The North Carolina Tar Heels have had a well documented series of academic failures and other scandals recently. What is your opinion on whether the NCAA has been sufficiently strict with the Tar Heels to date?
For more information, here are just some of the articles that have chronicled the situation: here, here, and here.
Yesterday’s news regarding the momentum behind the five major conferences forming a new division got the Confidential thinking. On the one hand, it is obvious that there is a huge huge difference in both revenue and the ability to earn revenue. For every Boise State that rises up to take on the SEC, there are 30 other schools at the bottom of the FBS that have to be satisfied with far less. Something has to give. On the other hand, while football makes some sense, what about hoops? Would the breakaway involve that too–jeopardizing March Madness? Let’s do a poll and find out what YOU think. And please add your comment below. A vote is nice, an opinion (whatever it is) gets a meaningful discussion going.
The poll:
When Maryland leaves for the B1G in July 2014 the ACC will no doubt lose an excellent academic institution and a founding member. A lot has already been discussed on this topic but what will the ACC actually gain and lose when the University of Louisville comes in as their replacement? What are the real athletic and academic differences between the two schools?
The college basketball season just ended. You knew that from your bracket. Heck, even Ned Flanders would think a bracket is too much fun to be immoral. But the season just ended two days ago. And guess when the deadline is for college underclassmen to decide whether to turn pro? Next freakin’ Tuesday, according to Syracuse.com, who laid this all out for Syracuse fans wondering what CJ Fair is going to do.
This is the timeline:
That’s right. The underclassmen in the Final Four have exactly one week to decide that they are not going to make themselves eligible for the draft. The most important decision of their respective lives, and the NCAA gives kids as little as one week to decide. Even worse, a kid like CJ Fair can receive his “assessment” on April 15 and get a whole 24 hours to decide. 24 hours.
An NCAA apologist might say that a kid could still decide to go pro between April 16 and April 28. However, anyone choosing to go pro during that period would give up their NCAA eligibility. There is no chance to return to college at that point.
It gets better. The purpose of moving up the dates to crunch this timeline was…. get ready for this… to benefit the student-athlete. That’s right, the NCAA is actually telling the world, with a straight face presumably, that they tightened the deadlines to help kids. The Syracuse.com article stated as follows: “The NCAA moved this date up in 2012 ‘to help keep student-athletes focused on academics in the spring term and to give coaches a better idea of their roster for the coming year before the recruiting period is closed,’ according to the organization.” Right. The latter part of the sentence is true, but not the former. This has nothing to do with helping kids.
If the NCAA cared about the players, it would allow them to go all the way through the draft, see where they are drafted, and then decide whether to come back to college. Indeed, as long as the player did not sign a contract, why should they be deemed to have lost their amateur status? Larry Bird was drafted by the Boston Celtics in 1978. He played for Indiana State in the 1978-1979 season. He then went pro for the 1979-1980 season, and the rest is history. Despite the Boston Celtics holding his rights, amateur athletics did not come to a halt. Things worked out quite well, actually.
Surely, you say, it would be improper for any current college athlete to be drafted and stay in college, right? Well, not if you are a baseball player. The MLB draft is set up to allow the drafting of three categories of players:
A high school player that is drafted, but chooses not to sign gets to go play college baseball. The NCAA will let him play. For a while, as the college baseball player will not be eligible again for the MLB draft until he turns 21 or completes his junior season. So, somehow, the NCAA allows drafted, but unsigned, baseball players to compete. It works the same way in hockey.
So, why is there one set of rules for baseball and hockey, but a much more onerous set of rules for basketball and football? If you are an optimist, you think it is because the NCAA makes so much money with football and basketball, that they care a lot more about keeping the amateur ranks clean. But, if you think about it, that cannot be. If it was only about ratings and attendance, keeping the best basketball and football players around would be even more profitable. If you are a pessimist, you might suspect racism. Right? The more “white” the sport, the more likely the NCAA is to allow you to be drafted and return to college nonetheless. At the very least, with a largely African-American sport such as basketball, the NCAA is more than willing to force kids to make a decision, one that will either be smart or terrible, in one week. Every time a basketball player leaves early, is not drafted, and is never heard from again… it is a warning sign to others that might consider leaving early. The NCAA will gladly ruin someone’s life to protect their cash cow. Especially when they are ruining a young African-American male’s life. Yes, this is a pessimistic view, all right.
Hey… if you can find a rationale for having different rules for the different sports, feel free to share it. The Confidential would love to hear why it must be different.
Whatever the reason, it is just one more example of just how absurd the NCAA is. But you knew that already…
Syracuse joins the ACC in a few months. Nevertheless, it has been one scandal after another since Syracuse and Pitt announced that they were joining the ACC. Might as well just call the Orange ScandalCuse at this point.
First, the current scandal. Giving credit to a fellow blogger, instead of the hit-driven, quasi-media type that broke the “story,” Troy Nunes is an Absolute Magician” had this to say:
Syracuse University basketball has been under NCAA investigation for a period of “years,” a source with knowledge of the case told CBSSports.com.
That source said the school has received a letter of preliminary inquiry from the NCAA.
The specific nature of the alleged violations was not disclosed by the source but the transgressions were described as both major and wide-ranging in nature. The investigation also encompasses football but is believed to primarily involve basketball. Syracuse has been penalized only once by the NCAA in a major case according to the association’s legislative database. That was in 1992 in a case that focused on extra benefits in the basketball program.
Later blog entries on the site revealed a calmer analysis. And Jim Boeheim went the calm route, as well, eschewing the opportunity to spew venom. In any event, it is yet another negative news story regarding Syracuse.
Second, just look at the recent timeline of negative news stories here:
Really, it is understandable if Syracuse fans feel a bit reluctant to reach for a newspaper link to a news story. Lately, despite having uber-competitive teams and the Bernie Fine scandal being seriously overblown, the news has been mostly negative. Especially in March, which also includes the March 15, 2010, injury to Arinze Onuaku. Other schools have had similar injuries, suspensions, scandals, and bad news… but all of it in a three-year span?
So, yeah, let’s just call it ScandalCuse from now on. And give a Syracuse fan a hug. It is needed.
The world has had plenty of time to digest the NCAA’s penalties against Penn State. While there is no question that the situation in Penn State was factually unprecedented, the NCAA will soon turn its attention to its more familiar tasks of punishing schools for secondary and major violations. The ACC cares. After all, Miami–one of the ACC’s marquee football programs–is likely “next up” in feeling the wrath of the newly emboldened NCAA leadership.
Actually, it should be noted that the NCAA, via its Presidents, imposed a new model for sanctions that imposed tougher penalties before the Penn State penalties were announced. See http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/34441353. In many instances, the penalties for violations will be tougher than what USC received for its penalties even! This new model is effective as of August 1, 2012. It is not clear whether these new penalties will apply to Miami, who does not expect to receive its penalties until next Spring (i.e. 2013).
But those penalties should be fairly severe. Miami’s violations occurred over a several-year period and were well-publicized. Although it is not clear that the evidence is as strong as claimed by incarcerated-informant Nevin Shapiro, there are recent reports that violations continued after Al Golden took over as coach. Needless to say, there is going to be a lot of fingernail chewing in Coral Gables until the NCAA issues its ruling.
And, lest we forget, North Carolina was just issued penalties by the NCAA in May 2012. Specifically, the NCAA ordered these as just part of its penalty for football violations:
There is Internet scuttlebutt that a basketball scandal may now be brewing in Chapel Hill. If so, the Tar Heels may find themselves in even bigger trouble.
And who knows what else is lurking out there for the NCAA to consider. Although Penn State is not part of the ACC, the ACC needs to care about how the NCAA is punishing schools.
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…
The Confidential 