AJC > Sports > Blog > Archives > 2007 > August > 12 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USThree things we have learned
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The first week of practice is in the books. Three things we have learned:
1. Blake Mitchell is on thin ice: You would think that a fifth-year senior would have learned the basic rule of playing quarterback for Steve Spurrier : You don’t tick off the Head Ball Coach and give him any reason to question your commitment or your leadership ability.
But Mitchell missed the first two days of preseason practice at South Carolina because he missed too many classes.
Please.
“I hope that’s embarrassing to him,” Spurrier told reporters. “It should be.”
Mitchell had better hope that freshman Stephen Garcia doesn’t have a great training camp or he’ll be holding a clipboard on Sept. 1.
2. LaMarcus Coker has not been paying attention: Tennessee, you might have noticed, is deep in running backs. After spring practice, coach Phillip Fulmer praised the work ethic of Arian Foster, one of those running backs.
He did not mention Coker. Coker, an extremely talented kid who can make big plays, responded to the challenge by earning an indefinite suspension for an undisclosed rules violation.
Maybe LaMarcus didn’t get the memo but coaches today are quicker to cut a guy loose than ever before. A guy who won’t follow the rules just isn’t worth it any more, regardless of his talent. Hey LaMarcus: Ever heard of Brent Schaeffer?
3. Spurrier is not going anywhere, but he does have a point: Steve Spurrier is not going to leave South Carolina because of a flap with the academic side of the university. And it’s not up the head football coach of any institution to set academic standards.
It’s probably not the wisest thing to do to put your president out there on a limb because he has to deal with the faculty. But Spurrier is not a politician.
Still, Spurrier has a point.
When a kid who is eligible by NCAA standards is told the day before practice that he can’t get in school, the system is flawed. Fact is, Clemson had already gone through this a year ago so the issue should have been addressed before now. Each institution is free to set its own standards for admission. That’s the way it should be.
But there is an issue of fundamental fairness to the student athlete given their unique situation.
Services »
Comments
By yellowblood
August 12, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this
Good point, Tony, Each school needs to set its own standard as long as each recruit meets the NCAA requirement. After that the school may require more academic qualification. The Ivy League and the military academies are a testament to it. They say, if necessary, we will not have the best team but we will have players who meet our academic minimums.
By V
August 12, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this
Tony, please, PLEASE, explain to me why a school’s admission standards should vary from student to student? How is it “fair” for stricter requirements to be applied to one student because he can’t run a 4.3 40?
By Lee
August 12, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this
A few observations:
I, for one, am glad to see coaches pulling the plug on some of these players who come in and think they are above reproach because they can play ball. You play by the coach’s and college’s rules or you go home. Good. That’s the way it should be.
You gotta ask yourself, would a coach be so quick to pull the trigger on a player if they are short in that position. We all know the answer to that on, don’t we.
The NCAA standards should be considered the floor. Colleges are free to establish their own admission standards based on their own criteria. If a player meets the NCAA standard, but not the college’s higher standard, he should not be admitted. I don’t see where this is so difficult to understand.
The above would be a moot point if athletes were required to submit an application and get accepted to the college by going through the same process as ever other student. Personally, I think it’s time to put STUDENT back into STUDENT ATHLETE. Some of these players shouldn’t be allowed on a college campus unless they had a mop and broom in hand.
Spurrier’s still whining. Some things never change, I see.
By Bill
August 12, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this
Spurrier’s still WINNING. Some things never change, I see.
By Bwhdawg
August 12, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this
Tony,
With all due respect to you, why is the fact that Coach Spurrier cannot get two of his players into school that the NCAA accepts now a concern to you? This has happened to Mark Richt twice. The aforementioned players names are Jamar Chaney of Mississippi State and Michael Grant of Arkansas. you will recall that UGA’s admissions said “no” after each player more than satisfied NCAA requirements. What I find odd is why Spurrier has a “point” now when it wasn’t “point” enough to write about several years ago? Please answer me so we can all see your response.
Let’s all be honest. Spurrier signed 33 guys to LOIs last year knowing that some of these guys would not make it given the 25 scholarship limit. Spurrier does not want to lose credibility with SC high school coaches and parents. He is hiding behind USC’s admission standards rather than admit his mistake.
Thanks in advance for your reply.
By reality check
August 12, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this
I agree Spurrier has a right to be upset. The president of South Carolina is doing nothing but posturing. South Carolina is one of the easiest schools in the SEC to get into, except for their program in International business, which is Ivy League tough.
I believe there is a lot of petty jealousy about the fact Spurrier makes so much more money than the University President.
By JW
August 12, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this
Spurrier apparently doesn’t like rules unless he makes them. First he refused to walk to one of the many bathrooms at the Augusta National as the world has now seen, probably cost a caddie his job to show Spurrier’s lack of class. Second he puts the President of his University out on a limb with his lack of class and lack of discipline for his players getting arrested. No wonder UF didn’t want him back. The faculty was probably scared for their cars.
By alabamadawg
August 12, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this
This president is the same guy that was an embarrassment at both Florida and Alabama.He wanted to be at Vandy, as much as I can’t stand Adams, I’m glad Ga. don’t have S.C.’s president.
By JustMe
August 12, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this
The NCAA rules for exceptions for student admissions into any university is more than “slack.” If a so-called student cannot get into college using the NCAA rules, they really just need to go work at McDonald’s.
I have a lot of respect for colleges that try not to use the NCAA exceptions. Some colleges maintain admission requirements equal for everyone, including football players. If these colleges can do it, why cannot everyone?
What everyone (mostly) forgets is that the college is there for education, first. Football, like all sports, are EXTRACURRICULAR. No one should go to college just to do the extracurricular stuff. If that is why they are they, that in itself is a problem.
If all colleges would tighten their admission requirements for football players, I would bet that these students would try harder in high school….
By RxDawg
August 12, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this
Bwhdawg, the answer to your question is because the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
By Auburn91
August 12, 2007 4:41 PM | Link to this
Don’t blame the president. He agreed with Spurrier. My question is, do the players get in now?
http://www.trackemtigers.com/
By Bill
August 12, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this
The players did not get in.
The playing field is not level. Why even have NCAA minimum requirements when each school is going to have their own? The NCAA is useless in many regards. It is the association of college athletics, so why can’t they be the driving force for acceptance standards. Spurrier’s real issue was the late decline that took place a day before practice started.
By Lee
August 12, 2007 5:20 PM | Link to this
JustMe, whenever they try to tighten the academic standards, the first thing you hear is that it unfairly targets the black athletes.
The root cause is that there is too much money changing hands in college athletics at the Division 1 level. Coaches are making million$ and the financial viability of many of these athletic associations depends upon having winning seasons. There is not much difference between the #5 and the #25 team in the country. Coaches know that one or two high impact players could potentially be the difference between looking for a new job next year and being in contention for the mythical national championship.
If ALL colleges tightened their academic admission requirements, you are correct, the high school athlete would realize that he would have to buckle down and study to get into college.
Unfortunately, there will always be “Football U”, those colleges that will do anything to gain the upper hand.
That’s why I ALWAYS have more respect for a Vanderbilt or a Duke, colleges that place more emphasis on academics.
By JustMe
August 12, 2007 5:48 PM | Link to this
Lee,
Tighten? Who said anything about “tightening” academic standards? All I suggested with that the already established standards for students be adhered to, without exceptions.
The problem is that the AD wants exceptions and the College President okays it because they want a winning team. This is wrong.
If every high school student/athlete knows that they must meet the standard to play ball in college, they can and will make the grade. Today, they know that they don’t have to and so they don’t even try in high school. They go on to college and expect to play pro ball and make millions. We all know that this is only about 5% of the players.
So what happens to the other 95%? They cannot get an education (because they never even learned the high school content) and so they end up without anything - no sports career and no college diploma.
I suggest that a college set admission standards without exceptions for anyone and everyone - and this includes sports applicants. This would be an easy rule for the NCAA to establish and enforce, if they have the balls.
If a college wants low standards admissions for a football player, then they also must admit the same low standards for a regular student.
By Tony Barnhart
August 12, 2007 6:38 PM | Link to this
To Bwhdawg,
You’re right that this has happened to Georgia. The difference is that Mark Richt didn’t complain about it publicly and suggest that he couldn’t remain as coach if things didn’t change.
Spurrier’s reaction sparked a debate that we should be having in college athletics.
Again, I believe every school should have its own academic standards for admission. Every school has to determine its own academic mission and where competitive athletics fits into that mission.
What I am saying is that the process of determining those academic standards for admission is flawed if freshman eligibility can’t be determined before early August. There has to be a better way.
Just one man’s opinion.
Thanks,
Tony B.
By TeacherMan
August 12, 2007 7:57 PM | Link to this
Much like Lee said, it’s all about MONEY, people! Sub-standard “student”-athletes enter universities because they make more money for the school than Johnny Science Major. Last time I checked, no one is selling out the chemistry building to watch people do lab experiments. It might be wrong, but it’s reality. Until the paradigm of society shifts back to intelligence and education (in lieu of sports and entertainment), we will continue to see the problem.
I’m a hs teacher and see the dangerous lure of major college sports. I do have to give credit to the SEC and ACC programs I’ve encountered b/c they are very clear about their academic standards during players’ junior and senior years. Perhaps Spurrier should pay closer attention to those details before offering a scholarship.
By DanDawg
August 12, 2007 9:51 PM | Link to this
Spurrier did not have enough room for these recruits. He was posturing to save face with SC high school coaches and the players themselves.
By DaddyDawg
August 13, 2007 4:37 AM | Link to this
Tony:
I agree with your comments that schools should be responsible for determining freshman eligibility before fall practice begins. How can a school offer a student a scholarship in good conscience and good faith if it can subsequently deny the kid admission based upon information it knew or should have known at the time the school extended the scholarship offer?? Of course, the scholarship offer should be conditioned or contingent upon the student successfully graduating from high school and obtaining the necessary entrance exam score to gain admission, as well as demonstrate that there has been no material change in the individual’s legal or personal situation that could affect his or her status as a student/athlete. What apparently happened at SC had no relationship to these issues.
Tony, I do think that Spurrier’s public denouncement of the admissions process at SC (and at least an implied criticism of the President of SC) was largely for show in order to allow Spurrier to save face with in-state coaches because SC had deliberately oversigned and could not accept all the signees as scholarship/athletes under NCAA rules even if it wanted to admit all of them. The press “bought” Spurrier’s claim because it has surface appeal and is a real issue which needs to be addressed, although the SC situation probably did not involve a questionable denial of admission…. it arose from SC’s oversigning of athletes to grant-in-aids that it could not honor when enough of the athletes unexpectedly ended up qualifying for admission. The press needed to cover critically the real issue, rather than the more attractive decoy or bait that Spurrier created and the press willingly swallowed hook, line and sinker. Someone should have called Spurrier on the real issue; instead, the press gave him a free pass. In my book, that’s not responsible journalism because the press failed to ask the right questions for the wrong reasons.
By Neil Bass
August 13, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this
This amazes me! South Carolina has academic requirements? When I was there all you had to do was fog a glass to get in. If a course was a little too difficult, you just paid someone else to take it for you. If they can deal with Spurrier’s playbook then academics at USC shouldn’t be a problem.
By SOS
August 15, 2007 1:27 AM | Link to this
Where to begin????
Because of the three academic casualties at SC, Spurrier has already said there will be “two or three” scholarships available to walk-ons this year…So the “posturing” comments only show the writers’ ignorance.
And for those Univ. of South Carolina academic protagonists, the admission rates at SC are lower than two of the four other SEC schools on Kiplinger.com’s List of 100 Best Values in Public Colleges…and behind Georgia by only three percentage points.
Florida - 52% Georgia - 65% South Carolina - 68% Alabama - 74% Tennessee - 74%