Possibly a valid excuse for Saban

[Hoopie 6]

The following defense of CN$ by the Capstone Report has 2 points and blames the NCAA for both. 1. If the coach kicks players off the team at too fast of a rate then the NCAA will reduce scholly's b/c the student leaving affects the APR (academic progress rate) 2. Not having Athletic Dorms reduces the coaches ability to monitor the players.

I haven't researched whether kicking kids off for disciplinary reasons really affects the APR or not. If it really does, then the NCAA needs to correct that ambiguous set of rules. If it does and CN$ has really been hamstrung by that rule, then there may actually be a little of validity to CN$'s implosion. You still have to wonder why Shula didn't have the problems.

I believe in athletic dorms. Those kids are not in a normal student situation and need to be seperated. While Athletic Dorms provide the coach an opportunity to monitor the kids actions, they also give the coach an opportunity to hide indescretions. That is probably the real reason the NCAA banned them. Bottom line.... as far as CN$ using this as an excuse.....Shula and all the other CFB coaches live(d) under this rule and find ways to monitor the players. Maybe CN$ should do some video surveillence to find out how CTT does it. Actually I'll bet either CTT or CMR would volunteer help in this area.

Source: NCAA at fault for discipline problems

Posted by capstonereport on June 26th, 2008 filed in General

Teams plagued by academic progress requirements, lack of athletic dorms

One person familiar with SEC coaching told the Capstone Report that Nick Saban has been frustrated in his efforts to clean the Alabama program due to NCAA restrictions.

“APR/graduation success rate rules would take scholarships away if Coach (Saban) kicked too many players (off the team),” he said.

When a new coach arrives at a “troubled” school like Alabama, the new coach’s hands are effectively tied. He can’t kick 20 players off the team without seriously damaging the academic standing of the school, we were told

Fall low on the academic/graduation progress score and it would lead to potential scholarship reductions—scholarship reductions which can be severe. If you don’t believe that, just ask UAB.

But the NCAA involvement in the problem goes further. When the NCAA outlawed football dorms, it killed the ability of coaches to monitor at-risk players, the Capstone Report was told. The NCAA presidents, led by the Big Ten, outlawed the athletic dorms in 1991. Prior to the 1991 ban, there were an estimated 20 athletic dorms, most of them at major football programs and in the South.

The NCAA proposal was intended to make the student-athlete more like the typical student population. However, many athletes are not prepared for the freedom of college life. Johns was living alone in an apartment, and was unsupervised. If Johns had lived in a heavily monitored athletic dorm (like the old days), does anyone think Saban and the coaching staff would have been in the dark?

In a 1990 NY Times article, Auburn football player Craig Ogletree shared his thoughts on athletic dorms:

”The advantage of the dorm is that sometimes you get some freshmen who come here and aren’t as responsible as others, and they need guidance to make sure they go to class or study hall,” said Craig Ogletree, a senior football player at Auburn.

But academic know-it-all types created a new problem—athletes acting more like the general student population. Drug problems and heavy drinking are a scourge on campus. If you take away supervision, kids (young adults) will act like kids.

So when commentators, internet posters and others assign blame, don’t forget the NCAA.

[Hoopie 6]

HOLY SUSPICION BATMAN.....I've got to bust my own post. In the haste to post the Capstone report, I failed to recognize that after several strong statements that support the Capstone's flimsy argument, the disclaimer "the capstone was told" is inserted. These guys, like me, didn't reasearch this stuff before posting and just recited some statements from "someone familiar with SEC coaching". Maybe Prowler or Stattiger can look into this.

[Tigermike 3,046]

Just this past Sunday there was an article in the B'ham News about athletics dorms,

Coaches, critics disagree on athletics dorms

Sunday, June 29, 2008

MIKE PERRINNews staff writer

Scandal and college football go together like crime and punishment.

From the birth of the NCAA - spurred by President Theodore Roosevelt's call to action to stop on-field violence that led to the deaths of 18 players in 1905 - to the current laundry list of players behaving badly, college football has had critics and supporters alike questioning how to "control" the young men who wear their schools' colors.

A 1991 vote by NCAA members decreed that student-athletes must be housed on - and off - campus in the same fashion as non-athletes. The rule banned athletics dormitories. Now, no more than 49 percent of the population of a dorm, or a wing, or even a floor of university housing, can be athletes.

Now that athletes' housing is spread all across campus, many coaches complain that it's impossible to monitor players. It's difficult to do a bed check when the beds are scattered over an entire campus, or a whole city.

Critics of the change say coaches are expected to keep their hundred or so football players out of trouble, but they aren't allowed to monitor their habits as closely as they once could.

"You've got to manage these guys, but there's no structure to manage them," said Jacksonville State University head football coach Jack Crowe. "There are management challenges on every football team. If a coach is not given tools to manage, I don't know."

Supporters of the demise of "jock dorms" say the best way to make sure athletes don't behave like they are a privileged class above the law is to ensure they experience a full college life and interact with the entire student population.

Richard Lapchick is the University of Central Florida DeVos Eminent Scholar and professor and president and CEO of the National Consortium for Academics and Sport. He has written several books and is often quoted on his research concerning racial equality and athletes and crime.

First, Lapchick says it's a myth that athletes are running amok.

"It's something that I've studied since the early'90s," he said. "There is no higher rate of criminal acts against women, burglaries or assaults. That is also true of pro athletes.

Use the link if you want to read the entire article.

You don't think this article was thrown out there to help with the rationalizations for Nick do you?

[Hoopie 6]

Just this past Sunday there was an article in the B'ham News about athletics dorms,

Coaches, critics disagree on athletics dorms

Sunday, June 29, 2008

MIKE PERRINNews staff writer

Scandal and college football go together like crime and punishment.

From the birth of the NCAA - spurred by President Theodore Roosevelt's call to action to stop on-field violence that led to the deaths of 18 players in 1905 - to the current laundry list of players behaving badly, college football has had critics and supporters alike questioning how to "control" the young men who wear their schools' colors.

A 1991 vote by NCAA members decreed that student-athletes must be housed on - and off - campus in the same fashion as non-athletes. The rule banned athletics dormitories. Now, no more than 49 percent of the population of a dorm, or a wing, or even a floor of university housing, can be athletes.

Now that athletes' housing is spread all across campus, many coaches complain that it's impossible to monitor players. It's difficult to do a bed check when the beds are scattered over an entire campus, or a whole city.

Critics of the change say coaches are expected to keep their hundred or so football players out of trouble, but they aren't allowed to monitor their habits as closely as they once could.

"You've got to manage these guys, but there's no structure to manage them," said Jacksonville State University head football coach Jack Crowe. "There are management challenges on every football team. If a coach is not given tools to manage, I don't know."

Supporters of the demise of "jock dorms" say the best way to make sure athletes don't behave like they are a privileged class above the law is to ensure they experience a full college life and interact with the entire student population.

Richard Lapchick is the University of Central Florida DeVos Eminent Scholar and professor and president and CEO of the National Consortium for Academics and Sport. He has written several books and is often quoted on his research concerning racial equality and athletes and crime.

First, Lapchick says it's a myth that athletes are running amok.

"It's something that I've studied since the early'90s," he said. "There is no higher rate of criminal acts against women, burglaries or assaults. That is also true of pro athletes.

Use the link if you want to read the entire article.

You don't think this article was thrown out there to help with the rationalizations for Nick do you?

Not Sure. The Bammerham news is normally a homer for Bammer coverage, however Scarbinski has been taking swings at CN$ lately. This article argues both sides of the issue.

Whether athletes are more criminal than years ago or not....the high stakes money, 24hr press coverage and the zero tolerance atmosphere of today's baby boomer society doesn't allow the athletes to do bad stuff like in the old days. Also, in the old days, most of the bad stuff got swept or there would have been more of an outcry.

My dad was a Bammer and applauded the Bear for suspending Joe Willy Namath(21 yrs old) b/c he was drinking in a bar. I'm sure that my dad would have been upset at all of the stuff that got swept.

[mowegl 4]

Wow..they're going to a whole nother level of delusion and excuses..even for bammers.

[PChamp119 96]

Of course kicking kids off the team is going to affect the APR. You are crazy if you don't think it would.

It's a simple rule - you are either qualified to come back and/or you don't come back period.

If you go to the NFL - it effects your APR. If you fail - it effects your APR. If kicking kids of the team didn't effect the APR, coaches would kick everyone student off for having bad grades or that decided to go to the NFL.

[AU alum 2]

When Croom first got at Miss. State, didn't he kick a whole lot of members off the team because they were not following his rules? I don't remember hearing anything about the APR when that happened.

[CircleDrill 178]

I have heard the athletic dorm argument hashed out numerous times in the past few days.

I am growing weary of this new bammer mindset that "as long as we can explain why we lost, it's OK we lost," and "as long as we have an excuse for why we suck, it's OK we suck." Losers sit there and tell you why they can't do something. Winners tell you how tough it was after it is done. PERIOD.

You are making 4 MILLION DOLLARS a year and you CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET KIDS UNDER CONTROL??? FIGURE IT OUT.

Stop making excuses like a bunch of slack-jawed pansies.

[The Prowler 1]

If I remember correctly, if a player is in good standing with his academics and gets kicked off or jumps to the NFL, then it is okay per APR. But, if the kid isn't in good standing, then it isn't okay. How far off on that, am I?

[BamaGrad03 0]

Wow..they're going to a whole nother level of delusion and excuses..even for bammers.

"Whole nother"...that's what you're goin with? really?

[SkeeterAUfan 0]

Wow..they're going to a whole nother level of delusion and excuses..even for bammers.

"Whole nother"...that's what you're goin with? really?

Havin a bad week, year, decade, life, Bammer?

[AUdaREALsecTigers 2]

Wow..they're going to a whole nother level of delusion and excuses..even for bammers.

"Whole nother"...that's what you're goin with? really?

Sorry mo...but I almost fell out of my chair!

[quietfan 233]

I am absolutely opposed to athletic dorms. In fact, I hate the whole idea of playing "parent" in any way for adults, and college students are adults. At eighteen they can vote, they can enlist and serve their country, they can own and operate automobiles, they can marry without parental consent, and can be tried as adults for criminal behavior...before they graduate they are generally over 21 and can drink, execute legal contracts, and run for public office. There's no need to coddle them.

As for athletes, between practice, weight room, team meetings, tutors/study halls, road trips, etc., they already are under University supervision far more than your average student But that's not enough--we should watch over their little heads while they sleep too? If every other college student is expected to live on his/her own and obey the law without an official University babysitter, why should an athlete (supposedly the "cream of the crop" and a representative of the school) not be expected to manage his/her own affairs responsibly without 24 hour "caretaking"?

When they break the rules, punish them. If they abuse the honor and privilege that is theirs as scholarshipped representatives of the University, take away that privilege. But don't treat them like children who have to be watched over 24/7 because they're too "immature" to be expected to behave as adults.

[mowegl 4]

Wow..they're going to a whole nother level of delusion and excuses..even for bammers.

"Whole nother"...that's what you're goin with? really?

Yes, I understand it's slang, and I decided to use it anyway. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/whole.html

I figured it would be well understood by you and your fellow turd supporters. But hey, good tactic - divert attention away from the article which was posted.

[Hoopie 6]

I am absolutely opposed to athletic dorms. In fact, I hate the whole idea of playing "parent" in any way for adults, and college students are adults. At eighteen they can vote, they can enlist and serve their country, they can own and operate automobiles, they can marry without parental consent, and can be tried as adults for criminal behavior...before they graduate they are generally over 21 and can drink, execute legal contracts, and run for public office. There's no need to coddle them.

As for athletes, between practice, weight room, team meetings, tutors/study halls, road trips, etc., they already are under University supervision far more than your average student But that's not enough--we should watch over their little heads while they sleep too? If every other college student is expected to live on his/her own and obey the law without an official University babysitter, why should an athlete (supposedly the "cream of the crop" and a representative of the school) not be expected to manage his/her own affairs responsibly without 24 hour "caretaking"?

When they break the rules, punish them. If they abuse the honor and privilege that is theirs as scholarshipped representatives of the University, take away that privilege. But don't treat them like children who have to be watched over 24/7 because they're too "immature" to be expected to behave as adults.

Quietfan....The part of me that lives in the real world and demands accountability agrees with you.

On the other hand, the part of me that considers that many of these kids come from broken homes with no decent character role models or even parents to teach them how to learn/study, wants to give them every chance. I consider the athletic scholly a tradeoff...the kids athletic time/effort/commitment traded for food, shelter and education. For the poor kids, it is a chance to break the poverty cycle WITHOUT COSTING THE TAXPAYERS ANYTHING. Monitoring and mentoring is necessary for many of these kids in order for them to have a chance to rise above their upbringing and I consider that a part of what the school should try to provide. Is this a form of parenting? Yes. Coaches like CTT and CMR embrace this idea and consider it a mission to try to make a difference.

Hey..if CN$ is correct about the NCAA, then if you don't monitor the kids and trouble ensues, then the APR will suffer and schollys will be reduced.

I'm not sure that athletic dorms are as necessary as CN$ is making them out to be. It seems that other coaches are finding ways to watch over and positively affect the kids.

[aubiescottie 1]

Of course kicking kids off the team is going to affect the APR. You are crazy if you don't think it would.

It's a simple rule - you are either qualified to come back and/or you don't come back period.

If you go to the NFL - it effects your APR. If you fail - it effects your APR. If kicking kids of the team didn't effect the APR, coaches would kick everyone student off for having bad grades or that decided to go to the NFL.

PC you got it half right. Modifications were made to allow for adjustments in the calculation if the player is drafted. On the other hand disciplinary reasons are considered WITHIN THE STUDENT ATHLETE OR INSTITUTIONS CONTROL and no adjustment is allowed:

From the NCAA:

http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/media_and_even..._d1bod_rls.html

The board unanimously accepted all of the recommendations from CAP, which include modifications in a team’s APR score for situations beyond the control of either the student-athlete or their college or university.

These types of situations, according to Harrison, include if an institution drops a student-athlete’s major or drops a specific sport; if there is a death or life-threatening illness in the family of a student-athlete; or if a student-athlete is drafted by a professional league.

In these cases, a student-athlete’s APR calculation would be adjusted as 1-for-1 instead of 1-for-2. The APR, the metric by which a team's academic progress is judged, awards academically eligible student-athletes two points per term (one for academic eligibility and one for staying in school).

Student-athletes who are drafted for professional sports would not lose the retention point if they complete their current semester in good academic standing.

The directive also outlines examples of situations the CAP (and the Board) believes clearly are within the student-athlete's or institution's control and thus would not warrant consideration for an adjustment.

They include departures due to lack of playing time, defections that occur after a coaching change, suspensions for academic reasons and/or disciplinary problems, or departures due to a team being subject to sanctions or academic-reform penalties. Student-athletes who leave the institution because their athletically related financial aid was not renewed also would not be considered as meriting an APR adjustment. It also includes student-athletes who transfer for reasons not included in the previously stated cases.

[CircleDrill 178]

Quietfan....The part of me that lives in the real world and demands accountability agrees with you.

On the other hand, the part of me that considers that many of these kids come from broken homes with no decent character role models or even parents to teach them how to learn/study, wants to give them every chance. I consider the athletic scholly a tradeoff...the kids athletic time/effort/commitment traded for food, shelter and education. For the poor kids, it is a chance to break the poverty cycle WITHOUT COSTING THE TAXPAYERS ANYTHING. Monitoring and mentoring is necessary for many of these kids in order for them to have a chance to rise above their upbringing and I consider that a part of what the school should try to provide. Is this a form of parenting? Yes. Coaches like CTT and CMR embrace this idea and consider it a mission to try to make a difference.

Hey..if CN$ is correct about the NCAA, then if you don't monitor the kids and trouble ensues, then the APR will suffer and schollys will be reduced.

I'm not sure that athletic dorms are as necessary as CN$ is making them out to be. It seems that other coaches are finding ways to watch over and positively affect the kids.

There are kids at every school (no longer living in athletic dorms) that come from homes like you mention, and DON'T SELL COCAINE. In fact, MOST kids come from "broken" homes where there is only 1 parent in 2008, yet most kids still don't sell cocaine on college campuses.

The problem is you have a coach with no guts. You don't need drastic and significant changes to the national structure of football programs to get things under control in Tuscaloosa. You need a MAN in charge that lays down some rules, showing the kids where the boundaries are, and when they cross the boundaries, they are punished so that they either learn to play by the rules or leave the team. It is quite simple, really. Why is that so hard to understand?

Anything else is MAKING EXCUSES.

Question: "Coach Saban why don't you have the kids in your program under control?"

Right Answer: "These guys need help learning to set and respect boundaries, so we are setting some new boundaries. We'll see who is learning and who wants to be here in the coming weeks."

Wrong Answer: "The NCAA won't let me, we need athletic dorms, Paul Bryant, Jr. said no, and we're trying to beat Auburn."

[BamaGrad03 0]

So you're saying fear of 20-30 years in a state pen isn't enough to keep kids from selling drugs...it's all about the coach making sure they don't party on the strip?

What an asinine and short sighted argument.

To argue that a guy sells FREAKING DRUGS because his coach doesn't discipline well enough is a joke. A joke beyond all jokes.

[CircleDrill 178]

So you're saying fear of 20-30 years in a state pen isn't enough to keep kids from selling drugs...it's all about the coach making sure they don't party on the strip?

What an asinine and short sighted argument.

To argue that a guy sells FREAKING DRUGS because his coach doesn't discipline well enough is a joke. A joke beyond all jokes.

Nobody said he sold drugs because the coach didn't discipline. He sold drugs as a football player at the University of Bammer because the coach didn't discipline. Nick Saban's job is not to keep kids from selling drugs, it's to keep drug dealers off the team.

That is what you bammers are failing to see. EVERYBODY has the same rules and circumstances as you do, yet how many teams have cocaine distributors on the team? And why is that? Because Tuscaloosa needs athletic dorms? No. Because everything in Tuscaloosa is overlooked in favor of wins.

You can keep making excuses and keep making excuses and keep making excuses. But at some point you are going to wake up and realize that there is only ONE PERSON who can do anything about this, and that one person makes millions of dollars a year to feed you even more excuses about the NCAA, needing athletic dorms...and whatever the next excuse will be in a few days.

Your team has no character, no class, and no discipline. Build them an athletic dorm and they will still have no character, no class, and no discipline. Whose fault is that?

When you consider the very idea of a 1-game suspension terminated at half-time by NICK SABAN, the idea of needing athletic dorms and NCAA rules changed to improve the situation is absolutely laughable. Actions speak louder than words, my friend.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

When you consider the very idea of a 1-game suspension terminated at half-time by NICK SABAN, the idea of needing athletic dorms and NCAA rules changed to improve the situation is absolutely laughable.[/b] Actions speak louder than words, my friend.

That says it all. And BG you are wrong, that was the joke of all jokes.

Bammer spin is in a whole nother zone irregardless of what anyone says and I could care less.

[SouthLink02 8]

I must admit this is the first time I am hearing a this dorm room thing

I mean, UGA built several new athletic dorms 2-3 years ago that house literally almost the entire freshman/soph classes of the football team and many other baseball, basketball players

I wonder how we get around that

[AUChizad 0]

I must admit this is the first time I am hearing a this dorm room thing

I mean, UGA built several new athletic dorms 2-3 years ago that house literally almost the entire freshman/soph classes of the football team and many other baseball, basketball players

I wonder how we get around that

And everyone knows UGA has gotten nothing but classier in the last 2-3 years.

Crank dat Soulja Boy. Thank God for those dorms.

[SouthLink02 8]

I must admit this is the first time I am hearing a this dorm room thing

I mean, UGA built several new athletic dorms 2-3 years ago that house literally almost the entire freshman/soph classes of the football team and many other baseball, basketball players

I wonder how we get around that

And everyone knows UGA has gotten nothing but classier in the last 2-3 years.

Crank dat Soulja Boy. Thank God for those dorms.