PonyFans.com

This is a continuation on the topic from the other thread that Stallion brought up:

Sham schools
Basketball factories are disgrace to education, game
Posted: Wednesday March 1, 2006 10:18AM; Updated: Wednesday March 1, 2006 11:24AM

The latest reminder that much of the feeder system for big-time college sports is your basic festering cesspool of unethical slimeballs came last week from The New York Times, which documented in depressing detail the proliferation of sham prep schools that give academically deficient basketball players an easy way to enhance their transcripts and become eligible to play in college.

Most of these so-called schools don't teach anything besides how to qualify for a Division I scholarship without worrying about such trivial matters as an actual high school education. The Times revealed that dozens of players had pumped up their academic standing by attending such esteemed centers of learning as:

• Lutheran Christian in Philadelphia, where three former student-athletes admit that they weren't required to go to class, and the only instructor was their basketball coach. One of those students told the Times that he was given B's in five core courses despite never attending a class or taking a test.

• Boys to Men Academy (we're not kidding) in Chicago, where the entire student body consists of 16 basketball players who earn credit for the equivalent of eight core courses by studying online through a correspondence school.

• Redemption Christian Academy in Troy, N.Y., where the less-than-rigorous curriculum included spelling class. No word on whether the "faculty" there can spell academic fraud.

Institutions like these are popping up around the country, basically handing out grades as gifts to any high school player who needs them. They are taking advantage of the NCAA's failure to closely monitor the private schools from which players earn academic credits, and the willingness of some Division I programs to accept recruits from these diploma mills with no questions asked. Alabama, Arkansas, George Washington, Georgetown, Mississippi State, Oklahoma State and UTEP are among the schools that have brought in recruits from highly questionable high schools.

It's safe to say that none of these sham schools are producing many candidates for the Dean's List, but they have some pretty impressive basketball teams. Some of these institutions have formed a league that is seeking a shoe contract and a television deal, and their teams play in tournaments in which college coaches are charged $100 or more for booklets of information about the players. So the "schools" make money, the players get the grades they need for college eligibility and the colleges get players who otherwise might not have gotten past the admissions department. And all it costs is the integrity of everyone involved.

It's not exactly a news flash that some players and programs are more interested in eligibility than education, but phony schools like these are such blatant attempts to circumvent NCAA rules that it's astonishing. Even worse, it's generally the students who are most in need of academic attention who are the ones being fed into a system that virtually ignores that need. It used to be that athletes didn't get exploited until they got to college. Now it starts before they even get there.

The players bear some responsibility, of course, but most of the blame for this mess falls on those who should know better -- the supposed educators who establish the diploma mills, the college programs who support them, and the NCAA, which has fallen down on its job of determining the difference between legitimate private schools and fraudulent ones.

The NCAA says a crackdown is coming. The organization has a task force, which promises to flush out the schools that are abusing the system. In the meantime, college coaches can help put a stop to this kind of fraud by steering clear of players who come out of the bogus schools.

Coaches are quick to complain about what they consider to be unfair academic requirements, about tests like the SAT being biased against players from disadvantaged backgrounds. They may have a point, but they would add to their credibility if they were as vocal in their objection to phony schools that churn out good players but poor students. These schools may not offer many exams to their students, but they are putting the values of college basketball programs to a stern test.

So according to Stallion, this is what we should have been doing to match up with UTEP and GW. I guess when your academic fraud gets such publicity and you win, any publicity is good publicity.

Do you have to resort to lies and inaccuracies to prove a point? Show one occasion where I ever suggested SMU should recruit from one of these Sham Prep Schools?

In Stallions defense I am not sure that he ever promoted recruiting from these mills, he was just saying that is what we are competing against.

It is strange how people attack Stallion for wanting a level playing field.

There are prep schools and then there are "prep" schools. The prep schools mostly military schools do prepare their students for college, do have qualified faculties and are accredited by solid accrediting consortiums. The "prep" schools are shams and kids who get degrees from those schools are probably going to flunk out of college after one year anyway. But then these are the one year rent-a-players anyway, who expect to go on to the NBA after their freshman year in college. I don't expect or desire that SMU recruit these types of players. I note however that George Mason had a couple of JUCO transfers (I think I heard that Shinn came from Blinn) who were instrumental in their march.

Stallion wrote:Do you have to resort to lies and inaccuracies to prove a point? Show one occasion where I ever suggested SMU should recruit from one of these Sham Prep Schools?

You show me one time where your "we must do exactly what our peers are doing if we want to compete" has ever had any limits. That's part of the problem with your mantra -- never do you suggest that there are any boundaries to using the "same" criteria to admit athletes as our peers -- by definition, unless we are doing the same thing, i.e. being willing to admit people from questionable institutions with questionable academic credentials, we are handicapped and not committed.

So if this is not a true reflection of your magic solution, then please enlighten me where you draw the boundaries with admitting the same kids other schools are.

Not true-I've always maintained SMU should not accept non-qualifiers and when there such a thing partial qualifiers. I'll spell it out for you because you are one of the worst tinkerbells on the site-I don't favor nor have I ever favored taking players that receive sham Prep degrees. That's why when I was talking about -the "alleged perfect Models" for a small private school like SMU-ie. George Washington, George Mason, Bradley and Bucknell above I said the standards for those schools were the "Stallion Model or WORSE". The word WORSE was included for a reason because despite what you constantly babble on about -my proposals never have been bare bottom NCAA Minimum Standards. They are rerasonable, they are rationale and the day SMU has a consistently strong athletic program they will be the standards we use to compete. WATCH!

DiamondM wrote:

Stallion wrote:Do you have to resort to lies and inaccuracies to prove a point? Show one occasion where I ever suggested SMU should recruit from one of these Sham Prep Schools?

You show me one time where your "we must do exactly what our peers are doing if we want to compete" has ever had any limits. That's part of the problem with your mantra -- never do you suggest that there are any boundaries to using the "same" criteria to admit athletes as our peers -- by definition, unless we are doing the same thing, i.e. being willing to admit people from questionable institutions with questionable academic credentials, we are handicapped and not committed.

Actually, he's been pretty consistent that SMU should not accept non-qualifiers or partial qualifiers. Which makes sense because SMU needs help and those players cannot by definition contribute right away. I think his point, which you seem to gloss over, is that SMU has a mediocre athletic program in a second tier conference which needs to broaden its pool of potential recruits as much as possible if it ever wants to be competitive again.

Nor have I ever said we shouldn't be accepting more jucos, having more athlete friendly majors -- especially sports management, or looking to improve.

My question has simply been when do the jucos and Div. I transfers that we DO have on the roster stop being exceptions that prove the rule, and start being examples that prove the rules are improving and have improved. You guys act like nothing has changed, that the fact that we have accepted at least 10-15 jucos and Div. I transfers in the last 2 years is irrelevant and should be ignored. I haven't EVER said we are fine and dandy as we are, no need for improvement. I have said this before, and I'll say it again, don't let perfection be the enemy of the good. It's okay to acknowledge improvements and strides we've made while still working for more change without the constant negativity acting like nothing but nothing will be acceptable without absolute total adoption of every single thing you suggest immediately.

Personally, you can call me whatever supposedly derogatory name you want -- tinkerbell, cheerleader (oh the horror, I encourage people instead of tearing them down all the time), whatever, but I'm pretty sure my way -- encouragement and constructive criticism from the inside -- is the right way to make friends and influence people. Plus, I simply have no desire to go through life so gosh darn miserable and grouchy, making it my mission to make others miserable and grouchy too.

Nonqualifiers are a complete nonstarter anyway. Nonqualifiers are not on scholarship. The number of kids that are nonqualifiers out of HS and can pay a year's tuition at SMU can be counted on one hand with fingers to spare.

DiamondM wrote:My question has simply been when do the jucos and Div. I transfers that we DO have on the roster stop being exceptions that prove the rule, and start being examples that prove the rules are improving and have improved.

I guess when we start getting something less than the juco dregs we're getting now. BTW, I never called you anything derogatory, so if you are using "you guys" and "you" interchangeably then you are mistaken in that respect.

Last year, St. Joe's was the cinderella mid-major and they had a non-qualifier on their team. Who paid his tuition to St. Joe's for a year. Did he get loans? And with the legitimate prep schools, I know that tuition at Fork Union Military Academy is about $20,000 per year. Who pays those tuition bills. Rumor has it that boosters of a certain school in Ohio had a scholarship fundraiser for certain Prep Schools to ensure that there were scholarships available for players who might want to attend that certain school in Ohio. Lamar, you think you might want to start a scholarship fund at a few select prep schools for post grads.