Skip to main content

14 replies

Progress toward Graduation - Reductions Hit!

M mrmom500+ posts
Now that the latest NCAA "progressive sanction" has hit and scholarships have been reduced at about 20 plus colleges (texas minus 1.2). What do ya'll think will be the long term effects?

I'll start it off! Because, unlike most of you lucky folks who's son's won't have to blink an eye because they are good students etc. (I'm envious) there are/must be parents like me who send there son off to school hoping they'll "mature" -- get it -- or finally realize they've got to buck up.read Hope springs eternal. noidea

What occurs to me is whether this will drive schools to somehow do more than they are already doing to increase graduation rates. IMO I think they are doing enough already. Or, will schools begin to not recruit the marginal student even though his talent is considerably better than the alternative.

Personnaly I think the schools will soon lay off the marginal student because I think most of us would agree that success in school is mostly the result of resolve on the part of the student. There are cases where kids want to do well but have learning problems/ emotional issues under the surface. Unfortunately these kids (if it's known) aren't often identified to the school for fear of upfront rejection, or if it's not known, can't really be helped much at the college level.

I don't want to rant anymore so I'll say in my opinion the JUCOs will load up even more and D-1 baseball talent will be much less than it is right now.

Here is an article that helped drive the decision. Note 2/3 of teams in the NCAA tourney would not be eligible if they had to graduate just 50 percent of their players in SIX years. http://www.widmeyer.com/archives/2005/06/knight_commissi_2.php

My question, if six years is the new standard to graduate, and I think that's a fair amount of time. Why not give kids 6 to play 4 rather than 5 to play 4?

NCAA is again unrealistic in their expectations of student athletes.

Analogy -- If you saw a man carrying one hundred pounds on his back about to be matched in a race with a man with nothing on his back would you "handicap" the race -- give the guy carrying 100 pounds a headstart?

I would, but the NCAA will not, their attitude is - if the guy is willing to race with a hundred pounds on his back then he has to race from the same place as everyone else.

Never mind that guy is carrying the 100 lbs. in part to help the race promoter (NCAA). Wink

The saddest part of any of this or anything else about the NCAA. There is NO CHALLENGE authority for a student, group of students, parents, or any other part of america. The NCAA is untouchable as ruled by our courts.

So what is the NCAA really? They are the University Administrators Gestapo! College Administrators, educators frustrated or jealous, or unable to have power over their athletic policies within their schools because of the politics of alumni giving related to athletic excellence, can group together and hide behind the NCAA to enact decisions.

Well I feel better already -- sorry for the long post! jumping
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
mrmom,
We need to remember, our kids are going to college AND to play baseball, not going to play baseball AND go to college.
I understand your frustration against the NCAA.

In case you didn't know, for years, academic achievment for high school signees (any sport) was overlooked. They got in because they were good players. And we all know exceptions can be made. SAT,GPA was second to ERA,BA. Many student athletes barely could keep up the required GPA to play their sport. With this in mind, I am thinking that maybe schools got too many violations because of this, something needed to be done. recruits. Letting too many go for not performing on the field? Stockpiling?

I don't understand your statement about the jucos loading up even more and D1 baseball talent will be much less than it is right now? Are we to assume average students make better ball players? You might be surprised to know that many, many D1 players do maintain great GPA's.
I just think that in the end, the playing field will even up, but it will take time. I think that this will also improve programs that are needed to improve on all counts, not just recruiting, but transfer, team GPA, large rosters, etc.

I am wondering if some of the teams that made the list m have some seriuos issues, or they just the first of many?
Last edited by TPM
M mrmom500+ posts
TPmom,

I am well aware that baseball players more than hold there own academically - and good on em! I think, as I heard others mention, they eclipse football and basketball. But FB and BB schedules (academically) aren't as tough as Baseball. My point isn't that academics aren't important. It's that academics aren't measured for the general populace and punishment meated out.

If a school has an overal graduation rate of 70 percent of all freshmen enrolled why should they have to have a higher standard for all athletes enrolled? No one is pinging their non-athlete ratio pull_hair

As for the JUCO point, for instance, kids who might otherwise not get into a school without sports will get in to a lesser degree now. For instance, if you wanted to go to Stanford and had a 3.8GPA and 1300 SAT you probably aren't sniffing Stanford -- unless you're an athlete. I've know 4.0 GPA's and 1500 SATs that didn't make Stanford's wait list --snuffed. Proportionately speaking, this relationship will liely trickle down so that a kid who's marginal say 2.5 and 1000 (and there are alot of those) as athletes may not get into Texas or FSU now. It may be the JUCO for them...and there are alot of "them."

Sorry but I have strong negative feelings about the NCAA -- period! boxing
ND Novice Dad100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by mrmom:
TPmom,
...As for the JUCO point, for instance, kids who might otherwise not get into a school without sports will get in to a lesser degree now. For instance, if you wanted to go to Stanford and had a 3.8GPA and 1300 SAT you probably aren't sniffing Stanford -- unless you're an athlete. I've know 4.0 GPA's and 1500 SATs that didn't make Stanford's wait list --snuffed. Proportionately speaking, this relationship will liely trickle down so that a kid who's marginal say 2.5 and 1000 (and there are alot of those) as athletes may not get into Texas or FSU now. It may be the JUCO for them...and there are alot of "them."

Sorry but I have strong negative feelings about the NCAA -- period! boxing


Some valid concerns MR Mom. The flip side which will help HS Freshman and younger is that maybe they will get the message that academics are important and if they want a sniff of high caliber program and school they need to address their academic issues as much as they address that hole in their swing. It may require algebra, or chemistry lessons instead of pitching lessons.

Most kids (not all) have the capability to do better in the classroom. That 2.5 and 1000 SAT may be able to have a 2.8 1100. The kid in trouble is the one that has a 2.2 with a GPA trend going down. In regards to Stanford they currently have a 965 score I don't think they'' change their recruiting process. Old Dominion with a 863 might have to though!

The issue with Baseball and their APR IMO has more to do with roster size, playing time, 11.7 scholarships, Jr yr draft and kids picking the wrong program for them.
M montanadad100+ posts
I have ambivalent feelings in regard to this issue. On the one hand, I applaud the NCAA efforts to hold the schools accountable for the academic portion of the student athlete equation. However, specifically with regard to baseball, I do not view this action as doing anything other than making college baseball even more difficult than it already is.

Consider this, with the head count sports (football and basketball), losing a scholarship or two, means fewer players for that team and program. In an equivalency sport, such as baseball, there will not be any fewer players, there will only be less assistance for the players that are part of the program. Does anyone think that if Texas can only have 10.5 scholarships, that they will no longer carry 35 (or whatever the figure is) on their roster? Of course not! They will carry the same number of players, and simply give them less money.

It really irks me that a baseball team that realistically needs 25 on a roster, are allowed not even half of that amount. But that issue is a "dead horse", no sense in beating it.

I think the punishments meeted out, particularly in baseball, are only going to hurt the players, not the school or the baseball program.
M mcozart10+ posts
Based on what happened to us this year, I think some schools already had a heads-up and took precautionary measures.

We learned -- the hard way -- that GPA ONLY and not academic rigor nor SAT scores had relevance. His number one choice -- where he had signed a letter of intent -- could not admit him. Had I known then what I know now and if that school had proven to be our only option, then I would have had my son participate in an alternate course of study that would have guaranteed him higher grades (there is at least one full point difference between his unweighted and weighted GPA). I might also have put him into a different high school, as this particular class is akin to an academic dream team -- the number SIX kid has an unweighted 3.9 and a 2300 on the new SAT; this kid would be valedictorian in most other schools and in most other years. With such promise in the classroom, the average kid then receives average grades as the A becomes skewed when there are no A plusses available.

Fortunately for us, son's athletic ability has given us many other opportunities and the ride has continued. We aren't quite done yet -- it's almost over -- and, as the old adage goes, some things do actually work out for the best. He's happy, and that's all that matters.
M mrmom500+ posts
Aparent,

Most of the benchmarks used by colleges I've seen lately discuss 6 years to graduate. The article I cited above talks about six years as well.

Interestingly here's a site that shows rates for all colleges and rates for the athletic teams. Find your favorite college and check it out. For instance the grad rate at Virginia is 93% for studnetnts 92% for athletes. At Texas its 73% for students 72% forathletes.

http://www.ncaa.org/grad_rates/2005/d1_school_data.html
A AParent1,000+ posts
read

So where is the outrage over that?????

rockband

Let's see, in one generation we have extended teh 4 year college degree program 50% to 6 years. Same number of classes, same number of credits, same end result.

Does anyone besides myself feel that is a bit on the ridiculous side?

Of course, at 20,000 per year I can see where the colleges don't have a problem with that.
They're laughing all the way to the bank !!
haha
O OldVaman500+ posts
I do believe some of us need to walk a mile in their shoes.

The quantity of material today's kids have to absorb is much higher than what many of us had to learn. If you don't believe that, take a look at your kid's math textbook.

Any serious college athlete, in any sport, who manages to graduate in FIVE years has done a fine job. Graduate in four is magnificent.

If you change schools, add a year. Change major, add another.

It's not hard to get to six.
TPMTPMHSBaseballweb Member since 2003
If a freshman does not fair well in his first semester a redshirt year should be given as an option if the coach and player feels that he may not be able to get by in 4 years. This way the player can concentrate more on his school work than on bseball. A redshirt year is not always given because the player is not ready to play the game.
The blame cannot always be put on the coach or school for poor graduation rates.
bballmom2bballmom2100+ posts
MrMom,
that's a pretty interesting link. I looked at Texas Tech and overall student graduation rate is 54% compared to a nice 77% for student athletes. TTU just lost 1.7 scholarships for baseball with the new regs from the NCAA. They had the largest number of kids drafted last year than any other previous year. I just don't believe you should punish a school for kids who are drafted and accept pro contracts. I looked on the NCAA website concerning this. Someone on another thread (same topic) said drafted kids were not factored into the equation but according to what I read they are. If you're drafted you become a 1-for-1 student rather than an 0-for-2 student - one who leaves,quits, whatever. In my math book, the 1 for 1 student is still counting against the school just not as much. Baseball is the only sport that has the potential for kids leaving for pro contracts in their junior year. Most football and basketball players are drafted after their senior year/season with a few exceptions here and there. I don't think this ruling is fair to baseball at all and is just another example of NCAA incompetence. Please do not misunderstand. I believe education comes first. My beef is the inproportionate punishment of baseball over other sports.
M mrmom500+ posts
Think about it like this...who do you know that supports many NCAA rulings. We need rules but we need just rules that recognize "one shoe doesn't fit all circumstances. Give a kid a break!

last year I spent hours literally, reading NCAA appeal cases, the absurdity of their rulings is truly ludicrous.

Example, S****r girl on away trip hurts leg in tourney away from home. Although it hurts coach wants her to try to play the next game. Trainer gives her the OK. She plays a few minutes but can't go. When they get back to school it's examined xrayed etc. it's broken, out for year.

She applies for medical hardship ruling she's denied because the last game she played a few minutes put her over the threshold -- even though her leg was broken unbeknownst(sp) to her.

Kid walks on to tryout for basketball, makes team but is told the school doesn't pay for insurance. Kid has to quit can't afford insurance. Kid goes to another school kid is told the season where he didn't play regular season but practiced counts as season of competition.

If the NCAA were in the Biblical Solomon's shoes when asked to split the baby. They would have!

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×