Have you forgiven Kelvin Sampson?

[Cheno]

What does Bill Self have to do with Kelvin's first round record?

:kelvin

1995 - 1996 - 1997 - 1998 - 2001 - 2006

Because Sampson's NCAA record speaks for itself and he has nothing else to bring up. Bill Self's NCAA tournament record is stellar. Correct me if Im' wrong but Sampson's at OU is below .500. That's terrible at a program the quality of OU's. And quite simply inexcusible over such a long period of time.
No excuse. So when you don't have an excuse you, I guess you bring up Bucknell but hey...I'm the guy that always brings up KU.....right?

 

[DeaconBoomer]

I don't care for people that lie, manipulate and lie again. This guy needs rehab in my opinion. I only have 20 years of experience working with patients with addictive personalities, but in my 20 years, I've seen 100's of folks with the same problem KS has. I wish him a full recovery and hope he figures out there is a better way to live his life.

 

[skyvue]

Correct me if Im' wrong but Sampson's at OU is below .500.

You're wrong. He went 11-11.

 

[Cheno]

You're wrong. He went 11-11.

Thanks...I knew it was close. I must have been thinking the fact he lost more 1st round NCAA games than he won. That's hard to do.

 

[Sid]

Because Sampson's NCAA record speaks for itself and he has nothing else to bring up. Bill Self's NCAA tournament record is stellar. Correct me if Im' wrong but Sampson's at OU is below .500. That's terrible at a program the quality of OU's. And quite simply inexcusible over such a long period of time.
No excuse. So when you don't have an excuse you, I guess you bring up Bucknell but hey...I'm the guy that always brings up KU.....right?

Barry Switzer? :ez-laugh:

It's been over 4 years since Kelvin high-tailed it out of Oklahoma. Initially I thought it would take the SQ crowd about 2 years to get over Kelvin's departure. I'm beginning to think certain members of the SQ crowd are hopeless.

You're absolutely right about Kelvin's OVERALL NCAA tournament record. 12-13 is not something to brag about. There is no GRAY area about Kelvin's .480 winning percentage. Kelvin was an OK coach. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less.


The facts:

:billy2849:

T46 Billy Tubbs*, (Lamar, Oklahoma, TCU) 18-12 .600

:kelvin

#70 Kelvin Sampson*, (Washington St., Oklahoma, Indiana) 12-13 .480

http://www.dbwoerner.com/basketball/coaches/hof.html

 

[sybarite]

It's hard to follow your arguments because you are all over the map.

If a kid doesn't graduate it's probably the student's fault rather than the fault of the university or NCAA. It's okay to hold people accountable for their own actions and stop looking to others to blame.

My statements have been quite focused and distinct. Your responses have offered little more than distractions from the point.

The point is quite simple. The NCAA is now and has always been primarily, almost exclusively, motivated by financial concerns rather than academics. The NCAA has never focused its penalties on academic violations, but on stuff like recruiting and retention advantages. It can't be made any clearer than that.

It is irrelevant whether a student is responsible enough to graduate on his own. That has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion concerns the intent and objectives of the NCAA. not the character of a student or a coach.

I have made the point quite clear that the motivation of the NCAA is quite different from that which they claim. As such, the NCAA is guilty of hypocrisy. The situation is so absurd that a coach could make certain that every student attended class and graduated with honors. But, if he committed a recruiting violation, the NCAA would consider him an outlaw.

The outlaw is the NCAA.

 

[SoonerNorm]

My statements have been quite focused and distinct. Your responses have offered little more than distractions from the point.

The point is quite simple. The NCAA is now and has always been primarily, almost exclusively, motivated by financial concerns rather than academics. The NCAA has never focused its penalties on academic violations, but on stuff like recruiting and retention advantages. It can't be made any clearer than that.

It is irrelevant whether a student is responsible enough to graduate on his own. That has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion concerns the intent and objectives of the NCAA. not the character of a student or a coach.

I have made the point quite clear that the motivation of the NCAA is quite different from that which they claim. As such, the NCAA is guilty of hypocrisy. The situation is so absurd that a coach could make certain that every student attended class and graduated with honors. But, if he committed a recruiting violation, the NCAA would consider him an outlaw.

The outlaw is the NCAA.

It is absolutely relevant. You are arguing that the NCAA should be concerned with whether or not the athletes graduate. As I said earlier, the responsibility for graduating should be on the students, not the NCAA.

 

[Seymore Cox]

Kelvin is my dog for life. Not many coaches have done what he did over a 15 year stetch.

 

[Sooner23]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkuBHGgYdeE[/ame]

 

[sybarite]

It is absolutely relevant. You are arguing that the NCAA should be concerned with whether or not the athletes graduate. As I said earlier, the responsibility for graduating should be on the students, not the NCAA.

Then, the NCAA is not responsible for having any rules about academic progress or graduation, despite the fact that their mission is to protect and better the student-athlete. We are not discussing personal philosophy about personal responsibility. We are addressing the mission statement of an organization relative to its actions.

 

[Cheno]

Not many coaches have done what he did over a 15 year stetch.

Which is what?

 

[Seymore Cox]

Which is what?

win

 

[SoonerNorm]

Then, the NCAA is not responsible for having any rules about academic progress or graduation, despite the fact that their mission is to protect and better the student-athlete. We are not discussing personal philosophy about personal responsibility. We are addressing the mission statement of an organization relative to its actions.

There is nothing wrong with having rules in place that require certain academic standards while the student athlete is in school. Every other student in school has academic standards so it is very consistent that athletes should too. The school has no control over who graduates. The school and NCAA should have no control (and therefore no penalties) for which athletes do not graduate. If a school recruits a roster full of Blake Griffins who leave school early to make millions of dollars, I don't think the university should be penalized because they didn't graduate enough players. That's just silly. The object of an eduation is to prepare young men and women to have good careers. I think Blake has a pretty fair career in front of him whether he ever gets a diploma or or not.

Sometimes students/athletes realize college isn't for them and they drop out. Again, not the fault of the university and therefore no penalty should apply.

The bottom line is, the NCAA should not dictate policy as to graduation rates. We need the NCAA but they need to stay out of some things they currently have their nose in.

 

[SoonerSpock]

If you didn't se4 the hypocrisy iin the NCAA history and present has been, I can't help you.

It seems to me you are missing the point of the NCAA. Their mission from their inception has been about leveling the playing field of competition not to insure kids graduate.

Their efforts to make certain kids graduate, that has evolved to the present Academic Progress Rate, is designed to make certain all schools have students that are successfully working toward degrees. These rules are designed to insure the top academic schools are not placed at a competitive disadvantage to those school that do not graduate students.

The present APR does not require a student graduate but continue to make progress toward graduation by completing 20% of his degree requirement, be in good academic standing annually and take a minimum of 6 credit hours per semester.

http://www.newamerica.net/blogs/education_policy/2007/09/ncaa_football_academic_progress

A university is only penalized if a student does not graduate when the student has completed 5 years has not completed 100% of his degree requirement and/or is not in good academic standing.

Should a student athlete, at any time, transfer to another school or quit school for whatever reason and do so while making academic progress (20% of degree requirement annually) and maintain good academic standing the school is not punished for the student's departure.

Should a school be punished with a loss of athletic scholarships because the fail to maintain a 925 APR that scholarship/roster spot can still be replaced by paying the athlete's scholarship through other means like Pell Grant, etc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61380-2005Feb28.html

The NCAA is not an institution whose charter is to graduate students. It is an institution designed to prohibit schools from gaining unfair competitive advantages over their peers.

I do not agree with all of their tactics but I have not forgotten their mission either. They are the National Collegiate ATHLETIC Association. Not the National Collegiate ACADEMIC Association.

 

[sybarite]

It seems to me you are missing the point of the NCAA. Their mission from their inception has been about leveling the playing field of competition not to insure kids graduate.

First, that is my point. Secondly, that is not within their mission statement. They have set themselves us as a protector of the student, not as a protector of the financial aspects of the sports. They have claimed to be something other than what they are. That is exactly the point.

If you accept what they claim to be, there is dishonor in being caught doing something unethical. But, since their mission was never one involving ethics, there is nothing that they can way about ethics. They are simply guarding their own bank, not the well-being of the student as they claim.

Either they have performed as stated by their goals, or they have not. It is that simple. Either their motivation is money or the well-being of the student. It is that simple. Since their entire history has been one in which the only punishments were assessed for breaking rules that had nothing to do with the well-being of the student, their stated purpose is a lie. It is that simple.

Now, if there purpose is a lie, which it is and always has been, why is it a disgrace to break one of their rules? Apparently, we think it is because we submitted to the will of the NCAA and cowered in the corner while they sanctioned Kelvin. This is somewhat different from our approach when we were forming the CFA. Apparently, there are schools who refuse to cooperate with the NCAA. That is, in itself, interesting. The response of the nCAA has been to do what? That is also interesting.

The NCAA would have been legitimate if they had admitted from the outset that they were a sports regulatory corporation, operating for a profit, requiring that members accept their rules in order to participate. They would have been a monopoly. But, they would have been honest. Instead, they pretended to be some altruistic organization out to protect the rights of the student and academia, which is absolute nonsense.

 

[SoonerNorm]

Following is the Mission Statement of the NCAA. Your interpretation must be different from mine because I don't see the conflict which you apparently do.

Our Mission

Core Ideology
The NCAA's core ideology consists of two notions: core purpose - the organization's reason for being - and core values - essential and enduring principles that guide an organization.

Core Purpose
Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.

Core Values
The Association - through its member institutions, conferences and national office staff - shares a belief in and commitment to:

•The collegiate model of athletics in which students participate as an avocation, balancing their academic, social and athletics experiences.

•The highest levels of integrity and sportsmanship.

•The pursuit of excellence in both academics and athletics.

•The supporting role that intercollegiate athletics plays in the higher education mission and in enhancing the sense of community and strengthening the identity of member institutions.

•An inclusive culture that fosters equitable participation for student-athletes and career opportunities for coaches and administrators from diverse backgrounds.

•Respect for institutional autonomy and philosophical differences.

•Presidential leadership of intercollegiate athletics at the campus, conference and national levels.

 

[SoonerSpock]

Based on their mission statement as stated above I would have to admit that the NCAA is doing a respectable job of fulfilling their mission even though I dislike their organization because of it failure to legislate with equity to all.

I would probably also state that emphasis on the academic and social experience has changed considerably over the years. Until recently the student athlete had ample opportunity to enjoy social and athletic experiences buy in many situations were shortchanged in their academic experiences as well as degree achievement.

Today's game, especially as it applies to football and basketball, minimizes the social experiences because of the time requirements for athletics and academics. However the tools and systems provided the student athlete are more than ample to provide a rewarding athletic and academic experience. The onus is on player to achieve those goals.

Moreover, APR assures the student also gets the direction to insure his academic efforts are rewarded with the potential to earn a degree. This is something that has been blatantly missing in the past as schools tried to keep players eligible not help them earn a degree.

However, earning a degree is and always has been the responsibility of the school and never the responsibility of the NCAA. Unfortunately Syb wants to hold the NCAA responsible for something that is not within their mission.

The failure rest at the feet of the university presidents not the NCAA. They are the ones after the money. If the NCAA was seeking more money they would be pushing a college football playoff to fill their coffers like March Madness presently does. That is something the presidents will not allow as the bowl participants want those moneys to continue to go to the schools not the NCAA. Therefore the BCS is here to stay (off on another tangent).

 

[campbest]

The failure rest at the feet of the university presidents not the NCAA. They are the ones after the money.

Bingo. University presidents are going to look after their school's own self-interests, therein lies the problem with the organization as a whole.

NCAA is far from a perfect organization, and as Spock said, I disagree with some of the initiatives they pass, but institution is far from "evil" as many believe.

 

[SoonerfanTU]

No excuse. So when you don't have an excuse you, I guess you bring up Bucknell but hey...I'm the guy that always brings up KU.....right?

And Bradley.

The difference between Kelvin and Billy is that when they both had borderline NCAA Tourney talented teams, Kelvin found a way to get a bid, Billy didn't, most of the time.

So comparing 1st round losses is lame, when a few of Kelvin's were to better teams.

'96 - lost to better seeded team
'97 - lost to better seeded team
'98 - lost to better seeded team

Nobody will say that the Manhattan, Indiana State, and UWI losses weren't bad. But every coach has bad 1st round losses. Bill Self has two bad ones. I'd much rather have a team overachieve and reach the Dance only to lose to a much better team, then to sit at home, or go to the NIT.

 

[Cheno]

Nobody will say that the Manhattan, Indiana State, and UWI losses weren't bad. But every coach has bad 1st round losses. Bill Self has two bad ones. I'd much rather have a team overachieve and reach the Dance only to lose to a much better team, then to sit at home, or go to the NIT.

Bill Self also has a stellar NCAA tourney record, a national championship and more championship trophies in the last decade than years in that decade.
You are right....every coach has some bad 1st round losses but not more 1st round losses than wins at a program the caliber of OU over a more than a decade. In fact, I challenge you to name a coach at a school near the quality of Oklahoma with more 1st round losses than wins over such a long period of time. We're talking 11 seasons so that's a big sample size.
But again to bring Self up is silly considering his track record in both winning conference championships and in the Big Dance. All the guy does is win.
You'd have been better off bringing up Tubbs like you did in your most recent post.