Calipari's UK squad not performing in the classroom
by Patroclus on May 3, 2010 1:57 PM PDT
Email
PrintMaybe a little off-topic, but with the sometimes contentious discussions regarding Coach Howland and the recent performance of the basketball program, it may be interesting to see what is happening with another of the basketball blue-bloods, in an area that under CBH, the Bruins have not had significant issues in (academics).
The Lexington Herald-Leader recently published an article looking at the recent academic performance of the Kentucky Basketball team. Apparently, coach Cal's new players are not lighting up the classroom in Lexington.
John Calipari's first University of Kentucky team performed much better on the court than in the classroom. Its fall semester grades were the worst of all 20 UK athletic teams and the worst of any UK men's basketball team since spring 2002.
The same Kentucky team that won the Southeastern Conference regular-season and post-season tournament championships had a cumulative grade-point average of 2.025 for the fall semester, according to records obtained by the Herald-Leader through an open records request.
Yes, that is a 2.025 team average GPA (Florida led the SEC with a 2.96 team GPA). Apparently, the NCAA allows schools to set a minimum GPA as low as a 1.80 for student-athletes to remain eligible for competition, which UK has adopted as its own grade floor. Additionally, this 1.80 GPA minimum does not apply to freshmen student-athletes. Two members of Callipari's heralded freshman class could not meet even this low standard (Super-frosh and expected #1 draft pick-to be John Wall is not one of these two players; taking a prior statement by Calipari at face value, Wall was one of two UK players to earn a 3.0+ GPA in the fall semester).
Given his habit of attracting one-and-dones to create hyper-talented teams, it seems that Calipari may have found his perfect home. All he needs now is for Senora Ross to open a correspondence school to give his returning players an equal footing.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
57 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Don't have that informaiton handy
But here are some relevant datapoints:
Two Bruins including Malcolm Lee made the Pac-10 All Academic team this season.
As far as I know under Ben Howland’s leadership no UCLA player has ever been academically ineligible at UCLA.
Last time UCLA basketball players became ineligible due to academics were during Steve Lavin era (T. J. Cummings and Andre Patterson).
And for the sake of the comparison
Let’s say our minimum GPA is also 1.80, that is still much tougher to earn over here than at Kentucky.
frosh eligibility is another issue
it looks like players @ kentucky are not sublect to gpa-based suspension as freshmen (not sure if there is a minimum # of credits req before the end of the 1st year). At UCLA, at least, freshmen can be ruled academically ineligible – on the Football side, I believe N recently posted that Carroll plus one other frosh is ineligible for the spring (track) quarter due to academics.
formerly bruinhoo
by Patroclus on May 3, 2010 2:50 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
What's the point in having academic standards
If not everyone is subject to them equally? I could be talking about this on a number of levels, but doesn’t the fact that the NCAA has an absolute minimum limit mean that you can’t just exempt yourself from it when you feel like it? Or is the NCAA minimum standard also not applicable to freshman? Either way, this whole thing stinks.
Yup Carroll + Price
Actually now I can see Calipari’s recruiting strategy. If a kid all set on “one and done” through college … he can come to Kentucky and basically get around 1.8 in first semester and then essentially blow off the entire second semester. Are any of these freshmen even in school since declaring for the NBA?
It just makes perfect sense how he can roll in these ones and dones. Honestly we can’t even blame him. He is just playing by the “rules” set up by the NCAA and apparently within the academic parameters of UK.
not even that...
His one-and-doned do not even have to meet the 1.8 standard. One of the freshmen had a 1.6gpa in the fall, another had a 1.75. assuming a kid doesn’t get seriously injured and harm his draft stock, there is no real motivation for even the 1.8, as the player would be dropping out during the spring semester.
formerly bruinhoo
by Patroclus on May 3, 2010 3:29 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Wow
That is unbelievable. That rule is a joke.
"The entire world that bleeds blue and gold ... they have been dying for this." - Coach Rick Neuheisel
Actually, the school is the joke
Does anyone believe, for a minute that the UK administration does not know what is going on?
UK basketball has become a “pro” farm team where school is incidental.
Calamari is probably recruiting telling people that they won’t really have to go to class, that they play one year, get exposure and go pro.
And, Kentucky plays along with this.
Does anyone believe that any other school would do this?
What board of regents would look the other way? How demeaning of the faculty and student at the school.
sjh
Memphis and UMass come to mind.
There will be more, I’m afraid, until the rules are changed.
by AllHailMightyBruins on May 3, 2010 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions
You were a faculty member once, sjh
What do the profs actually do about this sort of thing? It is an embarrassment, obviously, but can’t anyone do anything? A tenured prof has a bit of insulation. If there is a prof at Kentucky with any sort of academic reputation outside of the school (and I’m not trying to insult anyone, I simply don’t know), why wouldn’t he or she speak out on the issue? Is it that they don’t know or that they don’t care?
I looked at the Kentucky blog, and it seemed to me that many of the folks there were upset about the state of things. There were many posts that sound a little like the people at conquest comicals who still don’t undetstand how anyone could think that there is anything wrong with the athletic program. But no one who I perceived to be a faculty member stepped up.
What’s your take on the absence of faculty outrage, steve?
Sorry for the delayed response -- just saw this.
As dynamic and aggressive as professors may seem in class — many are really rather timid and non-confrontational. It’s one thing to beat up on a student who really has no power in the dynamic because, in the end, the professor grades him or her, and another to stand up in public where the debate is uncontrolled and take on a cause.
I think the fight would be with the alums who identify themselves with the success of athletic programs and don’t have the same inner sense of the academic mission that dominates most faculty. Money talks and the money comes from alums — including much of the funding for research and tangible things.
It has been a long while since I’ve actively associated with a faculty or gone to a faculty meeting. There were times when we got involved with issues of the campus and world — for example, the Wisconsin faculty was pivotal in the movement that led to the State creating an investment policy that factored in “human rights” violations in deciding where to invest. And, the faculty voted to bar ROTC and the military from campus because of its discrimination against homosexuals (a vote that was ignored by the Chancellor and rendered meaningless).
Which is another reason faculties don’t act, often. They have no power. They can express outrage, but then what? Weakly organized and fearful, I’ve not seen many a faculty member willing to put anything at risk for a social principle. It’s one thing to write and speak, another to act. (Yes, there are outstanding examples to the contrary, but not many.)
There are strong, principled faculty members at all schools, including sc. Yet, we’ve not seen them act to “protect” the reputation of their institutions. Why? I think the factors I’ve listed contribute to their silence.
sjh
One More Thought
The NCAA would be an obvious vehicle for faculty governance on these issues. After all, faculty rep’s serve on the committees and dominate the structure.
So,the real question is who are the faculty rep’s the schools choose. In my experience, they are either ex-athletes or “wannabe’s/suck ups” who want to be close to the sports departments. These “insiders” will rarely do anything to upset the coaches who make them feel like “insiders” and faux jocks.
How cool to attend a bowl game on the NCAA as a faculty rep. One to tell the kids about.
sjh
And, Another -- UCSD
One of my BN brothers sent me an email pointing out that even though UCSD students sport t-shirts saying “UCSD Football — Still Undefeated”, UCSD did, in fact, field a football team for one year — and then it was abolished after strong attack from the faculty.
Every effort to restart (or in their eyes “start” the program) has come under faculty attack — because it would “lower academic standards” and because it would divert resources.
I happen to disagree with both grounds. A good program would be self sustaining and perhaps lead to a long term culture of greater alum giving. And, it seems UCSD is in the perfect position to start a program with real standards.
I mention this because the take away for me is that it is easier for a faculty to stop something from happening than to try and change something that is entrenched.
Kentucky basketball is entrenched. And, it is certainly a cash cow. The same can be said for trogan football. I’m sure that were the faculties given a choice, before these programs were corrupted, to decide whether they would want them in this form, they would have said “no”. But, the cow is out of the barn, the cash out of the wallets, and the faculties without much power to corral them.
sjh
3 kinds of coaches
There are coaches I like and respect.
There are coaches I dislike, but respect.
There are coaches who I dislike, do not respect, and are simply bad for college basketball.
Guess which category Cal falls into?
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
Let me guess...
The same one cheaty would fall into? :)
"The entire world that bleeds blue and gold ... they have been dying for this." - Coach Rick Neuheisel
I have a question
I have twice heard now retired mediocre chair chucker but renowned West Point/Indiana/Texas Tech Coach Bobby Knight angrily state a one and done can enroll and never, and I mean never, attend class at all, play and after his freshman year matriculate to the NBA. Is Coach Knight right?
by peggysue69 on May 3, 2010 6:36 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Knight says that they never have to attend class in the second semester
and that is true. They just need to get by first semester and they can never show up to a single second semester class, yet play out the season.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on May 3, 2010 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah
That’s what I was assuming up thread. The way its set up it looks like they don’t have to even go to classes (or take them) in second semester. So its basically get a GPA of somewhere between 1.6 and 1.8 in the first semester and they are good to go.
Thanks
Thanks for clarifying the point. Much appreciated.
Yes Knight is right;
What they need to do is do the first semester and never show up again. During the first semester they can take mickey mouse courses like many stars do, thus really never taking any classes that have any substance. The NCAA is a joke to be honest, and so are the “rules”.
They are about to go on double-secret probation
Stupid, drunk and good at basketball is no way to go through life, son.
That actually doesn't sound so bad...
It’s the system that is broken. I find it difficult to blame the kids who take advantage of it. And as much as I hate Calipari, he’s still working within the system (as far as we know) this time. Mark Emmert’s first act as NCAA President should be to reach out to David Stern, and figure out what to do about the ridiculous one and done rule.
We're havin' too much fun today. We ain't thinkin' 'bout tomorrow.
Nothing that Emmert can do about it
One-and-done, really, is between Stern and the NBPA. He could call the commissioner up and complain about it, but getting to dodge Stern’s secretary is about all the power that the NCAA President has in this particular matter.
formerly bruinhoo
When Myles Brand was President
he met with Stern and discussed the issues that the one and done rule causes for the NCAA, but he couldn’t do anything, just like Emmert can’t do anything. All he can do is try to convince because he has no power.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on May 4, 2010 1:55 AM PDT up reply actions
The NCAA Can Do Things On Its End
There can be sanctions placed on schools that take advantage of one-and-done at the expense of academic integrity. For example, the NCAA can punish a school if an athlete does not pass an entire year of classes — even if he leaves at the end of the year.
Many alternatives have been discussed here, at length, in the past.
Right now, there is no disincentive for people like Calamari. BTW, Steve Bruin — I disagree that he is “working within the system”. In interpreting laws we look at both the letter of the law and the “spirit” of the law. I doubt few would argue that the system’s intent is to allow student athletes to attend one semester of school, get less than a passing average, and still play ball. I doubt that Calamari would make that argument publicly (although I believe he says it privately when recruiting.)
Of course, I’ve made the intellectual blunder of the week by using the words “sanction” and “NCAA” in the same sentence. The NCAA won’t do anything because it does not care. In the same way it does not care about the trogan program.
sjh
There are LOTS of things the ncaa can do even if the nba chooses to do nothing.
I’ve made some of these suggestions before, but here is another list of things.
1. Limit scholarships. Have each kid’s scholarship be for four years. In Darren Collisson’s case, it would be a well-deserved scholarship. In Jrue Holiday’s case, we would have an empty scholarship seat on the bench for three years. That has nothing to do with the NCAA. That would have no impact on probably 300 of the 320 or so D-1 schools. But if you choose to go the route taken by Calimari, then you won’t have as many scholarships to give out.
2. Change the way eligibility is measured. Schools have a list of core classes that have to be taken in order to graduate. During the season, have a progress report once a week. The prof attests under penalty of perjury that the player is progressing adequately. (The prof would probably have to have quizzes for the players. How tough would it be for a prof to find time to have a quiz for the 13 or 14 players on a team?) The player also attests under penalty of perjury, as does the head coach and athletic director. Then when it turns out that the kid never went to school, all of those guys are looking at potential criminal charges. (Well, that’s a stretch, I suppose.) My point is not to leave things until after the fact. Put the onus on the player to prove he’s eligible on a week by week basis, and have that responsibility shared by the prof and by the coaching staff.
3. First and foremost, but obviously the least likely to happen, is that the ncaa could grow a set of cojones.
I’m not going to sit back and watch my plans for peace in the Middle East to come to fruition.
I really like your idea number 1
I don’t think four years is reasonable, but I do think at least two years is.
by silverlakebruin on May 4, 2010 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Two years could be workable
Make it so that when a scholarship athlete enrolls at a university, their scholarship is reserved for 2 years (or until the player graduates, which may come into play for incoming transfers). If a player leaves the school for any reason, his scholarshipi cannot be given out until what would have been the start of his Junior year.
Of course, someone has to convince the NCAA and member schools that such a proposal is in their best interest.
formerly bruinhoo
But why punish the school?
If a kid decides to screw the school, why does the school have to lose a good player AND lose the scholarship for the next year? True, most one-and-dones are pretty obvious, but still.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
The Schools Are Not Victims
They are perpetrators and enablers.
The NCAA cannot set the standards for the NBA. It cannot punish the NBA.
It can put the “risk” of miscalculating the academic interests of a prospective recruit on the schools. And, it can create an incentive for a school so that it makes sure its kids are 1. qualified to do the academic work in the school; 2. go to class; 3. study AND take advantage of the tutoring and special benefits offered; and 4. Pass their classes.
1.8 in the first semester and then non-attendance in the second is not acceptable. And, a school that allows itself to be “victimized” in that way is not a victim — it is a perpetrator.
sjh
I agree with Steve and would go further
These guys are not signing a minor league contract to hone their athletic skills when the get a scholarship. They are committing to attend school and to do it for free (something that 30,000 other kids would like to have) in exchange for playing a sport. The emphasis there is that they are committing to attend school, with the obvious conclusion being to obtain a degree.
My preference would be to have each scholarship be for four years. Everybody from the teams in my era stayed for four years. Now, of course, we have the “new, improved” brand of athlete, who wants to collect the big bucks in the pro game (also something that the other 30,000 kids would like to have.) Once a scholarship is accepted, it stays accepted for four years. If a kid turns pro, he can still come back and get his education through that scholarship. For players at 300 of the 320 or so D-1 schools, it is exactly what they’re doing now. The screaming and yelling is about the schools who elect to sign kids who aren’t committed for four years. Too bad. Calimari will hire the same kids, no matter what the rule is, and then leave when it’s time to pay the piper. Coach Howland sill see someone like Kevin Love, and say “I want him, even if it’s just for a year.” Once in a while, someone like Westbrook will come along and will blossom overnight and leave. Pardon my strong language, but that would just be tough toenails.
Of course there’s a downside. Some kids would not be offered scholarships, because maybe they tell the coach up front that they’re not going to stay for four years. There are a whole bunch of two year colleges where kids can get an education, for a year at least. Maybe CBS would start televising the Community College playoffs as well. Or maybe the nba would form a minor league. Give all the kids who think they are one and done a chance to play in that league, and if they’re not going to make it, then the ncaa could make an exception and let them into one of the big schools (although that would not be my preference.)
Another downside would be what to do with a kid who drops out of school for some reason other than going pro. My solution there is pretty simple – as soon as his class graduates, then the school has another scholarship to offer. The key word there is “graduate.” If a scholarship player doesn’t graduate in four years, then there’s a loss of a scholarship.
I don’t think this is harsh at all. I keep thinking of all the commercials I saw (but didn’t hear, naturally) for the ncaa touting how all their scholar-athletes go on to bright careers in some other field. I think the ncaa should hold its member schools to the standard they espouse in their commercials.
None of this requires any action outside the ncaa. The nba and the nfl don’t have to do a thing. All that is required is that the ncaa have the courage to remember what the “C” stands for – collegiate. It’s college athletics for college students.
Why not adjust the rookie salary structure
Make rookie salary maximum’s dependant upon age/experience. Let kids come out of high school but if you come out of high school your max contract is league minimum as a rookie plus an additional $100k each of the next two years. One-and-dones could earn a max of 3X the previous year’s rookie max in their first year and players that play two years in college could earn 3X the previous year’s one-and-done max.
In this system, kids that really need the money can get money right away and NBA teams don’t have to pay big $ to babysit 18 year olds (instead they pay the league minimum to babysit 18 year olds). The college game benefits as more players stick around, the NBA benefits as rookies on average would be more experienced and ready to contribute players and the players’ association should be ok with it as fewer not-ready-for-prime-time players push vets out the door.
you could also make a first pick exception
if the team with the first pick in the draft is willing to ink a deal with a high schooler or one-and-done right then, they can do it for the max rookie contract regardless of class: this way a phenom like Lebron doesn’t have to waste his time on the college game when he’s obviously ready to contribute in the league and teams with the #1 pick can select franchise-making phenoms if they’re available.
I'd love to see the classes being taken by these 'student-athletes'
How many gym classes and ballroom dancing courses are offered?
It's a little disturbing
When I see people say that one school is easier than another. I know there are some courses that are easier than others but a blanket statement about a school seems insulting.
I think the fact that a one and done player can flunk his first semester and not show up the second is very bad. If UK is anything like UCLA, there are a lot of teachers who could care less about sports in general and are just there to teach. Unless UK has Senora Ross type of issues, I think it’s disrespectful to paint them with such a broad brush.
As soon as Kentucky does something about academic standards for its athletes, I'll get a narrower brush.
But for now, Kentucky seems to be just a bluer version of just$c*.
So not surprising
He’s going to pull a cheat carroll.
Can you imagine the bulls with noah and rose, coached by the slimeball? I don’t think a professional sports team, other than $uc of course, has ever existed that I would want to see lose every game so badly.
How long until
Brandon Knight reopens his recruitment…
He'll leave UK with a ton of violations and vacated season
just like he did UMass and Memphis.
UK got what it deserved hiring that cheating bastard.
by silverlakebruin on May 4, 2010 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions
No way; unless he gets a bus load of money.
Calipari and most coaches in the NBA and NFL that come from college to the pro’s, stink. In the pro’s they actually have to evaluate talent instead of what they do in college; pick players by the national ranking groups that evaluate them. If they are at a big time school, they can pick and choose who they want.
Calipari was comical his last NBA stint. The worst was Rick Pitino who couldn’t evaluate talent if it hit him on the head. The last straw was him dumping Chauncey Billups saying that he would at best be a back up point guard in the NBA because he lacked heart and a killer instinct.
I would NEVER hire a college coach.
mmmm...what about Larry Brown?
only exception I could think of…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
