TDG News 8-10-07
Drakes—well the news doesn’t stop—we have coaches, trustees, and others influencing academic decisions—or at
least threatening to at South Carolina, hurt feelings at Michigan by likely truthful comments from a former QB, and
chaos at Montana State. WOW—we get away for awhile and the more things stay the same.
We are reconstituting the Executive Committee and are in the process of planning our first conference call. After
that we will announce initiatives for the upcoming year. We are always open to suggestions and help so please let
us know. Hopefully we will begin to get more engaged as the academic year approaches.
Keep up the fight!!!!
----------
Numbers the major point in Harbaugh-Michigan crossfire
By Pat Forde
ESPN.com
In the rhetorical crossfire that has turned Michigan vs. Harbaugh into the (endless) spat of the summer in college
football, the first casualty has been the facts.
Squabbling over whether former Wolverines quarterback Jim Harbaugh should have said what he said about his
alma mater's academic standards for football players is to be expected. Attacks on Harbaugh's lifetime status as a
"Michigan man" -- they love that phrase in maize-and-blue territory -- have been excessive but are not shocking.
The Stanford coach's hurt feelings in response are predictable.
But here's what nobody is discussing: whether Harbaugh spoke the truth when he called out Michigan for admitting
"borderline guys" and for steering athletes toward softer majors than the general student population.
Jim Harbaugh's started a firestorm when he questioned Michigan's academic standards for football players.
The hard numbers seem to be on Joltin' Jim's side.
All it takes to see that is a scan of the 2007 Michigan media guide. Only 30 players have listed majors, and 19 of
them are pursuing degrees in something called "general studies." That's 20 percent of the team, and 63 percent of
the players who have declared a major.
Yet a university spokesman said this week that less than 1 percent of the undergraduate student body is in the
general studies degree program. The spokesman said there are fewer than 200 general studies students out of an
undergrad population of nearly 25,000.
And that's not all. The other declared degree programs on the football team are: movement science (three players);
sports management and communications (two); economics (two); P.E. (one); psychology (one); English (one); and
American culture (one). There appears to be one undeclared player enrolled in the business school and another in
the college of engineering.
Only one junior has declared a major, according to the guide (in movement science). In 18 years of covering college
athletics, I've never seen virtually an entire junior class without a major.
So you look at those numbers and wonder whether Michigan doth protest too much. Especially without addressing
the substance of Harbaugh's assertions.
"Everything I said," Harbaugh told me this week, "is supported by fact."
For the first time since Harbaugh cleared his throat on this matter, way back in May, Michigan has gone mute on the
issue. Attempts this week to get comment from the Wolverines' football program and/or athletic department were met
with silence. No returned calls, no returned e-mails (until after the story was posted...see box at right).
Back in the spring, former running back great Jamie Morris took the former quarterback to task, and he bashed
Harbaugh again last week by calling a Detroit radio show. That time, Morris was following up on the Big Ten media
day comments Aug. 1 from coach Lloyd Carr and star running back Mike Hart.
Lloyd Carr criticized Jim Harbaugh's comments.
Carr had his say, which should be expected from the head coach, but the eye-opening thing was his strong choice
of words for a former player. In response to a question, he called Harbaugh's comments "elitist," "arrogant" and "self
serving."
But that was pure diplomacy compared with the fusillade from Hart.
"That's a guy I have no respect for," Hart said. "You graduate from the University of Michigan, and you're going to
talk about your school like that, a great university like we have? To say that we're not true student-athletes? I don't
know if maybe he wants to coach here and he's mad because he didn't get a job. … He's not a Michigan man. I wish
he'd never played here."
How often, in the history of major-college athletics, has a current player just shredded a former hero from the same
school? A guy who took Michigan to a Rose Bowl and was a first-round NFL draft pick, who grew up in Ann Arbor
and whose dad was a Wolverines assistant under Bo Schembechler, is thrown out of the Michigan man club by a
guy still in college?
The combination of criticisms from players past and present, not to mention the current coach, is why Harbaugh is
one angry alum right about now.
"It seemed very orchestrated and organized, especially coming two months after my comments were made," said
Harbaugh, who came to Michigan in 1983 wanting to study history but was advised to major in communications
instead. "I'm not going to allow those comments to define who I am. … Mike Hart and Jamie Morris are not the
makers of the Michigan man list. I put in the blood, sweat and tears to prove I belong on that list.
My motivation was positive. I see how it's done now at Stanford, and I see no reason to believe it can't be the same
there. I have a great love for Michigan and what it's done for me.
Jim Harbaugh
"I learned from a great man named Bo Schembechler that you speak the truth as you know it. It may not be the
popular thing, but you speak your mind. Everything I said is supported by fact, but the thing that has come back is
the personal attack on me, not looking at the issue whatsoever."
The most bothersome personal attack to Harbaugh came from Hart. Even more bothersome was the fact that
nobody within the Michigan hierarchy has publicly reined in Hart for blasting a well-decorated alum.
"Mike Hart is just repeating their messages," Harbaugh said. "When I was a player, there would have been nobody
saying anything like what Mike Hart said about me. We would have been too afraid of the consequences. That
wouldn't have happened while Bo was there. I'm glad as the head coach of Stanford I don't have to deal with those
repercussions."
Instead, Harbaugh is dealing with the repercussions of his own words, which prompted a question: Why did he bring
up the issue of Michigan's academic standards to begin with?
"My motivation was positive," he said. "I see how it's done now at Stanford, and I see no reason to believe it can't be
the same there. I have a great love for Michigan and what it's done for me. Bo Schembechler was like a second
father. Michigan is a great school and always has been, and I don't see why they can't hold themselves to a higher
standard.
ichigan RB Mike Hart's harsh criticism bothered Jim Harbaugh.
"Most avid college football fans, unfortunately, just think about how exciting it is to watch college players play and
not about what happens when the football comes to a screeching halt. They need to get a degree -- a quality
degree -- and develop a skill set that helps you for the next 60-70 years.
"There is no general studies at Stanford. In my opinion, that major does not give you the skill set to compete [in the
working world]."
Cathy Conway-Perrin, director of academic standards and academic opportunities in Michigan's College of
Literature, Science and the Arts, wouldn't agree with that opinion.
"BGS [Bachelor of General Studies] can be more demanding in some ways," Conway-Perrin wrote in an e-mail
asking for an explanation of the degree. "For example, students are required to take at least 60 credits of upper-
level courses (courses numbered 300 and above, which are generally more intensive courses aimed at juniors and
seniors). Since students need 120 credits to graduate, that means that at least half of a BGS student's coursework
is upper-level. This allows them to develop intensive knowledge in several areas of study. So while juniors and
seniors who are pursuing a BA or a BS may continue to take introductory courses in areas in which they have a
peripheral interest, BGS students tend to study their areas of interest in depth and take more upper-level courses.
"The BGS degree does not have a foreign language requirement, and the BA and BS do. Otherwise most of the
degree requirements are the same: students must complete first-year writing, upper-level writing, quantitative
reasoning, and race & ethnicity requirements for all three degrees.
"In our experience, the BGS is most attractive to students who want flexibility and who find the constraints of a
traditional major limiting. The BGS degree allows students more latitude to explore and then develop expertise in
multiple areas."
Michigan athletes fare well by most academic yardsticks, at least in comparison to their peers. The football team has
the third-highest academic progress rate in the Big Ten and ranks above the national average. The graduation rate
ranks third in the Big Ten, as well -- although it dips to 38 percent (seventh in the 11-team league) for African-
American players.
But you wonder how the vast majority of a senior class could wind up clustered in an obscure major such as general
studies unless players were being guided that way -- just as Jim Harbaugh suggested. And you wonder why the
football program would be so bellicose in response to anyone questioning such a thing, especially a former player of
significant stature.
It seems as though folks in Ann Arbor are defensive for a reason these days. Even to the point of devouring one of
their own.
Pat Forde is a national columnist for ESPN.com. He can be reached at ESPN4D@aol.com.
Harbaugh strikes back against Hart, Carr
On Hart comments: 'That wouldn't have happened while Bo was there'
Mark Snyder
Detroit Free Press
9 August 2007
Stanford coach Jim Harbaugh is not backing down.
In fact, he seems to be on the attack more than ever in the wake of disparaging comments he made in May about
Michigan's academic standards for football players.
While Harbaugh would not comment to the Detroit media last week, following tailback Mike Hart’s rebuttal at Big Ten
media days in Chicago, Harbaugh had no problem taking the offensive in an ESPN.com column posted Wednesday.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2966536&sportCat=ncf
The U-M alumnus took an unsolicited shot at head coach Lloyd Carr: "Mike Hart is just repeating their messages,"
he told columnist Pat Forde. "When I was a player, there would have been nobody saying anything like what Mike
Hart said about me. We would have been too afraid of the consequences. That wouldn't have happened while Bo
was there. I'm glad, as the head coach of Stanford, I don't have to deal with those repercussions."
Forde’s column takes a clear stance in support of Harbaugh’s assertion that too many players are being steered
into the “general studies” program.
The Academic Progress Rate, the NCAA’s measurement of graduation rates, was released in May. It found that U-M
ranks in the 70th to 80th percentile of all football programs in its graduation of athletes. Harbaugh’s University of
San Diego program -- where he coached before taking over Stanford after last season -- was just a bit higher, in the
80-90% range, though it does not offer athletic scholarships.
MICHIGAN -- http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/apr2006/418_2006_apr.pdf
SAN DIEGO -- http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/apr2006/627_2006_apr.pdf
It makes his attack on the players’ majors a bit subjective. Many football players are listed as majoring in general
studies, but does that mean their degree is worth something less? Does it mean they were not educated
appropriately, despite graduating?
There are multiple reasons the U-M media guide is unable to list majors for the entire team. As a university official
told ESPN.com, many Michigan students do not declare a major until their junior year.
Forde stated that “only one junior has declared a major, according to the guide (in movement science). In 18 years
of covering college athletics, I've never seen virtually an entire junior class without a major.”
That’s outdated information. That was from the spring media guide, before most juniors declare majors in the
summer. In the fall media guide released last week, only two juniors (of 19) remained undeclared, and one is
Antonio Bass, who has missed significant school time because of his leg injuries.
And to use a media guide as the basis for the research is a bit limiting and selective, given Forde has no idea why
some majors are listed and some are not.
Would it be better to list a variety of majors, as Ohio State does, and rank in the 40th to 50th percentile of the APR?
Or Michigan State, in the 30th to 40th of football programs?
Harbaugh seems content to explain the truth as he sees it, especially regarding Carr’s and Hart‘s comments last
week.
"It seemed very orchestrated and organized, especially coming two months after my comments were made," he told
Forde.
As a beat writer for the Wolverines, I can attest that the comments came now because it was the first in-depth
access writers had with Carr and Hart since spring practice. But it would not fit Harbaugh's argument if he couldn’t
spin it as he sees fit.
When Carr was asked about Harbaugh’s comments in June, he tried to avoid the topic. Even last week, when
pressed, he tried to take the high road, discussing the wide range of opportunities given to students and athletes
from less privileged backgrounds, before being prodded into making a statement about the verbal attack.
Harbaugh is at a school, Stanford, where the academic standards are as high as anywhere in Division I football.
Realizing this -- and with the challenge of fielding a competitive football team of valedictorians -- he has shifted the
spotlight to the only other program he knows.
His criticism of U-M’s majors might be based in fact if, as Forde did, he looked only at the media guide.
But Harbaugh’s working knowledge of U-M’s policies -- at least according to his public statements -- is not recent. He
has not served in any official U-M capacity, outside of the charitable golf tournament he was involved with, since he
left the school in 1986.
Is that a reasonable basis for his "facts"?
This is an argument that will not fade anytime soon, but has kept the attention off Stanford’s one-win season last
year.
That seems to be exactly what Harbaugh wanted.
Harbaugh may be an idiot, but his message isn’t off base
H. Jose Bosch
UM Daily
9 August 2007
I will not dispute that Jim Harbaugh’s motivation was dubious. Clearly he wants publicity for Stanford. I understand
that. But people ripped Jose Conseco in much the same way when his book about steroids came out.
Of course Conseco didn’t really care about the good of the league, he just wanted money and publicity for his book.
And while there were incongruencies in the book, the overall theme that steroids were an issue in the game turned
out to be true. Compared to the likes of Bonds and McGwire, Conseco came out looking responsible (just barely).
Now the issue that Jim Harbuagh brings up, which may not be as serious as steroids in some people’s minds, is still
an important issue in college athletics (particularly football and basketball). The fact of the matter is that in top teir
Division I football and basketball, the term student-athlete is becoming diluted. There is too much money at stake for
a school to stand on the basis of pure academics. That’s a major reason why no one gives a crap about the Ivy
leagues. They choose academics over athletics. As did the University of Chicago (a founding member of the Big
ten), who disbanded their football program all together. I understand Scott’s point that this isn’t a Michigan-specific
problem and Harbuagh wasn’t wise by targeting a school as sacred as Michigan without concrete evidence to back it
up.
But what would’ve the reaction been if he had just made a blanket statement about the academic issues of college
football in general rather than just singling out Michigan? Or what if he singled out a lesser school to prove his
point? Would there be so much outrage? Certainly not from Michigan’s side. And hey, you may have even seen
Lloyd Carr and Mike Hart agree with Harbaugh that other schools don’t take academics seriosuly enough.
I think there was an overreaction from the side of Michigan. If the claim is something completely outrageous and off
base, why didn’t Hart, who is very affable and easy going from the interviews that I have seen, just brush it off in the
charming way that always wins over the hearts of writers? Where was the quick wit or sarcasm that’s usually the
response of any athlete accused of something that’s clearly not true? Hart showed his ability to roll with the punches
in response to questions about Sam McGuffie. It’s different, I know, but the point is Hart is serious all the time, so for
me his comments were suprising.
He used some really harsh language and while he may have said it with sincerity (I don’t know, I wasn’t there) he
certaintly sounded like someone trying to discredit comments that are partly true. The response just sounded like
someone who is in full denial mode. Harbaugh may have sounded like “a bunch of teenage girls trying to get into
someone’s Super Sweet 16 party,” but Hart seemed like a small child who screams, “I’m not listening, I’m not
listening, you’re wrong and I’m right, la la la.”
I’m not going to go as far as to say Hart was talking from a script because I don’t feel like he’s the kind of person who
just follows the company line. But I really do think that Harbaugh’s comments made some at Michigan realize that the
program’s standards aren’t that much higher than other competitive Division-IA (or bowl division, or whatever the
heck it’s called now) schools. They are higher in overall graduation rates compared to many and I won’t take that
away from the school. And Lloyd Carr doesn’t disregard a player’s character, I mean Hart is a perfect example of
that.
But the Wolverines can’t be as competitive as they are without a few of their top players being “border line” guys
every few years. I’ve seen them. Anyone who has been around athletes, either through classes, friends or through
the paper as seen them. It’s not that big of a secret.
Jim Harbaugh’s message was poorly worded and he likely made it for the wrong reasons. But the message isn’t
wrong. Just like Conseco’s message about steroids being a part of Major League Baseball wasn’t wrong. And I think
Carr, Morris, Hart and the program is taking too much of a holier-than-thou, “this doesn’t happen with us” attitude.
Rather than try to tear down the reputation of an alum and stoop to his level, they should’ve taken the high road.
I’m not expecting the program to come out and say “Yup, we make it slightly easier for athletes.” But don’t act like
you never have.
Admissions refinement planned
Travis Haney
Charleston Post & Courier
10 August 2007
COLUMBIA — Four days after his rant about changing admission standards for recruits, South Carolina football
coach Steve Spurrier received a formal response from the school.
USC issued a short statement just after 8 p.m. Thursday "reiterating" its plan to examine the way by which special
admits are allowed into the university.
Repeating a word used Sunday by university spokesman Russ McKinney, the release says the school plans to
"refine" the admissions process for student-athletes "to the satisfaction of the administration, faculty and head
coaches."
The statement comes after Spurrier fumed very publicly about the late denials of recruits Michael Bowman and
Arkee Smith. Both players met NCAA qualifications, and yet were denied admission to the university — something
that seemed to particularly rankle Spurrier.
USC president Andrew Sorensen said last month that NCAA minimums were no assurance of admission into the
school. "If the student barely meets the NCAA Clearinghouse criteria," he said, "they have a zero percent probability
of getting in here."
That principle, McKinney said Monday, isn't on the table for discussion. The pending tweaks, he said, pertain more
to the time and manner in which coaches and recruits are informed about the process.
In July, Bowman learned he was denied 48 hours before reporting to the second session of summer school. Just
before fall camp started, Smith got final word of his rejection.
The school said "appropriate university officials," including Sorensen, provost Mark Becker, athletic director Eric
Hyman, faculty reps, head coaches and others will "expedite" discussions and have recommendations to Sorensen
by the end of September.
Those recommendations, USC says, will then be shared with the university's board and others.
"I feel positive President Sorensen and the university administrators will revise our recruiting process to where we're
all satisfied and we can eagerly and enthusiastically go about our business in recruiting," Spurrier said in the
statement.
Becker likewise was hopeful of potential reforms in the admissions system.
"I am confident that we will see the new process in a timely manner," he said, "and that it will well serve all of the
interests of the university."
Freshman leaves team
Freshman defensive back Sam Pope has left the team and will enroll at Hampton University, USC confirmed.
Spurrier indicated that Pope, a Beaufort native, was interested in playing immediately.
"I was sort of surprised," secondary coach Ron Cooper said. "He said he wanted to have a better shot at playing
corner, not safety. We play, at times, six or seven DBs. ... There was no indication (of him leaving). The players
were shocked today."
Halfway there
The Gamecocks got one of the Lindsey twins back from academic probation Thursday.
Linebacker Dustin Lindsey was at practice, while the team awaits word on end Jordin Lindsey's status. Spurrier said
he expects to hear by tonight. "One of them's back," Spurrier quipped, "so, we've got 50 percent of the Lindseys in."
Injury report
Despite a bulky bandage over his injured right hand, left guard Garrett Anderson practiced Thursday.
USC officials did not think Anderson had seen a hand specialist yet. Anderson cracked the bone, he thinks, during a
practice skirmish with defensive tackle Ladi Ajiboye.
Receiver Leon Gamble (hamstring) returned to practice. Freshman receiver Joe Hills (right knee sprain) was still out.
This and that
Today will mark USC's first of four scheduled two-a-days. College programs are now capped at five two-a-days. ...
Saturday's scrimmage of freshmen and reserves will begin between 4:30 and 5 p.m. Saturday at Williams-Brice
Stadium. It'll be open to the public, Spurrier said, so the coaches can see how the youngsters play in front of a
crowd.
Point of View:
The bullying power of big-time sports
Orin Starn
Raleigh News & Observer
8 August 2007
DURHAM - Steve Spurrier was a star quarterback in the old days. He went on to become Duke's last successful
football coach before leaving for greater coaching glory. Now Spurrier is throwing darts again. The opposing team?
The admissions office at his own University of South Carolina.
As reported on the sports pages this week, the office had the nerve to deny admission to two prize Spurrier recruits
who apparently didn't have the minimum academic qualifications. "A severe blow," said an angry Spurrier, or the
"Old Ball Coach" as he likes to be called.
Yikes, emergency! In response, a University of South Carolina spokesman announced that athletics admissions
would be "refined" more to the famous coach's liking. An appeased Spurrier reported that the university president
now sees things his way.
The episode underscores the bullying, oversized power of college sports in our universities today. Big-money
celebrity coaches already make triple or more the salary of the university president. They demand high-tech,
ultraluxury facilities to compete in the college sports arms race. And now one of the country's top football coaches
threatens to jump ship if he can't have his way with admissions.
It's a new ballgame. What long ago began as a few haphazard Ivy League rowing meets has grown into a billion-
dollar mass entertainment business driven by money, ambition and the next television contract. It's College Sports
Incorporated, a subsidiary of Sports Glut USA.
Consider the NCAA. It's the group supposedly overseeing college sports. In his tirade, Spurrier said his two recruits
met minimum NCAA eligibility standards and thus should have been admitted to the university. But those standards
are a sham. In an extreme case, you could in effect flunk the SATs -- scoring as low as 400, the absolute lowest
possible combined score -- and still make the team if you had a high-enough GPA in high school.
We all hate standardized tests. Even so, when a high schooler scores so very low, it's ridiculous to think he's ready
for college. How would you like sitting through Econ 101 without rudimentary academic skills? No wonder many of
the best players nowadays skip out of college as soon as they can for the pros, seldom graduating.
Only the imperative of winning no matter what leads universities to pretend there's nothing wrong with the
admissions "special exceptions" they hand sports recruits.
Skewed priorities carry the day. Scholarship money for deserving ordinary minority and working-class kids remains
limited. By contrast, a top football or basketball player gets a full ride and lowered admissions bar.
We send the message that it's better to practice your jump shot than do your physics homework. It's a false,
distorted message, since the percentage of aspiring high schoolers gaining a Division I scholarship -- much less
making the professional leagues -- has always been tiny.
How have college sports spun out of control? No news flash here. Hell-bent boosters demand victory at any cost.
University administrators are reluctant to stand up to the sports machine. Coaches cut academic corners because
they know they'll be fired if they don't make it to the Gizmo.com Bowl this season.
We sports lovers bear the blame, too. Our bizarre national addiction to wasting untold hours watching games on the
boob tube drives the demand for ever-more televised sports in the first place.
There are few signs of reform.
Just the opposite. College football is now revving into high gear with replica jersey sales and crassly commercialized
24/7 hype. Players do well just to show up for class now and then between the giant, more than full-time demands of
the big-time sports schedule. Those questioning the hugely supersized role of college sports receive no invitations
to the posh skybox. Another celebrity coach, Duke's Mike Krzyzewski, says complaints about sports' current role at
universities are "very narrow-minded" and "so ridiculously wrong."
And the University of South Carolina?
I suspect the Old Ball Coach will get his recruits next time around.
(Orin Starn is a professor of cultural anthropology at Duke University.)
Spurrier renews old fight
At its heart, issue depends on what standards public institutions should use
Seth Emerson
Columbia State
8 August 2007
John Gerdy played college basketball against South Carolina for four years, and later went to work for the NCAA
and SEC.
In the past decade, he has written four books on sports and become a crusader for academic reform in college
sports.
So when Gerdy heard USC was standing firm in having higher admission standards than the NCAA, his reaction was
swift.
“I say hooray for USC,” said Gerdy, who played at Davidson in the 1970s and is a visiting professor at Ohio
University. “Somewhere along the line, someone has to stand up and say, you know what, education is more
important than athletics.”
That opinion is not shared by many in this state, based on public reaction to football coach Steve Spurrier’s
comments on Sunday. After two of his recruits met NCAA minimum standards but were denied entry to USC, Spurrier
said he was “embarrassed” and might have to leave if it continued.
Spurrier and school officials said they have talked behind the scenes and will address the timing of the decisions.
Gerdy said he also agrees with Spurrier that the school denying a recruit in August is unreasonably late.
But a larger issue remains: Should a public university such as USC have standards higher than the NCAA
minimums?
State Rep. Jackie Hayes (D-Dillon) is among many who say the NCAA guidelines should be sufficient. Hayes, who
also is the football coach and athletics director at Dillon High, is considering proposing legislation that would require
state schools to admit athletes who meet the NCAA minimum standards.
That might sound unprecedented, but it is not.
Mississippi’s two largest colleges, Mississippi and Mississippi State, have been under court order since the early
1970s to admit all athletes who meet NCAA standards. The ruling dates to the period following the end of
segregation, when those two schools tried to use higher admission standards as a way of excluding black athletes.
Segregation might be relagated to the history books, but Mississippi State athletics director Larry Templeton said
the rule remains sufficient.
“The NCAA standard is stronger than most of the other criteria that we have to operate under,” Templeton said.
“Now are we perfect? No. But I’d put our graduation rates up against anybody.”
Of course, private schools can set any admissions standards they want. But when Chuck Reedy was coached
football at Baylor, a private school, he said his players were automatically accepted if they were NCAA eligible.
“There was certainly the understanding that if you were going to compete with Texas and Oklahoma and Texas
A&M, we were going to have to be able to recruit the same athletes that they were recruiting,” said Reedy, a former
assistant at Clemson and South Carolina who is the coach at Goose Creek High.
So what happens if an athlete is denied entry to one SEC school and is admitted to another? SEC commissioner
Mike Slive, speaking two weeks ago, declined to criticize USC’s approach.
“Each of our institutions have to make the decision, and make the determination as to whether or not a prospective
student-athlete has the necessary educational background to succeed at that institution,” Slive said.
That issue of competitive balance might come into play for the South Carolina men’s basketball team and coach
Dave Odom.
The Gamecocks have had two recruits denied entry in the past year: Chad Gray last summer and Aaron Ellis last
month. Gray eventually re-applied and was admitted during the winter. Ellis has been contacted by other SEC
schools. On Tuesday, Ellis was visited Wichita State, a Missouri Valley school coached by Gregg Marshall, the
former Winthrop coach, and committed to the program.
Last week, Odom called admissions at USC “an ongoing process,” and said he and other coaches need guidance
on what precisely will be the standards.
The NCAA minimum standards are a sliding scale: The higher the grade point average, the lower the SAT or ACT
test score needs to be and vice versa. But the Gamecock coaches complain that the new admissions process has
been decided by a committee, without much definitive word on what exactly is needed.
“Our university is trying to do the right thing,” Odom said. “But I think what’s happening is our university is in search
of who we are and where we want to go, academically. I think they know where they want to go; they’re trying to
figure out how they’re going to get there.”
An issue for both high school and college coaches is the state of South Carolina consistently ranks among the
lowest U.S. states in national test scores. So is it unreasonable for the state’s flagship institution to raise its
standards for athletes?
Reedy thinks colleges need to consider a student’s educational background, including the quality of the school
system and their home situation.
“No committee, unless they can look inside a young man and determine his desire to get an education, his
commitment, can determine whether a kid can graduate or not,” Reedy said.
Of course, much of USC’s worry is based upon the academic progress rate (APR), the NCAA’s new measuring
device for academics, which penalizes schools for poor classroom performance by its athletes. South Carolina has
cited the APR as its reason for raising standards in order to avoid the loss of future athletic scholarships.
As a result, coaches say the responsibility trickles down to the high schools, where coaches on both levels say the
most work needs to be done.
Odom has suggested partnering with Clemson to sponsor a seminar for guidance counselors, coaches, principals
and superintendents about the APR and college entrance requirements.
“If we want to help this state, that’s what we ought to do,” Odom said.
Hayes said there is a need for high school coaches to pinpoint their future college prospects early and get them on
the right track. But, he adds, it also starts at home.
“The parents have to be aware of that, that they’re on the right academic track and do the things they need to do,”
Hayes said. “You can’t wait for your junior year and say I want to be a college football player.”
In the meantime, what happens if schools such as South Carolina and Clemson continue to raise their standards
and more athletes are denied?
Slive was asked whether it was dangerous for SEC schools to do so, when their states rank near the bottom of the
nation in SAT scores and other academic barometers.
“What’s the alternative?” Slive said. “We have provided as much opportunity and continue to provide as much or
more opportunity as anybody in the country. And that opportunity will continue to be there.
Richard Southall, the director of the Sports Research Institute at the University of Memphis, has watched from afar
the situation between USC and Spurrier. He called it a classic conflict between “two institutional logics: educational
and commercial.”
Southall doesn’t blame Spurrier for wanting to get his recruits into school. But Southall would blame USC if it bent on
the issue.
“Every single time, you will hear the NCAA say we are a member-driven university, and the universities are in charge
of institutional control,” Southall said. “It’s not the NCAA’s job to control the University of South Carolina. It’s the
University of South Carolina’s job.”
Odom compares the current period after forced integration in the 1970s. Then, everyone was navigating new
territory because of race, and now it is because of academics.
The key at this moment for USC, according to Odom, is clearly identifying what will allow an athlete to be admitted.
“I’m sure that’s coming. But nobody’s identified that for us yet,” Odom said. “When we get that, then I think we’ll be
able to do a better job.”
TURNED AWAY BY USC
Players denied entry to USC in the past year after signing
Chad Gray
men’s basketball
Kingstree High
The forward was denied because of concerns he had attended a school (Florida Prep) under NCAA investigation.
When Florida Prep was cleared, Gray attended Midlands Tech for a semester and was accepted into USC in
December.
Aaron Ellis
men’s basketball
Bridgton Prep (Maine)
Ellis, a 6-foot-8 wing player who also played at Carolina Forest High, was denied entry last month. He is expected to
commit to a new school soon, and was visiting Wichita State on Tuesday.
Arkee Smith
football
First Coast High (Jacksonville, Fla.)
The defensive back was denied entry last month and had his final appeal turned down by the provost last week. He
is considering other programs, reportedly including Minnesota.
Michael Bowman
football
Anson High (Waterboro, N.C.)
Another defensive back, Bowman was denied entry last month and quickly enrolled at East Carolina.
USC Football Heavy With Special Admits
Rick Scoppe
Greenville News
7 August 2007
COLUMBIA -- While coach Steve Spurrier has complained about the process, the University of South Carolina's
special admissions committee has given the football coach's recruits a lot of consideration and approved a large
number of them in his three years at the school.
"That'd be accurate,'" Provost Mark Becker said Monday.
Spurrier's first three recruiting classes include 63 special admits -- 84 percent of the players admitted -- according to
figures supplied by the athletic department. NCAA rules allow Division I programs to bring in 25 players each year.
Spurrier's first class featured 23 special admits. There were 22 in 2006-07 and 18 in 2007-08. The latter number
could go up if any players enroll in January, said Val Sheley, senior associate athletic director.
Overall, USC has approved 65 students for special admits this year, with several cases pending, spokesman Russ
McKinney said. There were a total of 74 special admit applications in a freshmen class of 3,650 to 3,700.
Under a policy set by the faculty senate, the number of special admits is capped at 100 each year, McKinney said.
He said about half of the special admits annually are athletes.
Special admits are students not accepted under the regular admission guidelines but who possess "a special
performance talent" in athletics as well as music or dance, Becker said.
In a telephone interview, Becker went over USC's admissions procedure in detail while saying he could not discuss
any specific student because of federal privacy laws.
Becker declined to talk about Spurrier's comments Sunday in which he raised the possibility of leaving if the process
wasn't changed.
"Anything between the coach and I, the coach and I will deal with between the two of us," Becker said.
The admission department deals with most applications. Anyone denied admission can appeal to the special
admissions committee, which consists of four faculty members. If that committee denies the appeal, a student can
make one final appeal to the provost.
"The buck stops with me," Becker said.
Becker said the special admissions committee acts within two to three weeks on any applicant and that he tries to
decide on appeals "within a matter of days whenever possible."
In all cases, the appeals go through the department the student is seeking to join, such as athletics for an incoming
recruit.
But the process isn't always quick or easy, Becker said, which is the component that concerned Spurrier.
The admissions department cannot make its decision until USC has received an athlete's official transcript and
official SAT or ACT score. The school cannot accept faxed transcripts, Becker said.
That, Becker said, isn't always easy. There can be problems getting the information from high schools, prep schools
or junior colleges. There can also be problems with the SAT or ACT. If an athlete takes it in the summer, that delays
the process, Becker said.
There is also a litany of other issues that can slow the special admissions committee's work. Becker said that can
include such things as an athlete who changed high schools with "some frequency," enrolled in a "large number" of
correspondence courses, has taken the SAT or ACT several times or has had "wide swings" in scores.
In the latter case, the testing company can take six to eight weeks to investigate the matter, Becker said.
The special admissions committee meets frequently, setting its schedule at least two months before football's
national signing period begins in February.
Spurrier complained that he didn't know how the process "drug into the first week of August." The special admits
committee denied the application of football recruit Arkee Smith in late July, and his appeal of that denial was
rejected late last week just before USC began preseason practice Saturday.
"This is not an adversarial process," Becker said "All I can tell you is the committee considers every file when they
receive the complete and full information."
Becker said the process "generally works well," but that he and athletic director Eric Hyman have been working for
several months to refine it.
Becker said they have examined what other schools do to see if there are ways to make sure the admissions
department receives all the information as early as possible from the athletes or their schools.
Becker said he wasn't sure how quickly any changes would be implemented.
"All I can tell you is we hope to have them done before the next recruiting season," he said. "We've got meetings
scheduled between athletics and my office. We're going to try to do it as well as we can in a timely manner."
Trustee Says USC Leadership Failed
Rick Scoppe
Greenville News
7 August 2007
COLUMBIA -- Several University of South Carolina board of trustee members today agreed with coach Steve
Spurrier that changes were needed in the admissions process after two football recruits were denied admission
despite meeting NCAA standards.
Dr. Eddie Floyd, a former chairman of the board, said USC had "adequate" warning this was a problem and that it
was "a failure of leadership" to correct it.
Floyd said he didn't know if that failure was that of USC president Andrew Sorensen, USC provost Mark Becker or
athletic director Eric Hyman.
"I can't understand why in the world our administration didn't deal with it," Floyd said.
USC spokesman Russ McKinney said Sorensen and Becker wouldn't have any comment. Hyman couldn't be
reached for comment.
During USC's football media day Sunday, Spurrier raised the possibility of leaving because he was so upset the
school had denied admission to two recruits who were qualified under NCAA standards.
But Spurrier said he planned to be at USC for "a long time," and said Sorensen had promised that changes would
be made in the admissions process.
"This is an academic problem," said trustee Othniel Wienges, chairman of the Intercollegiate Activities Committee.
"Coach shouldn't have to say anything."
Wienges said he had no problem with Spurrier speaking out, adding that he had no doubt the process "will be
changed because it's unfortunate and untimely."
"It shouldn't have happened," he said.
Herbert Adams, chairman of USC's board of trustees, said changes should be made and that he expected they
would be.
"I talked with the president, and he said basically what they're trying to do is get a little quicker read on kids so they
don't waste the coach's time and not waste the athlete's time," Adams said.
Wide receiver Michael Bowman of Wadesboro, N.C., and defensive back Arkee Smith of Jacksonville, Fla., were
turned down for admission after signing national letters of intent with the Gamecocks in February.
Smith appealed his decision, which was rejected late last week, just days before USC began preseason practice
Saturday night.
Spurrier said he had made a plea on behalf of the two players as well as a third player. That player, linebacker
Melvin Ingram, was admitted.
Forde: We love 'em and can't leave 'em
Our love affair with athletes means we hate the sin but have trouble staying mad at the sinners.
Pat Forde
ESPN.com
9 August 2007
We're in a complicated relationship with the athletes we love.
They're cheating on us. We know it. We don't like it. Yet we keep coming back to them.
We'd like them to do better. We'd like to trust them completely. We'd like those golden moments of ecstasy and awe
at the stadium not to be sullied by nagging doubts about the performers' fidelity. But even if they don't change their
ways, we'll always be there for them.
That's the message SportsNation has broadcast in its collective response to our ESPN.com poll on cheating in
sports. The results show that we're suspicious, jaded, jaundiced, pessimistic and deeply disapproving of rule
breakers. Meanwhile, we're spending more money than ever going to cheer on many of those same cheaters.
Nobody ever said love was logical.
A huge majority of us (80 percent) believe pro sports leagues will not be able to rid their games of cheating in the
near future. A majority of us (53 percent) believe college sports are tainted by "a good number of top programs"
paying players and fixing grades. A sizable minority of us (47 percent) believe there is a "sizable minority" of
cheaters in sports -- not just an isolated rogue athlete here or there. And a plurality of us (44 percent) believe there
is significantly more cheating now than 20 years ago.
But do you see any kind of mass revolt by fans demanding a cleanup? Anyone boycotting the ballpark? Not
according to attendance figures pretty much across the landscape of major sports.
We're too emotionally invested to pull out. We love the great performances too much. We want to believe in the 70-
homer season, the 40-year-old Olympic swimmer, the world-record sprinter. Sometimes, we want to believe it too
much.
Maybe that willingness to suspend disbelief is why athletes always plead their innocence despite evidence to the
contrary. They figure we'll buy anything.
Sammy Sosa's corked bat was for batting practice only -- it was an honest mistake that it wound up in his hands in a
real game. He'd never do that on purpose. Trust him.
Floyd Landis and Rafael Palmeiro say the positive steroid tests have unfairly besmirched their credibility. How they
happened to test positive in the first place? No idea. Trust them.
Tennis player Nikolay Davydenko is, according to his agent, "flabbergasted" by allegations that he dumped a match
last week that just happened to have a suspiciously massive influx of money bet on his opponent, Martin Vassallo
Arguello, even after Davydenko won the first set. Davydenko cited injury when he retired in the third set. Trust him.
We've always talked a good game about wanting our athletes to be fair and honorable. We grew up believing in the
virtue of sport, and in the importance of competing the right way. Winners never cheat, and cheaters never win,
right?
But we don't always vote the straight purity ticket with our wallets. We like home runs, no matter how freakishly large
the guy who's hitting them. And we like the shooting guard with NBA range, no matter how much money it took to get
him on campus or what strings were pulled to get him a qualifying SAT score.
We still show up to cheer for the tainted, still buy their jerseys. We still want to believe the best about our heroes --
even while we're eager to believe the worst about our no-class rivals.
College sports fans specialize in that sort of selective suspicion. The school down the road must be offering $50
handshakes and finding friendly professors for its players. Meanwhile, our scholar-athletes are high-character kids
in it for the love of the game and their school. (Either that, or we just pray that our kids don't get caught.)
That selective suspicion carries over to international competition, as well. We once fixated on East German, Russian
and Chinese dopers in the Olympics, then were shocked when sweet-smiling Marion Jones wound up hip-deep in
BALCO. The Tour de France is absolutely rife with dopers -- but anyone who suggests Lance Armstrong doped is
clearly an anti-American snob who can't handle having a Yank dominate a European sport.
Those attitudes aren't likely to change anytime soon. Neither is the cheating climate in sports.
The SportsNation belief that cheating is significantly more prevalent today than 20 years ago should surprise
anyone who remembers the juiced-up '80s, with Brian Bosworth, Ben Johnson and female Eastern Bloc Olympians
the size of NFL linebackers. It might show the age of our respondents, or it might indicate how much more we hear
about cheating in all its forms. We now live in a world without many secrets.
Fact is, there wasn't much media coverage of the swimmers in Amsterdam who were charged with taking stimulants
before their races. That was in the '60s. The 1860s.
Long before Tim Donaghy became part of the national sporting lexicon, we had point-shaving scandals at CCNY,
Kentucky, Boston College, Tulane and Arizona State. And those are just some of the ones we know about.
Long before we had Barry Bonds' hat size to wonder about, we had an offensive tackle named Tony Mandarich who
was 6-foot-6, 310 pounds and ran a 4.65-second 40-yard dash. Mandarich's measurables seemed about as likely
as a guy naturally hitting 73 home runs at age 38. (In a glorious little coincidence, Bonds' 755th home run Sunday
came off Clay Hensley, a pitcher who was suspended for 15 minor league games in 2005 after testing positive for a
performance-enhancing substance.)
And long before football coaches covered their mouths with play sheets to foil lip readers, teams were stealing each
other's signals. Former Arkansas coach and outgoing athletic director Frank Broyles told me this spring that he and
Texas icon Darrell Royal once confessed to pirating play calls from one another in the 1960s.
So scamming in search of a competitive edge has been going on for a while now. It's an undeniable part of human
nature.
But a certain hierarchy of what's tolerable and what's intolerable has evolved, as evidenced by our poll.
In retrospect, most in-game cheating is viewed with a wink, a nod -- even a chuckle. Broyles and Royal can laugh
about their espionage now. Spitball pitchers are considered a colorful part of the game. Same with floppers and
shorts pullers in basketball, stick benders in hockey, and offensive linemen who specialize in holding.
Those aren't so bad because there are officials in place to detect that kind of cheating, after all. You just hope none
of them is named Donaghy.
Only 14 percent of fans say in-game cheating bothers them most. Eighty percent say it's the off-field cheating --
drug taking, point-shaving, etc. -- that is the real threat.
That's why a first-time offender caught cheating during play merits a short suspension, according to 54 percent of
those polled. A first-time blood doper or steroid user merits a long suspension, according to 61 percent of
respondents. And a first-time point-shaver deserves a lifetime ban, according to 69 percent of SportsNation.
For the most part, we believe in the ideal of purity in our sports. And we believe in punishment for crimes committed
against our sports.
But we're in love, and we don't really want to know the full extent of the current crime wave. Even if it's as bad as we
suspect, we're not packing up and leaving the cheaters anytime soon.
From gangs to colleges
Expert: Schools need background checks on recruits
George Dohrmann
SI.com
9 August 2007
Last year, Derrick Watkins, a former police detective in Southern California, spoke at the NCAA Convention on a
panel about athletes and violence. Halfway through the discussion, Watkins, the co-author of a book on gang
culture, was stunned as officials from several schools explained how helpless they felt.
"People kept saying, 'we are bringing this kids to our universities, kids with a criminal background, and we don't
know how to deal with them," Watkins says. "Here you have these big schools, these wealthy athletic departments,
and it was pretty clear from what people were telling me that they had no idea the type of kids they're recruiting."
Since speaking on the panel, Watkins has studied dozens of cases of violence by college athletes. He has tracked
cases at small community colleges and higher profile incidents, such as those at Montana State, which I wrote about
in this week's Sports Illustrated. He sees a pattern emerging, a growing problem he believes schools are not able or
willing to address.
"They get these kids on campus, kids who grew up in a gang culture, and then the schools are surprised when the
kids bring crime with them," Watkins says. "Kids revert to what they grew up around."
Watkins views what has happened at Montana State -- two players accused of murder, another two allegedly
heading a drug ring that created a cocaine problem in Montana -- as a premonition for other college towns if schools
don't change their recruiting tactics.
"The kids they brought (to Bozeman) came from gang areas, probably grew up around violence, and that's what
they know," Watkins says. "The only way to really prevent that is to stop recruiting kids like that or knowing what you
are getting and doing something to help them."
Coaches hell bent on winning aren't likely to stop recruiting troubled kids with talent, so Watkins has focused on how
schools can better understand what they are getting. His most radical suggestion is one he doubts schools will follow.
"Have a recruit and their parents sign a waiver so you can access kids' juvenile records," he says. "That's the only
way to really know what you are getting."
Administrators at several universities -- including Montana State -- have discussed using background checks to
investigate a prospect's past. SI.com, however, found only one school that does it, and not to the extent Watkins
advises.
Oklahoma's campus police have run a standard check since 2005 on kids who are offered a scholarship. But that
type of check does not include access to events that occurred before the player turned 18. That level of probe
could prove useful to schools like Montana State, which takes a lot of junior college transfers; many athletes are well
over 18 when they arrive in Bozeman. But for universities that recruit mostly high school players, the usefulness of
those checks is limited.
"Of course, we do academic reviews and we talk to people -- counselors, coaches, parents -- who can tell us about
a person, and adding a law enforcement background check seemed a natural progression," says Larry Naifeh,
Oklahoma's executive associate athletic director. "So far, coaches have reviewed it favorably. It sometimes gives
them access to information other schools may not have."
If the check turns up any incidents, it doesn't automatically eliminate a recruit from consideration, Naifeh says. "We
give that information to the coach and it is something he or she can discuss with a recruit's parents and investigate
further."
Recruits don't even know they are being checked because Oklahoma doesn't need their permission to do so. What
would happen if schools started asking recruits and their parents for access to juvenile records?
"I don't know, but I do no that no school is going to want to be the first to try it," says one Big 12 assistant coach.
"Sure, it would be great to get access to juvenile records, but either every school has to agree to do it at once or no
one will do it. If you are the only school asking parents to give up their kid's record you are going to be a
disadvantage in recruiting."
Watkins' counterargument is a compelling one: "Would you rather lose a couple recruits or end up like Montana
State?"
Baggot: UW policy smells fishy from outside
Andy Baggot
Madison Capital Times
9 August 2007
They have to know how this looks, don't they?
Shortly before the University of Wisconsin football team opened preseason camp Monday, suspended sophomore
tailback Lance Smith was reinstated to active duty.
Followers of the program — cynics and season ticket holders alike — saw it coming. They pointed and laughed in a
way that suggested some poor schlub's fly was open.
In truth, they were chuckling at a process that has become all too familiar in the past 11 months.
It goes like this: A vital member of the UW football team is arrested. He is suspended by the school in accordance
with its student-athlete discipline policy. He is reinstated just in time to suit up for the next big on-field assignment.
It's happened three times since last September, which makes you wonder: The powers-that-be at UW have to know
how this looks, don't they?
It looks calculated and dubious. It looks like powerful people are playing the privacy angles, all in the name of
making sure UW Athletics runs at optimal speed.
UW athletic director Barry Alvarez said he isn't worried about how it looks to us.
"I know the facts," he said. "We're not making the decision (based) on timing or concerned about how it appears.
We're doing what we think is right and what we think is fair for the kid."
Other conclusions could be reached based on a pattern that has emerged since last fall.
• Linebacker Elijah Hodge was arrested Sept. 19 for operating a motor vehicle, a scooter, without the owner's
consent. He was suspended by the school two days later and reinstated in time for a Big Ten Conference game
Sept. 23 at Michigan.
UW coach Bret Bielema was so certain Hodge, a key backup, would be cleared that Hodge, though still suspended,
made the trip to Ann Arbor, Mich., and eventually played.
• Cornerback Jack Ikegwuonu was arrested Nov. 25 in DeKalb, Ill., and charged with residential burglary and criminal
trespass.
He was suspended by the school Dec. 1 and reinstated Dec. 15.
Ikegwuonu missed practices leading up to the Capital One Bowl, but the first-team, All-Big Ten selection also had
about two weeks of repetitions when workouts were heightened and the game plan was installed for what would be a
17-14 win over Arkansas.
• Smith was arrested July 14 and tentatively charged with robbery, false imprisonment and battery.
An important backup, he was suspended July 18 and reinstated in time for the first day of preseason drills. None of
the three cases had been resolved in the courts when the players were reinstated.
Those involving Ikegwuonu and Smith are pending. No charges were filed against Hodge due to lack of evidence.
Alvarez, UW Athletic Board chair Walter Dickey, Casey Nagy of the chancellor's office and a UW Athletic Board
member decide if the discipline policy has been violated and if reinstatement is warranted based on information
gathered by the school.
"I think people are very quick — very, very quick — to suspend, punish, do this and that when in many cases — and
it's proven out — that it doesn't warrant that," Alvarez said. "People have to trust us."
Maybe it's all coincidence. Maybe this process is pure and reasoned.
But that's not how it looks from here.
Athletes are privileged; act like it
Dan Thompson
Idaho State Journal
9 August 2007
Coaches like to preach privilege. They remind their players how unique an opportunity it is to play college sports,
how it’s a gift to attend college for free. For not just the majority but almost the entirety of their captive audience, the
coaches’ messages are heeded.
A few of them forget it, though. Every year it happens. And for some, it happens multiple times.
J.D. Quinn was already on his second chance. A year after being dismissed from the Oklahoma football team for
accepting money for a job he never completed, Quinn was back in trouble again a couple weeks ago. This time it
was a DUI for the 21-year-old Montana lineman.
Which brings me to my point. Every year — and this year they’ve been at Minnesota, Texas-El Paso and both the
Big Sky’s football teams in Montana, to name a few — a couple bozos get it in their heads that they are bigger than
other college students. That they can do whatever they want because they’re a college athlete.
Either they think all that, or they’re stupid. And either way, they don’t understand what it means to be on scholarship.
Being on scholarship means someone else is paying for your education, and, because of that little fiscal
arrangement, your actions reflect upon your benefactors.
It’s a great deal for the players who understand it, and the bulk of college athletes do understand it. They go about
their practicing and their homework, tending them with enough care so that neither their grades nor competition
suffers. Those are the athletes who get it.
Players like Quinn need the reminder, though.
Look at a single mother who’s paying her way through college, or a young couple sifting through their towering bills
each month as they strive toward degrees. Their pressures make learning a playbook seem comparably mundane.
Comparably unimportant.
Coaches like to say their athletes aren’t unique in regards to life experience and that they can’t track their players
whereabouts outside of practice. In this, coaches are correct.
“These are good, solid people coaching these teams,” Montana coach Bobby Hauck said at the Big Sky meetings in
July. “There are good kids on these teams. I’m around enough of them on a daily basis to say these college football
players are no different than anyone else on campus.”
Hauck is right about the first part, but he’s only half right about the second. Yes, college football players are the
same age as their classmates, prone to all the same whims and wiles.
But college athletes are also being paid, and therefore they are not like other students. They are the faces of their
institutions, the same as a professor or a student body president would be. It comes with the money.
Players, then, cannot simply be defined by their actions on the field.
Even moreso, they will be remembered for their transgressions away from competition. Get burned by a wide
receiver and fans will forget. They won’t forget a DUI so easily.
Perhaps the NFL’s renewed emphasis on character will make players like Quinn realize a scholarship isn’t a pass
for stupidity, and that the next level won’t tolerate such repeated idiocy. It doesn’t take much to follow the law.
Millions of people do so successfully and without incident their entire lives.
Coaches know all about privilege, and they preach it. But it shouldn’t take a coach’s speech to get athletes to
understand the concept. Athletes simply need look at people sitting at the desks around them.
Then they will understand what privilege really means.
Division II, III schools require less of a 'boost'
Chris Preston
ESPN.com
7 August 2007
What does it take to be successful at the Division II and III levels? In this four-part series, ESPN.com looks at the role
of money, recruiting and fan sites at the lower levels.
T. Boone Pickens didn't simply make the two largest donations in Oklahoma State University history. The second of
those two donations -- a $165 million gift announced in January 2006 -- was the most generous donation to an
athletic program in NCAA history.
The now 79-year-old Pickens, a billionaire oil tycoon and OSU graduate, already earned the right to have his alma
mater's football stadium named after him (what was once Lewis Field is now Boone Pickens Stadium). He previously
pledged $70 million to the school in 2003, $20 million of which went towards upgrading the Cowboys' 48,000-seat
football facility. Pickens' donations will enable OSU to expand Boone Pickens Stadium's seating capacity to 53,000
after Phase I is completed and possibly to as large as 73,000 thereafter, and to create an athletic village just north
of their ballooning stadium.
Pickens is clearly not your typical donor, but there are many like him at Division I colleges and universities. The
University of Oregon has become renowned for its state of the art sports facilities and for the hip (tacky?) Nike-
sponsored jerseys their teams wear. It's not a coincidence: Nike co-founder Phil Knight is Oregon's highest profile
and certainly most generous donor. The University of Virginia's new 15,000-seat John Paul Jones basketball
arena? Wahoo fans can thank Virginia graduate Paul Tudor Jones II for that, seeing as it was his $35 million
donation that really made it possible.
Really, when the donations have that many zeros at the end of them, the people writing the checks are no longer
mere "donors." They are called boosters. And since money talks in America -- even in our most reputable
institutions of higher learning -- boosters cast a shadow over every Division I athletic program. They have a major
influence over which coaches are fired (good-bye, Tubby Smith) and who gets hired (hello, Billy Gillispie and his fat
new $2.3 million-a-year contract as Smith's replacement as Kentucky's men's basketball coach). And they have a
say on which programs they want to donate money towards (Duke basketball) and which ones they do not (Duke
football). Boosters can revolutionize an athletic program … but at a cost.
We get good support from our boosters, but they are not involved in any decision making. Our alums are
tremendously loyal to this school and very supportive, while not being very intrusive at all.
Refreshingly, they are far less of a factor at the Division II level. Granted, there is no shortage of boosters at
Division II schools. The University of California, San Diego recognizes two booster clubs: the Triton Athletic
Associates, made up of donors who have given between $50 and $2,500, and the UCSD Athletic Board, an
organization of 21 people who each have given no less than $10,000 to the school's athletic programs. As is the
case at a place like Oklahoma State, booster donations have had a direct effect on UCSD's facilities.
The school is in the process of performing $500,000 worth of renovations on its softball field thanks in part to a
$350,000 donation from a former player. Meanwhile, the swimming and water polo teams are the beneficiaries of a
new swimming pool. But still, boosters do not influence a Division II program the way they do in Division I.
"Boosters do not play nearly as large a role in DII as they do in DI," says Grand Valley State University (Mich.)
athletic director Tim Selgo. "We get good support from our boosters, but they are not involved in any decision
making. Our alums are tremendously loyal to this school and very supportive, while not being very intrusive at all."
Boosters are even less influential/intrusive at the Division III level -- the land of no scholarships. "Boosters are zero
factor in terms of influence [here]," Harry Sheehy, Williams College's (Williamstown, Mass.) director of athletics,
insists. "They play no part in the hiring and firing of coaches."
Middlebury (Vt.) College's AD, Eric Quinn, concurs. "It's in more of an indirect way [in Division III]. [Donations are] all
made through the college. The college might identify a need and match it with a particular donor or donors. Our
support from alumni and parents is more filtered through the college. There's no big money involved."
There's no big money involved at DIII schools -- at least not when you compare their total operating expenses to a
school like Texas.
During the 2005-06 academic year, UT listed the total operating expenses for its athletic department at $11.4 million
-- surpassing that of perennial Directors' Cup winner Stanford ($7.8 million). Reflecting the gap between the
importance of money at a 33,000-plus enrollment Division I school like Texas and any lower division institution, the
operating expenses at 2006-07 Division II Directors' Cup winner Grand Valley State is almost on par with those at
Williams, Division III's juggernaut sports program. Grand Valley State's '05-06 total operating athletic expenses were
$837,634; Williams' were $800,428. In fact, Middlebury -- Division III runner-up in last year's Directors' Cup
standings -- reported over $1 million in expenses for that same year, exceeding Grand Valley State's.
Clearly, the difference between Divisions II and III in terms of athletic spending is virtually negligible compared to the
Division I money-making machines. Money just matters more for athletic programs like those at Texas, Kentucky and
Oklahoma State. Thusly, boosters play a far more critical role. Smaller, lower division schools simply don't need jaw-
dropping donations from billionaire oil tycoons or Nike co-founders in order for their athletic programs to be
successful. In comparison, their operating costs are -- I had to take it -- slim Pickens.
Chris Preston is a staff writer for the Shelburne (Vt.) News and a frequent contributor to Varsity Magazine.
NFL's legal headaches stem from 'wholesome' college game
Bob Molinaro
Norfolk Virginian-Pilot
6 August 2007
WITH COLLEGE football revving up - pre season practices are under way, a poll has been released - the
undergraduate game looks fresh-faced and clean-cut compared to an NFL burdened by the shadowy figures of
Michael Vick, Adam "Pacman" Jones and other less infamous scoundrels and miscreants.
The college game is so much more wholesome, don't you think? Boy Scouts frolicking on campus is what it's all
about.
If you believe that, you probably think Harry Potter plays outside linebacker for the University of Miami.
It's obvious the NFL is being corrupted and embarrassed by the threatening misbehavior of its athletes, but where
do these headline-grabbing thugs come from?
From college football, of course. From the so-called wholesome environment of the campus.
As commissioner Roger Goodell runs around putting out fires and doling out suspensions, the current climate of
lawlessness created by some NFL players also reflects poorly on the college environment.
When it comes to suspended players like Vick, Jones, Tank Johnson and Chris Henry - not to mention Henry's eight
Bengals teammates who have been arrested in recent years - you could make the case that Goodell is just dealing
with the dirty laundry that college football has dumped at his door.
It takes a village to raise a child, but a campus full of practiced enablers can help turn a misguided, undisciplined
young athlete into a future problem for police.
You have coaches who constantly operate under the theory that great talent trumps questionable character. The
coaches just try to keep a lid on the troublemakers until they become somebody else's problem.
You have boosters who pressure coaches into exploiting young talent at the expense of teaching the athletes hard,
real-life lessons.
You have schools warping academic standards in order to prop up unfit or disinterested student-athletes, thereby
sending out the message that jocks are an entitled class.
Football players don't instantly develop dangerous, illegal and irresponsible habits when they walk off campus for
the final time. Future NFL defendants don't change their character the moment they're drafted.
Their reckless lifestyles are cultivated in college. Add lots of NFL cash and you've got a ticking time bomb.
College, even more than high school, is meant to be a learning environment. The players Goodell has suspended -
and others - must not have been taught that poor judgment carries consequences.
And college coaches don't just put up with players who lack good judgment. It's not like they're stuck with these
guys, they actively seek out the edgy kids.
Why? Because Boy Scouts don't win games.
To be a top program, a school needs a dozen or so starters - a conservative estimate - who, for one reason or
another, don't belong on campus. It's the worst-kept secret in college football.
At the moment, the Texas Longhorns find themselves finessing the arrests of 10 current or former players in the
past 18 months - five in the past two months. Who knows? Nationally, this may not even be a big story because
player busts are so routine.
To remain on top, big-time football programs perform a constant and dishonest balancing act. It goes like this:
Apologize for the unacceptable, often illegal behavior of current players - even as you recruit the next crop of
troublemakers.
Feel a little sorry for Goodell. By the time some guys reach the NFL, they've been well-schooled by some of our
finest universities that they can get away with almost anything.
This may sound like a harsh assessment, especially in early August. But when it comes to college football, cynicism
never takes a holiday.
The athletic department proves the best offense is a good defense
Bill Shaw, guest columnis
UO Daily Emerald
6 August 2007
Gee, I had no idea what a great guy Pat Kilkenny is. I'm glad he has let us all know. Rising above the temptation of
false modesty, Kilkenny said that he "had a lot of sensitivity" ("Kilkenny defends decision to keep quiet," ODE, July
30) for the members of the wrestling program by not informing them that their fates hung in the balance as he and
President Frohnmayer plotted the program's demise. After all, as Kilkenny attested, the matter was up in the air until
the very end. On the other hand, someone more cynical might be tempted to ask just what this latter statement is
supposed to mean. When parsed, what it seems to mean is that until he and the President made a decision, no
decision had been made. But isn't that the expected course of events - an idea is proposed, it is considered and a
decision is reached? I fail to see how the alleged mutability of the situation should have informed the decision about
whether or not to pursue it in secret. When viewed in this light, t he statement seems not to be an explanation of
their actions, but a defense against the charge that the decision to ax the wrestling program was a forgone
conclusion and, further, that the secrecy surrounding it was an attempt to limit any outcry or activity that would have
complicated that conclusion. I am not necessarily leveling this charge but, to paraphrase, the athletic director doth
protest too much, me thinks.
If I might offer an analogy, the situation is akin to a patient with a potentially fatal disease whom, on his deathbed,
learns that his doctor had, sometime ago, diagnosed his condition. Upon learning this, the patient asks, "Doc, why
didn't you tell me?" To which the doctor replies, "I didn't want to upset you." The patient is about to ask a follow-up
when, alas, he expires. You may wonder what the follow-up question was to be. I know what I'd ask. But in this
situation, I'm curious how the members of the wrestling team would respond. They don't seem to have been asked.
Now, I have no investment in University athletics, nor do I have much interest in college wrestling, baseball or
competitive cheer for that matter. I do have an interest, however, in holding our leaders, and those who represent
us, to account. From my perspective, the University got what it was looking for in Kilkenny - 'someone who can make
things happen' is, I believe, how he has been described. In my experience, a frequent part of this attribute is the
attitude that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission. As for President Frohnmayer, some might
question his assertion that he was unaware of established protocols dictating that the Athletic Department consult
with the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee on such decisions. I, on the other hand, question his judgment. Surely he
must have had some sense that the decision would bear the taint of suspicion. Apparently that gave him no pause.
Bill Shaw is a graduate student in the architecture school
CAP considers giving APR adjustments for transfers
Group reviews data revealing transfer’s impact on student-athlete graduation
Michelle Brutlag Hosick
The NCAA News
30 July 2007
PORTLAND, Oregon — The Division I Committee on Academic Performance is considering permitting institutions to
seek adjustments to the Academic Progress Rate for transfer student-athletes who achieve a specific grade-point
average before transferring. The committee met July 9-10 in Portland, Oregon.
While no final decisions were made, committee members acknowledged that sometimes coaches and institutions
have little control over whether a student-athlete transfers. At the same time, research shows student-athletes who
transfer, regardless of the reason, are less likely to graduate, and those who do graduate take longer to do so.
In continuing the discussion, the committee members reviewed more data about the impact transferring has on
student-athletes and the characteristics of student-athletes who transfer, including grade-point average. The
committee also looked at what providing flexibility within APR adjustments for specific transfer student-athletes would
do to the distribution of APRs.
The committee did not set a specific GPA benchmark, but most members agreed it should be set so that the
likelihood of graduation is at least as high for the transfer student-athlete as for non-transfers. If the concept were to
be approved, transfer student-athletes meeting the criteria would be treated similarly in the APR formula to student-
athletes who depart for careers in professional athletics. That is, for each transferring student-athlete meeting the
standard, the team would receive one eligibility point and the retention portion of the equation would be washed
away. Essentially, the transfer-student-athlete who fulfills the to-be-determined criteria would become a “1-for-1”
instead of a “1-for-2.”
The committee will discuss the concept further at its meeting in October.
The group also discussed the role of the APR Improvement Plan in a team’s progress toward raising its rate, and
revised the guidelines for teams whose APR falls below 925. Teams below 900 — and teams submitting waivers,
applying for Supplement Support Funds or subject to the data-review process — must submit APR Improvement
Plans that include specific APR goals for the immediate year and each subsequent year until the team’s multi-year
APR reaches 925. Institutions will be contacted this fall with instructions regarding the process for reporting plans to
the national office.
The institution must set realistic goals for APR improvement. For example, predicting that a team with a multi-year
APR of 850 will achieve a single year APR of 1,000 each year is not practical. However, the committee expects an
institution to set logical improvement goals, in keeping with its characteristics and resources, which will help a team
reach the 925 benchmark in a reasonable amount of time.
Also, the goals must demonstrate improvement in the areas in which a team needs the most work. For example, if
the team has more significant problems with retention than eligibility, the plan must set forth an outline for improving
retention as well as the overall APR. The goals submitted by institutions as part of the APR Improvement Plan may
be used in the waiver process.
Continuing with the improvement theme, the committee directed the appeals subcommittee to work with the staff to
continue to consider institutional resources when considering waivers for historically based penalties through a more
precise model. The committee examined a model that divides Division I institutions into different categories
depending on characteristics such as average per capita institutional expenditures, per capita athletics expenditures
and per capital Pell Grant expenditures for the campus. Each category looks at a standard of improvement used to
analyze historically based penalty waivers.
The committee decided to approach the waiver process that way because members believe that an institution’s
resources significantly affect the level of improvement that is realistic.
Members also began preliminary discussions about allowing student-athletes to complete a year of “academic
readiness” at an NCAA institution. The model would permit first-year student-athletes to complete remedial
coursework while receiving aid and practicing with their team but before becoming eligible for competition.
Permitting the year of academic readiness would allow student-athletes who are ill-prepared for whatever reasons
for the rigors of collegiate academics an opportunity to adjust to college life and become engaged as a student,
without the full complement of demands experienced by a student-athlete who is eligible for competition.
The idea emanated from conversations with the National Association of Basketball Coaches earlier this year and will
be more fully explored by the Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Working Group, which is scheduled to begin
meeting next month. The group is expected to discuss a number of issues raised by CAP, including whether the
student-athletes would count against a team’s scholarship limit and when the five-year clock would start.
The committee also slightly altered how it calculates improvement as a factor in determining historically based
penalties. The committee decided to allow more flexibility in determining whether a team has truly improved or if the
increase in a team’s APR was more likely a chance occurrence. The change will result in a greater number of teams
meeting the improvement criteria.
Other highlights
Committee on Academic Performance
July 10-11/Portland, Oregon
Responded to a Division I Board of Directors request that the committee develop Academic Performance Plan
penalties specific to baseball teams who earn a four-year APR under 900. Among the penalties under consideration
is a more stringent playing and practice season reduction than teams in other sports face. In response, the
committee appointed an ad hoc group that will report back to the full committee in October. Reviewed data on the
demographics and trends of “0-for-2” student-athletes — those who left an institution while ineligible — over the
three years of APR data now available. The data show that “0-for-2” student-athletes have decreased over the first
three years of the program, most notably in baseball and football.
Heard an update on the progress of proposed revisions to the Division I governance structure, including the concept
that CAP be eliminated once all penalties and rewards are developed. CAP members recommended the committee
remain intact through the implementation and evaluation of the penalties (four to five years) and then be gradually
phased out and its responsibilities assumed by the Academics Cabinet. The committee also recommended that CAP
continue to report to the Board.
Athletics at UNLV a matter of degree
Hamrick set out to boost the graduation rate - and he has
Brian Hilderbrand
Las Vegas Sun
30 July 2007
Mike Hamrick vividly remembers his first Board of Regents meeting shortly after taking over as UNLV's athletics
director nearly four years ago.
"Regent Doug Hill, who is no longer on the (board), absolutely chastised us for our poor graduation rates - and he
should have," Hamrick recalled.
At the time, a measly 30 percent of UNLV's student-athletes went on to receive a degree.
"I was embarrassed," Hamrick said.
And he set out to do something about it - first by making coaches accountable for their respective student-athletes
and then by making sure a system was put into place to help them succeed in the classroom.
Four years later, UNLV is graduating 63 percent of its student-athletes (compared with 41 percent of the general
student body). UNLV also finished third among Mountain West Conference schools with 84 representatives receiving
Academic All-MWC honors this spring , and nine of its 16 sports teams boast a cumulative grade-point average of
3.02 or higher.
Hamrick focuses on graduation rates, not grade-point average, although he says it "continues to get better every
year."
Overall, UNLV's 430 student athletes had a 2.91 GPA (the cumulative average of student-athletes on the teams
since they enrolled at UNLV). The tennis, golf and swim teams lead the pack and the football and track teams are at
the bottom - although the women's track squad has a 2.62 GPA.
Although Hamrick deflects credit to his coaches and the academic services available to the student-athletes, he said
he made improving the department's academics "my No. 1 priority" when he took the job.
"The credit goes to our coaches, who are recruiting good student-athletes, and also the fact that we've put in a
good academic service - advising and tutoring.
"Plus, a part of each coach's evaluation each year is how well their teams do academically."
Owen Hambrook, UNLV's fourth-year men's head tennis coach, said it is clear to all UNLV coaches that academic
success is a priority of Hamrick's administration.
"Obviously, the athletic administration places a huge emphasis on the academics , and that's evident in the
graduation rate," he said. "You can tell that the administration has really made it a priority , and I think it helps us
with recruiting and everything else."
Hambrook's squad leads all UNLV sports teams with a 3.35 GPA, and said a big factor in his team's success in the
classroom is the support system the university has in place for its student-athletes.
"Under Mike Hamrick's direction, we've had very good academic advising for our student-athletes," he said. "They
really do a good job in keeping them on track and progressing toward their degree and are always very open to the
student-athletes coming in."
Another factor in the student-athletes' academic improvement, Hamrick said, has been the department's ability to
send them to summer school and to provide them with "fifth-year aid."
"Let's say you come to school here and you do everything you're supposed to do academically and you play football
for four years and you're a semester short (of graduating)," he said. "We'll pay for a kid, a full scholarship, to finish
up that fifth year. We do that with all our athletes if they do what they're supposed to do."
UNLV has been able to fund both programs through athletic department fundraising, Hamrick said.
In addition to excelling in the classroom, Hamrick is quick to point out , many of UNLV's teams have enjoyed success
on the field . UNLV has won 15 Mountain West Conference championships since 2003-2004, including five this past
school year.
"The point is, they're good athletes but they're also good students," Hamrick said.
"That's something that needed to change here and we changed it."