLA, 404
18. Michigan, 401
19. Alabama, 395
20. Texas A&M, 357
21. Cincinnati, 353
22. Marquette, 335
23. Gonzaga, 283
24. California, 230
25. Missouri, 139
Others receiving votes: Florida St. 131, Michigan St. 128, Temple 69, Washington 44, New Mexico 33, Butler 25, Texas 21, Villanova 14, Creighton 12, Purdue 10, Belmont 8, Drexel 8, UNLV 7, Saint Mary’s (Cal) 6, George Mason 5, West Virginia 4, Long Beach St. 3, Miami 3, Harvard 2, Illinois 2, Marshall 1, Minnesota 1, San Diego St. 1.

The future version of the ACC has 4 of the top 10 teams, but nobody else in the top 25.  And of the four teams ranked in the top 10, Syracuse and Pitt are so ranked as current members of the Big East.  That makes the conference both top-heavy and weak heading into the season.  A few teams are going to need to have surprising seasons for the conference to generate respect.  Interestingly, perennial football powers Florida St. and Miami were among the others receiving votes.

It is notable that, even removing Big East defectors Syracuse, Pitt, and (now) West Virginia, the Big East still has the #4 team (UConn), the #9 team (Louisville), the #21 team (Cincinnati), the #22 team (Marquette), and Villanova also receiving votes.  The addition of Pitt and Syracuse to the ACC will undoubtedly even the gap in future seasons.

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Basketball and tagged , , , , , , , , ,
28 Oct 2011

Expansion Sooner?

The Big XII’s decision to accept West Virginia to get to 10 schools seemingly does not involve the ACC.  To be sure, The Confidential was a bit more supportive than others of the ACC taking a look at pairing West Virginia with Notre Dame someday.  But most prognosticators believed Rutgers or UConn to be the extra-point to any future addition of Notre Dame.

Where this DOES impact the ACC is that West Virginia is reportedly confident that it can leave the Big East in time to join the Big XII for 2012.   That is news.  There is talk that this is an issue that can be resolved by sheer money, with Pitt being offered the chance to leave earlier for $21 million.  It is difficult to envision a scenario where $21 million is a sensible amount to pay to leave 17 months early.  However, this does suggest that Pitt and Syracuse may be able to extract themselves from the Big East sooner than expected.  If so, the ACC will be “whole” in time for 2012.

There is little doubt that the ACC has contingency plans in place for a 2012 start to a 14-team ACC.  It may actually happen.

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Conference Realignment and tagged , , ,
27 Oct 2011
2 Comments

NCAA Rules Changes

The NCAA has approved some rather radical changes to its rules.

First, the NCAA has allowed schools the ability to add $2,000 to a scholarship.  This would help prevent student-athletes from having a shortfall between the cost of attending a school and what the school is allowed to pride.

The Confidential believes that this rule is long overdue.  For the most part, student-athletes are not allowed to earn income.  That’s a pretty unfortunate Catch-22… money needed, but no ability to earn money.  While some student-athletes have parents that can make up the gap, many other student-athletes do not.  Moreover, $40/week is hardly going to lead to craziness.  I think this is a great move.  Granted, this will not stop boosters from abusing the system.  But I have to figure that having a little spending money has to have some positive impact on temptation.  We’ll give the NCAA an A.

Also, it is noted that the NCAA hopes that this rule will be adopted on a conference-by-conference basis.  The Mac could vote to make it $500.  The Sun Belt could opt against it.  It is certainly expect that the wealthier conferences will not hesitate to take advantage of this.  This will likely lead to a further gap between the AQ schools and the non-AQ schools.  But conferring this benefit on student-athletes, which will remedy a present unfairness, is worth that risk.

Second, individual schools can choose to award multiyear scholarships, which may not be revoked based on performance.  The Confidential is less sure about this one.  For one, who decides what “revoked based on performance” means?  If a kid with an attitude problem does not perform well, he could rather easily be dismissed from the team for “improper conduct.”  That same conduct with a star could be ignored.  I tend to think this will lead to litigation.

That being said, the absence of multiyear scholarships is absurd.  A student-athlete is punished for transferring.  However, a university can revoke a scholarship at will.  And that usually occurs to allow a better player to have the scholarship.  That is patently unfair.  It sends the wrong message.  Also, I think this rule will also work against the AQ schools in recruiting.  If a Houston can offer a student a 4-year scholarship, but Texas Tech will only offer a 1-year scholarship, this may offset any differences regarding stipends.  This is a benefit to the true student-athletes.  All in all, it is hard to quibble with the rule change.  We’ll give the NCAA a B+.

Third, there will now be a rule that schools that fail to meet the Academic Progress Rate benchmark will be ineligible for playoffs, tournaments, and bowl games.  The devil is in the details.  The 4-year phase in is helpful.   There is going to be some pain here.  The Confidential needs to see how this gets implemented before giving it anything more than a C.  The fear is that this will punish schools whose players leave through no fault of the school.  On the other hand, it does emphasize recruiting players who are going to at least do the minimum as students.

Fourth, incoming freshmen will now need a 2.3 GPA, rather than 2.0 GPA.   The Confidential gives this a D.   The difference between 2.3 and 2.0 is meaningless.  Grades vary.  Integrity in grading varies.  The Confidential would rather see the schools create programs to bring the student-athletes with subpar academics UP to par, rather than just exclude them.

Finally, there were some rule changes regarding basketball recruiting activity periods and types of contact.  Again, while attempting to correct problems with recruiting, it remains to be seen whether this will just lead to new problems.  This deserves an incomplete.

In sum, The Confidential gives the NCAA rules an aggregate grade point average of 2.58.   Not exactly demonstrating a good example…

Posted by acaffrey in Uncategorized and tagged

Post Navigation

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →