It’s that time of year again – where teams that barely finished above .500 get invited to another meaningless college bowl games designed to make them feel good about themselves. Yes, it is the collegiate version of the ‘Participation Trophy’ that small children get so that their self-esteem isn’t crushed. At least those are given for, at most, a weekend’s worth of activity. The bowl games go on for a month.
Some of these games are absolutely ridiculous, such as today’s Pinstripe Bowl. Really? The Pinstripe Bowl? Who would sponsor such a thing? The suits worn by Chicago gangsters during the 1930′s? The New York Yankees? Guess we now know why the Steinbrenners are not spending money on free agents this year. The sponsorship rights for this bowl game must have really cut into their budget.
So, who actually cares about these games? Well, the parents of the players involved. Maybe. Chances are, most of them are bored out of their skulls, like they’re stuck watching some crappy elementary school play. At any rate, the only people that have any real interest in these games are degenerate gamblers and Las Vegas. Yup, more chances to separate so-called ‘experts’ from their cash when they bet on a college they just learned existed.
Seriously, why do these bowl games exist? Just to pump more money into the coffers of the NCAA. Meanwhile, they will just continue to be ignored by the world at large.
Showing posts with label NCAA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NCAA. Show all posts
Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Handling College Scandals
In light of recent allegations made by convicted felon Nevin Shapiro, the University of Miami is looking at a bleak future. In claims made to Yahoo! Sports, he has claimed to have given money, prostitutes, and even paid for an abortion for over seventy former and current players at the university. Shapiro had access to places that most people were not allowed to go into, and was often seen out with players at nightclubs, parties, and other venues.
As such, there are rumors that the University of Miami could be given the death penalty, which would set the program back for a long time. The days of the U being one of the preeminent college football factories would be all but over. The brunt of the punishment would fall upon players and a coaching staff that had nothing to do with the situation, but would be forced to play under the realization that they are essentially screwed.
Yet, is this the best solution? To punish a team, and subsequently players, for years that may not have had anything to do with the scandal? Often, the coaching staff that was in charge during the payoffs and scandals has long since left. The players are no longer with the university. Regardless, the institution and their football team bares the brunt of the punishment while those responsible walk away without any repercussions. Is this truly in the best interests of the NCAA?
There is a better way. Place these sanctions on the coach and, if he has knowledge of the situation, the athletic director that were there during that time. The coach leaves, the sanctions follow the coach and athletic director. Do not place the punishment upon people that had nothing to do with what was happening. Put the punishment where it belongs – on those responcible.
By doing so, it takes away the safety net of being able to move to another program and not have to deal with the problem. For instance, why should Pete Carroll be able to go to another college with a clean slate when his former school is paying for transgressions that occurred under his watch? It is not right. Make Carroll pay for what happened, not people that were not even there.
This would be the best course of action, and would cause coaches to pay more attention to what is actually happening off the field. However, this is a logical solution, and any entity that thinks a playoff to determine a national champion is wrong obviously cannot be expected to do the logical thing.
As such, there are rumors that the University of Miami could be given the death penalty, which would set the program back for a long time. The days of the U being one of the preeminent college football factories would be all but over. The brunt of the punishment would fall upon players and a coaching staff that had nothing to do with the situation, but would be forced to play under the realization that they are essentially screwed.
Yet, is this the best solution? To punish a team, and subsequently players, for years that may not have had anything to do with the scandal? Often, the coaching staff that was in charge during the payoffs and scandals has long since left. The players are no longer with the university. Regardless, the institution and their football team bares the brunt of the punishment while those responsible walk away without any repercussions. Is this truly in the best interests of the NCAA?
There is a better way. Place these sanctions on the coach and, if he has knowledge of the situation, the athletic director that were there during that time. The coach leaves, the sanctions follow the coach and athletic director. Do not place the punishment upon people that had nothing to do with what was happening. Put the punishment where it belongs – on those responcible.
By doing so, it takes away the safety net of being able to move to another program and not have to deal with the problem. For instance, why should Pete Carroll be able to go to another college with a clean slate when his former school is paying for transgressions that occurred under his watch? It is not right. Make Carroll pay for what happened, not people that were not even there.
This would be the best course of action, and would cause coaches to pay more attention to what is actually happening off the field. However, this is a logical solution, and any entity that thinks a playoff to determine a national champion is wrong obviously cannot be expected to do the logical thing.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Don't Blame Tressel
After a five month saga involving investigations into Ohio State University and several of it's players, Jim Tressel resigned on Memorial Day. The fact that he left the university is not surprising on it's own, but what is surprising is that he left of his own accord.
Tressel was originally suspended for two games by the university due to his players getting deals on cars, selling championship rings and jerseys, and parting with team items for money. Meanwhile, the players that were mainly involved were suspended for five games. With all of the outrage over the token suspension that he was given, Tressel added on another three games to his own punishment. Now, as the scandal continues to deepen and his knowledge of the situation has proven to be more extensive than previously thought, Tressel has resigned rather than continue to face the scrutiny that he is under.
Sure, it is easy to vilify Tressel for looking the other way, and not being forthright with investigators. It's easy to make him the bad guy in all of this, and the fact that very few people are running to his defense speaks volumes. But what is lost in all of this is that Ohio State University and Jim Tressel are not the only ones doing these things. This happens everywhere.
Colleges provide scholarships for their athletes - this is true. But what do they provide for housing and for meals? Where do these kids get the money to go out and have fun? It's easy to say that they should get a job, but if they are expected to carry a certain GPA, AND practice forty hours a week, where is the time to be employed? The rigors of a full-time college schedule can be quite daunting on their own, never mind trying to learn a playbook and be a part of a team expected to contend for a national championship every year.
If the NCAA really wanted to dig into every program, they would find skeletons in every closet. However, the NCAA likes the status quo, where they slap down a few schools dumb enough to get caught and turn a blind eye to the rest. If Tressel is truly guilty of anything, it is getting caught.
The NCAA and these schools make obscene amounts of money from their college football and basketball athletes, yet none of the players see a dime of it. If the NCAA was serious about stopping these situations, they would give the athletes a weekly stipend to take care of their day to day, and not have to resort to selling a jersey to make rent. If the choice is to break the rules and have a place to stay or follow the rules and be homeless, which would you do?
But the NCAA is more concerned with upholding the facade of the 'student-athlete' and the supposed amateur aspect of their game, claiming that it is for the good of these kids. If they truly cared about the students, they would find ways to keep them from having to worry about whether or not they should be signing an autograph to get food.
Tressel, while at fault, is hardly the only bad guy in all of this. The entire system is rotten to the core.
Tressel was originally suspended for two games by the university due to his players getting deals on cars, selling championship rings and jerseys, and parting with team items for money. Meanwhile, the players that were mainly involved were suspended for five games. With all of the outrage over the token suspension that he was given, Tressel added on another three games to his own punishment. Now, as the scandal continues to deepen and his knowledge of the situation has proven to be more extensive than previously thought, Tressel has resigned rather than continue to face the scrutiny that he is under.
Sure, it is easy to vilify Tressel for looking the other way, and not being forthright with investigators. It's easy to make him the bad guy in all of this, and the fact that very few people are running to his defense speaks volumes. But what is lost in all of this is that Ohio State University and Jim Tressel are not the only ones doing these things. This happens everywhere.
Colleges provide scholarships for their athletes - this is true. But what do they provide for housing and for meals? Where do these kids get the money to go out and have fun? It's easy to say that they should get a job, but if they are expected to carry a certain GPA, AND practice forty hours a week, where is the time to be employed? The rigors of a full-time college schedule can be quite daunting on their own, never mind trying to learn a playbook and be a part of a team expected to contend for a national championship every year.
If the NCAA really wanted to dig into every program, they would find skeletons in every closet. However, the NCAA likes the status quo, where they slap down a few schools dumb enough to get caught and turn a blind eye to the rest. If Tressel is truly guilty of anything, it is getting caught.
The NCAA and these schools make obscene amounts of money from their college football and basketball athletes, yet none of the players see a dime of it. If the NCAA was serious about stopping these situations, they would give the athletes a weekly stipend to take care of their day to day, and not have to resort to selling a jersey to make rent. If the choice is to break the rules and have a place to stay or follow the rules and be homeless, which would you do?
But the NCAA is more concerned with upholding the facade of the 'student-athlete' and the supposed amateur aspect of their game, claiming that it is for the good of these kids. If they truly cared about the students, they would find ways to keep them from having to worry about whether or not they should be signing an autograph to get food.
Tressel, while at fault, is hardly the only bad guy in all of this. The entire system is rotten to the core.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Why Does Everyone Hate Duke?
Seemingly every day in sports news, there are new allegations of recruiting violations at major colleges. Athletes are continually getting into trouble, be it for sexual assault, drugs, alcohol, or even murder. More and more, we wonder where all the coaches that do things the right way went to. We wonder where the athletes that we feel comfortable for our children to look up to are. We wonder if major college sports schools care about their athlete's education more than to just pay it lip service. Turns out that there is still such a place - Duke University.
Since arriving at Duke in 1980, coach Mike Krzyzewski has built a program based on getting solid athletes that are actually good citizens. Duke will not have the thugs, the trouble makers, or the players that refuse to realize that it is about team. The Army, where he played college basketball, has an award named in his honor - the "Coach K Teaching Character Through Sports" award - given each spring to cadets and coaches who display superior ethics and character through sports. For the most part, his athletes finish their educations. He brings back former players as coaches, helping them out to find jobs.
Yet, Coach K and the Duke basketball program are almost universally despised. Why is this? Is it due to the continual run of NCAA tournament appearances, missing the tournament once since the 1983-84 season? Is it due to the perception that Krzyzewski is a smug, arrogant individual? Is it because they seem to produce the exact same players year in and year out? Shouldn't the fact that they manage to win while upholding ethics and getting actually good citizens matter?
Duke is everything we want a program to be. So why the hatred for this program?
Since arriving at Duke in 1980, coach Mike Krzyzewski has built a program based on getting solid athletes that are actually good citizens. Duke will not have the thugs, the trouble makers, or the players that refuse to realize that it is about team. The Army, where he played college basketball, has an award named in his honor - the "Coach K Teaching Character Through Sports" award - given each spring to cadets and coaches who display superior ethics and character through sports. For the most part, his athletes finish their educations. He brings back former players as coaches, helping them out to find jobs.
Yet, Coach K and the Duke basketball program are almost universally despised. Why is this? Is it due to the continual run of NCAA tournament appearances, missing the tournament once since the 1983-84 season? Is it due to the perception that Krzyzewski is a smug, arrogant individual? Is it because they seem to produce the exact same players year in and year out? Shouldn't the fact that they manage to win while upholding ethics and getting actually good citizens matter?
Duke is everything we want a program to be. So why the hatred for this program?
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
National Signing Day
Today is considered to be National Signing Day, which is the day that most of the heavily touted high school football players declare which schools they will be attending. lately, such entities as ESPN have been trying to hype this day, even going as far as to televise these kids as they announce which school will get their services.
As with anything of a similar nature, people attempt to determine who the 'winners' and 'losers' are. For instance, Florida State and Auburn are considered to have two of the strongest recruiting classes of the year. Such projections are not only meaningless, but completely asinine. To state that one schools 17 to 18 year old kids are going to outperform another schools' kids is ridiculous. How is this determined? By seeing which schools got more of the players ranked within a specific criteria? Just because pundits happen to think that certain kids make up the 150 best high school football players in the country doesn't mean that A. They will be productive in college or B. That they will considered in the top 150 from that class later when they graduate, or even next year.
Also, televising these kids as they put on the hat of whatever school that are going to attend is utterly ridiculous. People continually act surprised when big time recruits walk around and act as though everything should be handed to them. Or that their egos are incredibly inflated. Well, televising their decisions on which school to attend or discussing it in detail does not help. In fact, it just further fans the flames. Continually discussing their thought process, poring over anything said prior to their decision to try to guess where they end up, and trying to make this the biggest sports story of the day only furthers the sense of entitlement.
Yes, this is a big deal - to those kids and the schools they choose. It just shouldn't be a televised event. And it definitely should not come with a list of who 'won' and 'lost' the recruiting war.
As with anything of a similar nature, people attempt to determine who the 'winners' and 'losers' are. For instance, Florida State and Auburn are considered to have two of the strongest recruiting classes of the year. Such projections are not only meaningless, but completely asinine. To state that one schools 17 to 18 year old kids are going to outperform another schools' kids is ridiculous. How is this determined? By seeing which schools got more of the players ranked within a specific criteria? Just because pundits happen to think that certain kids make up the 150 best high school football players in the country doesn't mean that A. They will be productive in college or B. That they will considered in the top 150 from that class later when they graduate, or even next year.
Also, televising these kids as they put on the hat of whatever school that are going to attend is utterly ridiculous. People continually act surprised when big time recruits walk around and act as though everything should be handed to them. Or that their egos are incredibly inflated. Well, televising their decisions on which school to attend or discussing it in detail does not help. In fact, it just further fans the flames. Continually discussing their thought process, poring over anything said prior to their decision to try to guess where they end up, and trying to make this the biggest sports story of the day only furthers the sense of entitlement.
Yes, this is a big deal - to those kids and the schools they choose. It just shouldn't be a televised event. And it definitely should not come with a list of who 'won' and 'lost' the recruiting war.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
When wins over two top 25 teams don't matter
Last night, the Providence College Friars defeated their second consecutive top 25 team when they defeated Villanova (8 in the AP poll) 83-68. Five days before, they defeated Louisville (23 in the AP poll) 72-67. This marked the first time in twelve years that they managed to defeat ranked opponents in back to back games.
However, these two wins are the only two victories that the Friars have in the Big East. As of this point, they are outside of their own conference tournament, and are in no way assured a berth in the NCAA tournament. While these two victories have been impressive, the Friars have also lost to some terrible programs, notably the University of Southern Florida and LaSalle.
Perhaps these two wins are a springboard for the rest of their season. In these victories, the Friars have played excellent defense, have been contesting every shot, and have taken care of the basketball. With their next two games being against Seton Hall and a rematch with USF, they have the potential to go on a little run.
The two victories over Villanova and Louisville are impressive. They just won't mean anything when March comes around.
However, these two wins are the only two victories that the Friars have in the Big East. As of this point, they are outside of their own conference tournament, and are in no way assured a berth in the NCAA tournament. While these two victories have been impressive, the Friars have also lost to some terrible programs, notably the University of Southern Florida and LaSalle.
Perhaps these two wins are a springboard for the rest of their season. In these victories, the Friars have played excellent defense, have been contesting every shot, and have taken care of the basketball. With their next two games being against Seton Hall and a rematch with USF, they have the potential to go on a little run.
The two victories over Villanova and Louisville are impressive. They just won't mean anything when March comes around.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
A coach with loyalty?
In this day and age of coaching weasels, the tendency is to move on to bigger and better things at the first opportunity. Regardless of the contract, any commitments given to recruits, or any promises made, these individuals scatter as soon as more money and a bigger name comes calling. Loyalty is as foreign a concept in this world as the automobile would be to someone in feudal Europe.
As such, it is refreshing when a coach actually keeps his commitments and displays loyalty to a school and a program that he helped build. Thus, when someone such as Boise State coach Chris Petersen rejected the overtures of Stanford to remain at the mid-major school he has helped to build. "I'm really happy to be in the position I've been the last five years," said Petersen. "I think [Stanford] is a very special place. I just thought it was worth having a conversation about, but that's about as far as it went."
No one is completely certain as to whether or not Petersen actually spoke to Stanford about their position, but that is irrelevant. In an industry where coaches routinely sign multi-year extensions only to leave weeks later or bounce from job to job at the drop of a hat, it is refreshing to find someone that might just be the anti Nick Saban.
Hopefully this signifies a change in the mindset within the coaching ranks. However, in all likelihood, this is simply an aberration. Weasel coaches will continue to make up the majority of the coaching ranks, and will continue to get the major positions at the big name schools. Loyalty exists in the mind of one coach, and it will be to his detriment.
As such, it is refreshing when a coach actually keeps his commitments and displays loyalty to a school and a program that he helped build. Thus, when someone such as Boise State coach Chris Petersen rejected the overtures of Stanford to remain at the mid-major school he has helped to build. "I'm really happy to be in the position I've been the last five years," said Petersen. "I think [Stanford] is a very special place. I just thought it was worth having a conversation about, but that's about as far as it went."
No one is completely certain as to whether or not Petersen actually spoke to Stanford about their position, but that is irrelevant. In an industry where coaches routinely sign multi-year extensions only to leave weeks later or bounce from job to job at the drop of a hat, it is refreshing to find someone that might just be the anti Nick Saban.
Hopefully this signifies a change in the mindset within the coaching ranks. However, in all likelihood, this is simply an aberration. Weasel coaches will continue to make up the majority of the coaching ranks, and will continue to get the major positions at the big name schools. Loyalty exists in the mind of one coach, and it will be to his detriment.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
NCAA recruiting volations and logic
On November 20th, the NCAA suspended Bruce Pearl of Tennessee for the first eight games of the SEC conference play. Until that point in time, he will be able to coach the team during games and lead practices. So, when is the beginning of the SEC season to cause the suspension to begin? Try January 8th.
In the meantime, Pearl will have plenty of time to teach his system, coach the players, and make certain that the assistants know exactly who to play when. Also, he gets to lead practices and implement game plans - he just can't lead practices on game days. This led to Bruce Pearl uttering the following quote: "I have been a very public advocate for playing by the rules," Pearl said Friday. "When you don't play by the rules, these are the things that can happen. So while these penalties that we've self-imposed and now the commissioner's imposing are unprecedentedly strong, it sets a very high standard and a high standard that I agreed to."
Let me get this straight: not being able to coach the team for a total of eight days in a span from January 8th until February 5th is a strict penalty? Especially when the coach can lead practice on every other day and see to it that the game plan he comes up with is implemented for the opponent? Seems to me that this is nothing more than a token slap on the wrist. At first glance, this appears to be a strong punishment if one focuses strictly on the eight games. However, in reality, this is barely a punishment at all.
If the NCAA and the conferences were serious about cleaning up recruiting violations and improper benefits to 'student' athletes, they would suspend these coaches for entire seasons and put crippling sanctions on the programs they coach. Instead, typically the punishments are nothing more than something to appease the other schools while chiding the violators for being careless enough to get caught.
It is, in a way, pathetic that one can almost safely assume that every major school in the major college sports (football and basketball) is doing something underhanded in order to gain an edge. Seemingly each week, there are new reports and scandals. This over-saturation of scandals and violations has done nothing more than to desensitize those that follow college sports. At this point, I would be shocked to find out that a major school in a major conference was running their program in a legitimate fashion.
College athletics is supposed to be about amateur players playing for a love for the game and trying to follow their dream of making it to the professional ranks. Instead, it is nothing more than a cash machine for their schools. And this is not going to change unless the NCAA gets serious about punishing any violations of the rules in place.
In the meantime, Pearl will have plenty of time to teach his system, coach the players, and make certain that the assistants know exactly who to play when. Also, he gets to lead practices and implement game plans - he just can't lead practices on game days. This led to Bruce Pearl uttering the following quote: "I have been a very public advocate for playing by the rules," Pearl said Friday. "When you don't play by the rules, these are the things that can happen. So while these penalties that we've self-imposed and now the commissioner's imposing are unprecedentedly strong, it sets a very high standard and a high standard that I agreed to."
Let me get this straight: not being able to coach the team for a total of eight days in a span from January 8th until February 5th is a strict penalty? Especially when the coach can lead practice on every other day and see to it that the game plan he comes up with is implemented for the opponent? Seems to me that this is nothing more than a token slap on the wrist. At first glance, this appears to be a strong punishment if one focuses strictly on the eight games. However, in reality, this is barely a punishment at all.
If the NCAA and the conferences were serious about cleaning up recruiting violations and improper benefits to 'student' athletes, they would suspend these coaches for entire seasons and put crippling sanctions on the programs they coach. Instead, typically the punishments are nothing more than something to appease the other schools while chiding the violators for being careless enough to get caught.
It is, in a way, pathetic that one can almost safely assume that every major school in the major college sports (football and basketball) is doing something underhanded in order to gain an edge. Seemingly each week, there are new reports and scandals. This over-saturation of scandals and violations has done nothing more than to desensitize those that follow college sports. At this point, I would be shocked to find out that a major school in a major conference was running their program in a legitimate fashion.
College athletics is supposed to be about amateur players playing for a love for the game and trying to follow their dream of making it to the professional ranks. Instead, it is nothing more than a cash machine for their schools. And this is not going to change unless the NCAA gets serious about punishing any violations of the rules in place.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)