Full Version: S. Carolina Football Players Denied Admission
From ESPN:
I thought I would make the questions from the perspective of the three parties involved: the athlete, the school, and the Coach.
Questions for Debate:
1. Should players have a reasonable expectation that if they meet the NCAA's guidelines they should be admitted to the school they signed a letter of intent with?
2. Does the School have a responsibility to the athlete that was recruited by virtue of him signing a letter of intent? Or are academic standards the pre-eminent measurement to be upheld, regardless of the potential student's activity at the University?
3. Is the Coach right in expecting the University to admit the student once he's been vetted by the NCAA?
QUOTE
University of South Carolina officials say they're willing to work with football coach Steve Spurrier -- but they won't completely rewrite the school's admissions policies to do so.
School officials defended the university's admissions standards a day after Spurrier harshly criticized the school for denying admission to two would-be football players who met minimum NCAA standards.
"Every student that's NCAA-qualified is not necessarily going to succeed and shouldn't be accepted," Bill Bearden, South Carolina's NCAA faculty athletics representative, told The State newspaper of Columbia.
Bearden and three other tenured professors make up the university's special admissions committee, which, according to provost Mark Becker, reviewed more than half of the Gamecocks' football signees. The committee denied admission to three of the players, one of whom was eventually admitted on appeal, The State reported.
Spurrier was angered that receiver Michael Bowman of Wadesboro, N.C., and Arkee Smith of Jacksonville, Fla., were cleared by the NCAA to enroll, yet were turned down by the university.
"Hopefully, I truly believe this is the last year this is going to happen, because I can't operate like that," Spurrier said on Sunday. "I can't operate misleading young men."
School officials defended the university's admissions standards a day after Spurrier harshly criticized the school for denying admission to two would-be football players who met minimum NCAA standards.
"Every student that's NCAA-qualified is not necessarily going to succeed and shouldn't be accepted," Bill Bearden, South Carolina's NCAA faculty athletics representative, told The State newspaper of Columbia.
Bearden and three other tenured professors make up the university's special admissions committee, which, according to provost Mark Becker, reviewed more than half of the Gamecocks' football signees. The committee denied admission to three of the players, one of whom was eventually admitted on appeal, The State reported.
Spurrier was angered that receiver Michael Bowman of Wadesboro, N.C., and Arkee Smith of Jacksonville, Fla., were cleared by the NCAA to enroll, yet were turned down by the university.
"Hopefully, I truly believe this is the last year this is going to happen, because I can't operate like that," Spurrier said on Sunday. "I can't operate misleading young men."
I thought I would make the questions from the perspective of the three parties involved: the athlete, the school, and the Coach.
Questions for Debate:
1. Should players have a reasonable expectation that if they meet the NCAA's guidelines they should be admitted to the school they signed a letter of intent with?
2. Does the School have a responsibility to the athlete that was recruited by virtue of him signing a letter of intent? Or are academic standards the pre-eminent measurement to be upheld, regardless of the potential student's activity at the University?
3. Is the Coach right in expecting the University to admit the student once he's been vetted by the NCAA?
1. Should players have a reasonable expectation that if they meet the NCAA's guidelines they should be admitted to the school they signed a letter of intent with?
2. Does the School have a responsibility to the athlete that was recruited by virtue of him signing a letter of intent? Or are academic standards the pre-eminent measurement to be upheld, regardless of the potential student's activity at the University?
I'll answer these first two together. It seems that the college admissions people should become involved earlier in the process, really prior to the recruiting of the player. The NCAA has some very strict rules concerning the recruiting process in terms of number of visits, etc. I think the athletic department and the admissions committee should work a little closer together prior to recruiting a player. It shouldn't get to the point where a player signs a letter of intent which is effectively a contract only to be denied admission.
3. Is the Coach right in expecting the University to admit the student once he's been vetted by the NCAA?
No, a University's admissions standards should be set by the University, not by the NCAA. The NCAA standards are only for eligibility to compete in Intercollegiate athletics. Some schools have much higher standards and that makes it a more difficult for the coaches at those schools to recruit certain top-level athletes. The military academies come to mind although they've had some pretty darn good athletes playing for them. Roger Staubach and David Robinson from the Naval Academy come to mind.
Aquilla
2. Does the School have a responsibility to the athlete that was recruited by virtue of him signing a letter of intent? Or are academic standards the pre-eminent measurement to be upheld, regardless of the potential student's activity at the University?
I'll answer these first two together. It seems that the college admissions people should become involved earlier in the process, really prior to the recruiting of the player. The NCAA has some very strict rules concerning the recruiting process in terms of number of visits, etc. I think the athletic department and the admissions committee should work a little closer together prior to recruiting a player. It shouldn't get to the point where a player signs a letter of intent which is effectively a contract only to be denied admission.
3. Is the Coach right in expecting the University to admit the student once he's been vetted by the NCAA?
No, a University's admissions standards should be set by the University, not by the NCAA. The NCAA standards are only for eligibility to compete in Intercollegiate athletics. Some schools have much higher standards and that makes it a more difficult for the coaches at those schools to recruit certain top-level athletes. The military academies come to mind although they've had some pretty darn good athletes playing for them. Roger Staubach and David Robinson from the Naval Academy come to mind.
Aquilla
1. Should players have a reasonable expectation that if they meet the NCAA's guidelines they should be admitted to the school they signed a letter of intent with?
Absolutely not. Most of these premier high school athletes are molly coddled from a young age and it’s their responsibility to find out each colleges admission requirements and work to meet them.
There’s a reason Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt and other academically outstanding colleges suffer on the gridiron (Notre Dame seems to be the exception). But there’s the slippery slope, every college that isn’t in the academic upper tier strives to get there and one way is to strengthen academic admission qualifications, but then the athletic program suffers.
2. Does the School have a responsibility to the athlete that was recruited by virtue of him signing a letter of intent? Or are academic standards the pre-eminent measurement to be upheld, regardless of the potential student's activity at the University?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? In this case it’s easy, colleges were institutes of higher education long before they added multi-million dollar athletic programs. Athletes typically make up such a small percentage of the total student population that they shouldn’t be the ones dictating the academic standards.
3. Is the Coach right in expecting the University to admit the student once he's been vetted by the NCAA?
The coach also bears the responsibility to understand the admissions policy and ensure the recruits understand as well. During the in home visit or when the recruit makes the official visit they need to discuss those admission policies and the chances of fulfilling them.
I’d love to see coach Superior right now, with that pouting lower lip and all (and he and the Gamecocks are going down on 10/4).
Absolutely not. Most of these premier high school athletes are molly coddled from a young age and it’s their responsibility to find out each colleges admission requirements and work to meet them.
There’s a reason Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt and other academically outstanding colleges suffer on the gridiron (Notre Dame seems to be the exception). But there’s the slippery slope, every college that isn’t in the academic upper tier strives to get there and one way is to strengthen academic admission qualifications, but then the athletic program suffers.
2. Does the School have a responsibility to the athlete that was recruited by virtue of him signing a letter of intent? Or are academic standards the pre-eminent measurement to be upheld, regardless of the potential student's activity at the University?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? In this case it’s easy, colleges were institutes of higher education long before they added multi-million dollar athletic programs. Athletes typically make up such a small percentage of the total student population that they shouldn’t be the ones dictating the academic standards.
3. Is the Coach right in expecting the University to admit the student once he's been vetted by the NCAA?
The coach also bears the responsibility to understand the admissions policy and ensure the recruits understand as well. During the in home visit or when the recruit makes the official visit they need to discuss those admission policies and the chances of fulfilling them.
I’d love to see coach Superior right now, with that pouting lower lip and all (and he and the Gamecocks are going down on 10/4).
QUOTE
Questions for Debate:
1. Should players have a reasonable expectation that if they meet the NCAA's guidelines they should be admitted to the school they signed a letter of intent with?
2. Does the School have a responsibility to the athlete that was recruited by virtue of him signing a letter of intent? Or are academic standards the pre-eminent measurement to be upheld, regardless of the potential student's activity at the University?
3. Is the Coach right in expecting the University to admit the student once he's been vetted by the NCAA?
1. Should players have a reasonable expectation that if they meet the NCAA's guidelines they should be admitted to the school they signed a letter of intent with?
2. Does the School have a responsibility to the athlete that was recruited by virtue of him signing a letter of intent? Or are academic standards the pre-eminent measurement to be upheld, regardless of the potential student's activity at the University?
3. Is the Coach right in expecting the University to admit the student once he's been vetted by the NCAA?
Sounds to me like Spurrier, the department of admissions, and the administration at large are not on the same page here. I would speculate that the head coaches of Harvard,Yale, and Michigan are more "in the know" in regards to who can be admitted to their respective colleges. The NCAA isn't in charge of admissions, the given university admisssions department is. Playing footaball is a privilege, not a right. A student's first priority is academics and eve non-athletes should know that the bare minimum might get you in, but in all likelihood, it might not.
2. Does the School have a responsibility to the athlete that was recruited by virtue of him signing a letter of intent? Or are academic standards the pre-eminent measurement to be upheld, regardless of the potential student's activity at the University?
It's nice to see a University put Academics ahead of Athletics for once! Schools need to be in the business of cultivating minds, not acting as a front for professional sports. Too often, some athletes who can't meet the academic standards will get through college by taking very easy classes. And that can hurt the academic reputation of a school.
It's nice to see a University put Academics ahead of Athletics for once! Schools need to be in the business of cultivating minds, not acting as a front for professional sports. Too often, some athletes who can't meet the academic standards will get through college by taking very easy classes. And that can hurt the academic reputation of a school.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.