Online Now 864

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

On this Board 586
Record: 4947 (7/23/2012)

Online now 855
Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The Lions' Pride

Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell and swap tickets

Reply

Trouble on the team

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now
    signature image signature image signature image

    WE ARE! And we will always be...

    rmj147 ●

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now

    MTayl72 ●

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now

    MTayl72 ●

  • MTayl72 said...

    Easy, you don't make any exceptions for grades and/or do not allow them to notify admissions counselors that they are interested in varsity athletics. You do tha tby taking names off of admissions packages that go for review and instead use a numbering system that leaves all traces of names out to an unbias official. At no point in time is potential participation in varsity athletics part of the criteria.

    Kids from poor environments and all socioeconomic classes get into college . Normal colleges don't eliminate them, neither would this process.

    Not agreeing with him, just saying.

    So Daryll Clark by this logic would have never been a PSU player. And the dozens of other projects just like him that Joe Paterno turned into good men during his time.

    Just sayin too.

    Daryll Clark is a pretty good guy... anyone object to that?

    The Heel

  • The Heel said...

    So Daryll Clark by this logic would have never been a PSU player. And the dozens of other projects just like him that Joe Paterno turned into good men during his time.

    Just sayin too.

    Daryll Clark is a pretty good guy... anyone object to that?

    No. You asked a question and I answered it. Sorry that I did that. I told you I didn't necessarily that is the way I would run it. But colleges just aren't some grand social experiment either, they are a place of higher education with standards and a bottom line. While public education at the collegiate level was founded as a lower cost alternative to private colleges, and as a way to keep private tuition relatively in check, it wasn't meant for all of those to attend. It is still something that should be earned. FJP does not believe that athletics should be part of that criteria, some disagree. However, he is entitled, as are you, to your opinion. But don't get after me for simply showing how it can be done. There are ways that Daryll and others from lower socioeconomic classes can attend if they have the grades and qualifications. All part of the equation a college can make. Like I said, his goal was to not lax standards for athletes, I suggested how.

    This post was edited by MTayl72 on 3/26/2012 at 11:01 PM

    MTayl72 ●

  • This post is for members of Lions247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now

    danmcc

  • MTayl72 said...

    No. You asked a question and I answered it. Sorry that I did that. I told you I didn't necessarily that is the way I would run it. But colleges just aren't some grand social experiment either, they are a place of higher education with standards and a bottom line. While public education at the collegiate level was founded as a lower cost alternative to private colleges, and as a way to keep private tuition relatively in check, it wasn't meant for all of those to attend. It is still something that should be earned. FJP does not believe that athletics should be part of that criteria, some disagree. However, he is entitled, as are you, to your opinion. But don't get after me for simply showing how it can be done. There are ways that Daryll and others from lower socioeconomic classes can attend if they have the grades and qualifications. All part of the equation a college can make. Like I said, his goal was to not lax standards for athletes, I suggested how.

    You dont have to be sorry that you answered it. I wasnt attacking you in any way... Just trying to have a conversation. Maybe attacking the idea... but certainly not you.

    I dont believe there is a criteria that can be a guarantee that kids arent going to find themselves in trouble. I think you can find examples on both ends of the academic and social classes of the kids during the period they were recruited that ended up in similar positions, be it successful or tragic.

    I'm sorry if you took it as getting after you but that was not my intention at all.

    If there is a proven criteria of kids you can take that are sure fire hits and you can recruit 19-25 of them a year that would be great. I just dont think that there is, and believe its unfair to look in hindsight and claim there is.

    The Heel

  • The Heel said...

    You dont have to be sorry that you answered it. I wasnt attacking you in any way... Just trying to have a conversation. Maybe attacking the idea... but certainly not you.

    I dont believe there is a criteria that can be a guarantee that kids arent going to find themselves in trouble. I think you can find examples on both ends of the academic and social classes of the kids during the period they were recruited that ended up in similar positions, be it successful or tragic.

    I'm sorry if you took it as getting after you but that was not my intention at all.

    If there is a proven criteria of kids you can take that are sure fire hits and you can recruit 19-25 of them a year that would be great. I just dont think that there is, and believe its unfair to look in hindsight and claim there is.

    I don't think there is either. However, what FJP, and I will because I enjoy arguing both sides as it helps keep me sharp, and others that side with him would say is that they are mitigating their risk factors here. You could run a statistical analysis on the number of players involved in crimes, including breaking them into various categories (felonies, misdemeanors, traffic citations, violent crimes, drug incidents, alcohol incidents, etc. etc.) and from that use their socioeconomic class, as shown by a pre-determined formula basing it off of a list of things, including but not limited to: household income, zip code demographics, race, household demographics, and rural/suburban/urban classification. Also you combine that with the students' scores and academic background (for what FJP would called "qualified"). Now some would hypothesize, possibly correctly, that your typical arrest record, especially those deemed "serious offenses", may come from the students and athletes that had poorer academic backgrounds and/or socioeconomic backgrounds.

    If that was true, you have valid reasoning of trying to keep kids who may not otherwise be "eligible" for college, out of college athletics as well. Of course the corresponding demographic evidence would open up a new can of worms as well.

    MTayl72 ●

  • MTayl72 said...

    I don't think there is either. However, what FJP, and I will because I enjoy arguing both sides as it helps keep me sharp, and others that side with him would say is that they are mitigating their risk factors here. You could run a statistical analysis on the number of players involved in crimes, including breaking them into various categories (felonies, misdemeanors, traffic citations, violent crimes, drug incidents, alcohol incidents, etc. etc.) and from that use their socioeconomic class, as shown by a pre-determined formula basing it off of a list of things, including but not limited to: household income, zip code demographics, race, household demographics, and rural/suburban/urban classification. Also you combine that with the students' scores and academic background (for what FJP would called "qualified"). Now some would hypothesize, possibly correctly, that your typical arrest record, especially those deemed "serious offenses", may come from the students and athletes that had poorer academic backgrounds and/or socioeconomic backgrounds.

    If that was true, you have valid reasoning of trying to keep kids who may not otherwise be "eligible" for college, out of college athletics as well. Of course the corresponding demographic evidence would open up a new can of worms as well.

    You two are reading way too deep into what FJP is saying. He is not correlating academic qualifications to character or the likelihood of getting into trouble. He is looking solely at the hypocrisy of allowing kids who are not qualified academically to attend some of the best institutions of higher learning in the country just because they are physically gifted.

    This post was edited by psujmc1992 on 3/26/2012 at 11:55 PM

    signature image

    “We need to keep this (expletive) together,” Mauti and Zordich to Hill

    psujmc1992 ●

  • psujmc1992 said...

    You two are reading way too deep into what FJP is saying. He is not correlating academic qualifications to character or the likelihood of getting into trouble. He is looking solely at the hypocrisy of allowing kids who are not qualified academically to attend some of the best institutions of higher learning in the country just because they are physically gifted.

    Ssshhhh...

    I know you're right. Its just fun this way.

    MTayl72 ●

  • MTayl72 said...

    I don't think there is either. However, what FJP, and I will because I enjoy arguing both sides as it helps keep me sharp, and others that side with him would say is that they are mitigating their risk factors here. You could run a statistical analysis on the number of players involved in crimes, including breaking them into various categories (felonies, misdemeanors, traffic citations, violent crimes, drug incidents, alcohol incidents, etc. etc.) and from that use their socioeconomic class, as shown by a pre-determined formula basing it off of a list of things, including but not limited to: household income, zip code demographics, race, household demographics, and rural/suburban/urban classification. Also you combine that with the students' scores and academic background (for what FJP would called "qualified"). Now some would hypothesize, possibly correctly, that your typical arrest record, especially those deemed "serious offenses", may come from the students and athletes that had poorer academic backgrounds and/or socioeconomic backgrounds.

    If that was true, you have valid reasoning of trying to keep kids who may not otherwise be "eligible" for college, out of college athletics as well. Of course the corresponding demographic evidence would open up a new can of worms as well.

    I can buy that you can find statistics to back that up. I think that you could also find statistics to back up that education available in poorer communities is severely lacking in comparison to schooling in richer areas. You could certainly take this one step further and evaluate graduates from each area and find higher crime rates in the poorer areas.

    So by using statistical analysis, I'm pretty sure you could eventually eliminate all of the poorer communities from any eligibility whatsoever.

    Eligible is a touchy word, and established by the board of admissions at each college. I dont believe academic exceptions were made for either Devon Smith or Jack Crawford for example (Though I could be wrong).

    If you begin to segregate kids and the opportunities afforded them by their economical classes you do open up a can of worms that can be downright discrimination. Do you begin to not take kids from certain school districts simply because of said statistical analysis?

    The Heel

  • psujmc1992 said...

    You two are reading way too deep into what FJP is saying. He is not correlating academic qualifications to character or the likelihood of getting into trouble. He is looking solely at the hypocrisy of allowing kids who are not qualified academically to attend some of the best institutions of higher learning in the country just because they are physically gifted.

    The hypocrisy of allowing kids who may be in that situation due to the lack of opportunities to get a better education in highschool.

    Paul Jones was the first early graduate in the history of his school. Obviously Sto-Rox isnt a great learning institution, but by the standards of the school that he attended, he found himself qualified academically. And "eligible" to enroll at the university of Penn State.

    I'm not saying let lazy kids in. I'm saying that disallowing an opportunity because of often forced terrible available education is kinda shitty.

    And yes, this took a turn into a different direction. I blame MTayl72 100 percent but I'm certainly willing to see where it goes. [bananas] Damn it. I cant get those to work on this computer.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by The Heel on 3/27/2012 at 12:36 AM

    The Heel

  • The Heel said...

    The hypocrisy of allowing kids who may be in that situation due to the lack of opportunities to get a better education in highschool.

    Paul Jones was the first early graduate in the history of his school. Obviously Sto-Rox isnt a great learning institution, but by the standards of the school that he attended, he found himself qualified academically. And "eligible" to enroll at the university of Penn State.

    I'm not saying let lazy kids in. I'm saying that disallowing an opportunity because of often forced terrible available education is kinda shitty.

    Two issues with this line of reasoning.

    #1. Even in bad school districts, good students can develop. Some is inherent in the kids. A lot depends on the parents. It may be difficult and against the odds but it can be done. So to blame a kid's situation entirely on the school system is not exactly fair.

    #2. There are LOTS of kids who grow up in disadvantaged areas with poor educational systems. Most are not talented enough to play Division 1 sports. Some of those non-athletic kids actually have a goal of educating themselves, getting degrees and helping their families, yet they are not given the opportunity while kids who have no interest in anything other than playing and partying are allowed to run amok on college campuses all across the country. (Not talking about Jones who is apparently a good kid).

    signature image

    “We need to keep this (expletive) together,” Mauti and Zordich to Hill

    psujmc1992 ●

  • psujmc1992 said...

    Two issues with this line of reasoning.

    #1. Even in bad school districts, good students can develop. Some is inherent in the kids. A lot depends on the parents. It may be difficult and against the odds but it can be done. So to blame a kid's situation entirely on the school system is not exactly fair.

    #2. There are LOTS of kids who grow up in disadvantaged areas with poor educational systems. Most are not talented enough to play Division 1 sports. Some of those non-athletic kids actually have a goal of educating themselves, getting degrees and helping their families, yet they are not given the opportunity while kids who have no interest in anything other than playing and partying are allowed to run amok on college campuses all across the country. (Not talking about Jones who is apparently a good kid).

    Yeah this conversation kind of went in two different directions.

    If coaches went by the statistical analysis above, you could find yourself eliminated from a coaches radar simply by being at a school in a disadvantaged area. Thats not really where I thought the conversation was going to go because one day you "might" be trouble.

    As far as academics... these are the requirements like em or not.

    Student-athletes entering a Division I or II institution must be certified by the NCAA Clearinghouse as having met certain general and specific requirements before they will be eligible to compete on a college level. Students will need to meet WS/FCS graduation requirements with geometry or a higher level math and an SAT score of 820 (with a 2.5 GPA) to 1010 (with a 2.0 GPA).

    If its simply a problem with those admission qualifications and guys not meeting your academic qualifications than its one thing. If you go off on statistics/trends and eliminate entire groupings of kids thats where I would certainly have a problem with it. Unfortunately being poor often, but not always, leads to a lesser education, which is how it ties in with academic standards that people have a problem with.

    By saying if you raised the academic standards of being granted admission into a school, you could help eliminate problem kids... Eh.

    I believe its more of a case by case basis on problem kids that doesnt have as much to do with what their grades were coming out of highschool.

    I was kind of taking it beyond what the NCAA requires and to more as what a coach was willing to take to determine the risk factor of the kid flaming out and embarrassing himself and the school (IE: Oakman). But it did get off topic and into this subtopic of what formula you might use to determine which kid is going to become an Oakman and which kid is going to become a DC.

    And I dont think there is a formula that is fair to make that judgement. I think regardless of the environment they come from... every kid is different and its nearly impossible to determine how they will end up.

    This post has been edited 4 times, most recently by The Heel on 3/27/2012 at 4:15 AM

    The Heel

  • The Heel said...

    I think regardless of the environment they come from... every kid is different and its nearly impossible to determine how they will end up.

    Agree completely.

    signature image

    “We need to keep this (expletive) together,” Mauti and Zordich to Hill

    psujmc1992 ●

  • IMO, the scale doesn't not directly imply that they were selling. I had a couple friends in the dorms that were regular smokers and had a digital scale to make sure that their dealer didn't screw them.

    Second, typically SC police (I assume UP police also) will slap "intent to distribute" on any possession charges. So lets reserve judgment on them being dealers until we see how many OZs they were holding.

    This post was edited by Lion_in_CBus on 3/27/2012 at 7:41 AM

    Lion_in_CBus

  • Lion_in_CBus said...

    IMO, the scale doesn't not directly imply that they were selling. I had a couple friends in the dorms that were regular smokers and had a digital scale to make sure that their dealer didn't screw them.

    Second, typically SC police (I assume UP police also) will slap "intent to distribute" on any possession charges. So lets reverse judgment on them being dealers until we see how many OZs they were holding.

    I agree the intent to distribute may be moot, but do we have any idea of how much was confiscated? There probably is a standard the police use for intent to distribute charges but my guess it is a low threshold. However if they confiscated a pound, that is a different story.

    danmcc

  • danmcc said...

    I agree the intent to distribute may be moot, but do we have any idea of how much was confiscated? There probably is a standard the police use for intent to distribute charges but my guess it is a low threshold. However if they confiscated a pound, that is a different story.

    I can't answer the first question, I haven't see anything posted on the board or the articles posted. However, I agree if its a pound...there is a real problem. I would just like to hear more specifics before I crucify D. Smith and Crawford.

    With that said, I would not be opposed to BOB kicking D. Smith off the team due to this incident, if he was involved.

    Lion_in_CBus

  • psujmc1992 said...

    You two are reading way too deep into what FJP is saying. He is not correlating academic qualifications to character or the likelihood of getting into trouble. He is looking solely at the hypocrisy of allowing kids who are not qualified academically to attend some of the best institutions of higher learning in the country just because they are physically gifted.

    Ding Ding Ding we have a winner.

    I'm sure Derrick Williams was a nice kid. But an 800 on your SATs shouldn't get you into UPark. I'm sure Clark was a great kid but taking that many times to get an "acceptable" ACT score shouldn't get you into UPark.

    Paul Jones shouldn't even be on scholarship at this point. If he were you or I he'd have been long gone after a few bad semesters.

    FireJayPa

  • FireJayPa said...

    Ding Ding Ding we have a winner.

    I'm sure Derrick Williams was a nice kid. But an 800 on your SATs shouldn't get you into UPark. I'm sure Clark was a great kid but taking that many times to get an "acceptable" ACT score shouldn't get you into UPark.

    Paul Jones shouldn't even be on scholarship at this point. If he were you or I he'd have been long gone after a few bad semesters.

    I understand this is where we started, but The Heel had a good point in saying how do you do this. Simply put, like FJP says above, many of us wouldn't be allowed in with those academic qualifications that some of these athletes have had. To him, that is unacceptable. So how do you do it? In the first post in this series of discussion, I said you make them competitively apply with the rest of the student body, with no preferential treatment given towards anticipated participation in varsity athletics at the collegiate level. I think that is pretty close to this line of thinking.

    The second post which delved further into statistical levels, well that's when things got technical and further down the road. However, still somewhat relevant on how you would have to set it up to do it.

    MTayl72 ●

  • MTayl72 said...

    I understand this is where we started, but The Heel had a good point in saying how do you do this. Simply put, like FJP says above, many of us wouldn't be allowed in with those academic qualifications that some of these athletes have had. To him, that is unacceptable. So how do you do it? In the first post in this series of discussion, I said you make them competitively apply with the rest of the student body, with no preferential treatment given towards anticipated participation in varsity athletics at the collegiate level. I think that is pretty close to this line of thinking.

    The second post which delved further into statistical levels, well that's when things got technical and further down the road. However, still somewhat relevant on how you would have to set it up to do it.

    I'd like admissions to withhold age/gender/ethnicity/athletic achievements and let people in based on academic achievements.

    What was your GPA?
    What was your SAT/ACT score?
    Did you take any AP courses?

    FireJayPa

  • Jack Crawford didn't help his draft prospects. Good grief. banghead

    Buckrock ●

  • appoo said...

    Hey I don't mind kids partaking in some illegal, mostly harmless, fun. I have a much bigger issue with kids dealing drugs.

    Where do you think the "kids partaking in some illegal, mostly harmless, fun" got the illegal, mostly harmless, fun stuff? Is it o.k. if adults deal drugs or just bad for kids. Frankly I think you should be able to buy it cheep in the produce section at the local food store. No more dealers.

    kcpsu

  • Playing a sport at a high level shows more potential and takes more time than doing well in school IMO. I don't see anything wrong with admitting kids with slightly lower academic stats.

    perfect

  • perfect said...

    Playing a sport at a high level shows more potential and takes more time than doing well in school IMO. I don't see anything wrong with admitting kids with slightly lower academic stats.

    Neither do I, but not for the reason that you claim. That's a cop out. You can be a high level athlete and excel in the classroom. Some may not be as smart, some may exceed expectations, I understand that. But I have played with plenty of kids that played college ball at all levels and found time to excel both on and off the field.

    MTayl72 ●

Penn State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports