THE PAC12 THREAD v.4

[socaljim242]

Understandable that USC fans have a hardon for the "NZAA". The situation at NC shows the NCAA took full advantage of an opportunity to screw USC.

Yupp. They are more worried about players getting money than then actually getting an education. It's decades worth of academic fraud by the actual school there at UNC and they still let the basketball team play in the tournament. But even when they figured out that no one at USC knew about Bushs arraignment the tried to pin it all on one coach one phone call that they knew was just a lie. It's just crazy.

 

[trojanfan12]

Why would the pros even want to consider a minor or developmental leaque when CFB provides the finest coaches and facilities for player development. Then, what's the incentive for all these college programs if they are not making money?

As much as I like the idea of a developmental league for the NFL, this is why I don't think it will ever happen. I think kids who would star in college, would go to the NFL developmental league rather than college and it would seriously hurt the quality of CFB. Why deal with the hassle of going to school for 3 years, when you can spend the next 3 years concentrating solely on football and preparing for the NFL.

 

[trojanfan12]

Understandable that USC fans have a hardon for the "NZAA". The situation at NC shows the NCAA took full advantage of an opportunity to screw USC.

Don't know how much you have read on it, but some of the details of what the NCAA did have come out during the Todd McNair lawsuit and there is some shameful shit in there.

For example, NCAA investigators were overheard talking about how badly they were going to nail USC before they ever set foot on campus.

 

[nddulac]

Like the teams in Canada eh?

Do I look like some frost-bitten hosehead? (I never learned my alphabet from eh to zed.)

 

[nddulac]

Developmental league for the NFL?

Like there is a shortage of college level programs, including the JUCOs, for players to develop themselves?

The last F'n thing we need a developmental league that pays players.

You've missed the point.

College football should be about college. It is nice that it provides opportunities for players to develop and perhpas go pro eventually, but that should not be the purpose. In other words, players should not be entitled to look on college football as their only possible path to the pros, and therefore place all kind of restrictions on what college football is supposed to provide them.

To illustrate my point, players are very heavily compensated for playing college football by being given access to a college education without having to play for it. That amounts to about $300,000 (estimating, I might be off a bit, but am in the right ballpark) of compensation. So if players don't value the form of compensation, they should quit whining about it, quit college football, and go find a job that compensates them in the way they want to be compensated. But to look down the barrel of a $300,000 package over the course of four years (meaning they are being funded better than many of their professors) and claim that they are being exploited, it absurd.

That's why I say it is not the responsibility of the college programs to provide a pathway to professional athletics. It should be the responsibility of the professional leagues to provide the developmental pathways. It is already how it is done in both baseball and hockey.

 

[nddulac]

Yupp. They are more worried about players getting money than then actually getting an education. It's decades worth of academic fraud by the actual school there at UNC and they still let the basketball team play in the tournament. But even when they figured out that no one at USC knew about Bushs arraignment the tried to pin it all on one coach one phone call that they knew was just a lie. It's just crazy.

The NCAA is not an academic accrediting agency. Expecting them to oversee academics would be like expecting your mechanic to make sure your doctor sets your broken leg correctly if you break it in a car accident.

 

[nddulac]

Don't know how much you have read on it, but some of the details of what the NCAA did have come out during the Todd McNair lawsuit and there is some shameful shit in there.

You know - I wouldn't deny this. There was definitely flaws in the investigation. However, none of the reports about those flaws include any of the shit Todd McNair did, like changing his story about attending the party in San Diego multiple times, including the witness with which he claimed to not know, but then went to the party with.

It's easy to paint a bad picture of the NCAA, but it is equally easy to paint a bad picture of Todd McNair.

For example, NCAA investigators were overheard talking about how badly they were going to nail USC before they ever set foot on campus.

I believe Mike Garrett also made it very clear that USC was going to make it as hard as possible on the NCAA. Again, this pendulum swung both ways.

 

[WizardHawk]

Do I look like some frost-bitten hosehead? (I never learned my alphabet from eh to zed.)

Brandon Browner is an example of a guy the NFL passed up that went to Canada and turned enough heads to get his shot. Vernon Adams is hoping he can do something similar. Warren Moon did so back in the day.

The NCAA is NOT the minor leagues for the NFL. The CFL is the closest thing we have outside of maybe some other pro/semi pro obscure leagues around.

Go up there and learn to eat poutine and full dressed chips, learn a little french, play with funny coloured money (see what I did there), and play your ass off in their derivative and maybe, just maybe you can find your way back to the promised land to play real football again.

 

[nddulac]

Brandon Browner is an example of a guy the NFL passed up that went to Canada and turned enough heads to get his shot. Vernon Adams is hoping he can do something similar. Warren Moon did so back in the day.

Best example in my lifetime.

 

[WizardHawk]

Best example in my lifetime.

It was sad he had to go that route. He had outrageous skills in college, but in the late 70's you weren't going to the NFL as a black QB. At least it was super rare. We all knew around here he got hosed by the NFL. I remember vividly watching his career here at UW and he is still one of the best college QB's I saw in person all of these years later. The team around him wasn't nearly as good as Brunell or a few other of our QB's so the results weren't quite there either, but his skills were crazy. His ability to hit those deep routes was incredible. Fearless. Pinpoint accuracy.

 

[socaljim242]

The NCAA is not an academic accrediting agency. Expecting them to oversee academics would be like expecting your mechanic to make sure your doctor sets your broken leg correctly if you break it in a car accident.

But they are in charge of players being eligible for what ever reason. If a group of "student" athletes never actually go to class and the school just gives them As is the NCAA not supposed to care? Especially decades worth? I find that way more troubling than a player getting paid by an agent.

 

[nddulac]

It was sad he had to go that route. He had outrageous skills in college, but in the late 70's you weren't going to the NFL as a black QB. At least it was super rare. We all knew around here he got hosed by the NFL. I remember vividly watching his career here at UW and he is still one of the best college QB's I saw in person all of these years later. The team around him wasn't nearly as good as Brunell or a few other of our QB's so the results weren't quite there either, but his skills were crazy. His ability to hit those deep routes was incredible. Fearless. Pinpoint accuracy.

Yeah - I think what he needed was a showcase more than a chance to develop. He was a hell of a QB by the time he finally got a chance in the NFL.

Hopefully in today's game, teams are more interested in winning that protecting racial entitlements. Someday, it might translate to the management levels, but that is still a work in progress.

 

[nddulac]

But they are in charge of players being eligible for what ever reason. If a group of "student" athletes never actually go to class and the school just gives them As is the NCAA not supposed to care? Especially decades worth? I find that way more troubling than a player getting paid by an agent.

USC had issues with players not attending or participating in classes in the 70s. UNC's issues are very different. The players were, in fact, completing the classes in which they enrolled, but the classes themselves were farcical.

Once again, the NCAA's jurisdiction in this is peripheral. It is SACS that handles whether or not the courses meet academic muster. Only after that can (or should) the NCAA have anything to say about it.

 

[WizardHawk]

Yeah - I think what he needed was a showcase more than a chance to develop. He was a hell of a QB by the time he finally got a chance in the NFL.

Hopefully in today's game, teams are more interested in winning that protecting racial entitlements. Someday, it might translate to the management levels, but that is still a work in progress.

The NFL only wanted him if he would move to another position and he was never athletic enough to do pretty much anything at a high level outside of throwing the ball. He wouldn't have fit in today's game with his lack of mobility.

Hell, UW only had him two years because he was asked to do the same thing in college by any of the big teams and he refused so he first had to prove himself at the JC level. He only went to UW because James told him he wouldn't even try him out at anything outside of QB and told him he had a good chance of actually competing for the starting position. So he went through that proving process twice.

I do believe there was a black starting QB at USC at the same time. It wasn't entirely unheard of for black QB's at the major level, but it wasn't nearly as broad as today. Yeah, we have come a long way with that and yet there aren't nearly as many black coaches/AD's/GM's etc as there probably should be. Just not a cause I'm all that into though.

 

[socaljim242]

USC had issues with players not attending or participating in classes in the 70s. UNC's issues are very different. The players were, in fact, completing the classes in which they enrolled, but the classes themselves were farcical.

Once again, the NCAA's jurisdiction in this is peripheral. It is SACS that handles whether or not the courses meet academic muster. Only after that can (or should) the NCAA have anything to say about it.

They know some one who wasn't a professor began fake classes in 1993. They know it for a fact. Academic muster? They need more time? lol

 

[nddulac]

They know some one who wasn't a professor began fake classes in 1993. They know it for a fact. Academic muster? They need more time? lol

Once again - academic rigor is not the purview of the NCAA. If it was, do you think they would allow a QB who has completed all of his degree requirements to remain eligible by taking a dance class?

 

[socaljim242]

Once again - academic rigor is not the purview of the NCAA. If it was, do you think they would allow a QB who has completed all of his degree requirements to remain eligible by taking a dance class?

Don't be an ass. There's a difference between some one (with the full knowledge of the school and coaches) who's not a teacher creating a fake class for more than ten years that hundreds of athletes don't have to attend for more than 10 years that gives them passing grades and an athlete a few credits short of his degree taking an easy class.

 

[nddulac]

Don't be an ass. There's a difference between some one (with the full knowledge of the school and coaches) who's not a teacher creating a fake class for more than ten years that hundreds of athletes don't have to attend for more than 10 years that gives them passing grades and an athlete a few credits short of his degree taking an easy class.

That's adorable. You think the school wasn't taken in by this fraud. You should really learn a little bit more about what actually happened. Here is a hint:

The administrative assistant who was in charge of creating the section was never the instructor of record. That was always a professor.

Were the classes shams? yes - they were. Were the "taught" by an administrative assistant (as far as the official records go)? no - they were not.

Once again, this is a question for an academic accrediting entity - not for the NCAA. It becomes an NCAA issues only after the accrediting agency identifies a problem.

 

[socaljim242]

That's adorable. You think the school wasn't taken in by this fraud. You should really learn a little bit more about what actually happened. Here is a hint:

The administrative assistant who was in charge of creating the section was never the instructor of record. That was always a professor.

Were the classes shams? yes - they were. Were the "taught" by an administrative assistant (as far as the official records go)? no - they were not.

Once again, this is a question for an academic accrediting entity - not for the NCAA. It becomes an NCAA issues only after the accrediting agency identifies a problem.

Whats cute is how you likened what went on at UNC to Leinart taking a dance class for his last two credits .

"No matter how many passes the NCAA takes on what still has to be labeled the largest academic fraud scandal in major-college history; no matter how many coaches and championships are walled off in denial of a history of paper classes that went back 18 years, North Carolina's reputation as a highly-regarded top-level research school -- not just the athletic department -- is being questioned by a higher power.

Belle Wheelan can tell you. The president of the regional accrediting agency charged with approving North Carolina's academic credentials remains troubled.

In her 11 years as head of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission, she has never seen anything like it -- a school this prominent being put on probation by her organization.

"It was devastating, it really was," Wheelan said. "Everybody keeps saying this is an athletic issue. This is much more than an athletic issue."

True, this is an entire University of North Carolina issue. Boiled down, it's an issue of whether the entire system is about handing out degrees or actually educating its students."

 

[trojanfan12]

You know - I wouldn't deny this. There was definitely flaws in the investigation. However, none of the reports about those flaws include any of the shit Todd McNair did, like changing his story about attending the party in San Diego multiple times, including the witness with which he claimed to not know, but then went to the party with.

It's easy to paint a bad picture of the NCAA, but it is equally easy to paint a bad picture of Todd McNair.


I believe Mike Garrett also made it very clear that USC was going to make it as hard as possible on the NCAA. Again, this pendulum swung both ways.

If McNair did so much wrong, why is he about to win his lawsuit. It's been said that the reason Pat Haden was unsuccessful in his attempts to get the NCAA to lighten the sanctions is because of the McNair suit and it would be tantamount to the NCAA admitting they were wrong.

Additionally, Garrett did not say that USC was going to make things as hard as possible on the NCAA. He said that USC wasn't going to do the NCAA's job for them. He maintained that USC did not know what the Bush family was up to and told the NCAA that it was their job to prove they did.

The NCAA never proved their case, which is why the findings say that USC "should have known" and then the NCAA punished as if they had proved that USC did know.

Also, in their own report the NCAA said that USC fully cooperated with the investigation. Pete Carroll even testified before the NCAA, even though he was no longer at USC and under no obligation to do so. The only one's in the entire case who did not cooperate were Bush and his family.