Have you forgiven Kelvin Sampson?

Status
Not open for further replies.
seniorsooner said:
You "appreciate" those who have broken NCAA rules? To say that all NCAA rules are bogus and without merit is flat out dumb. No offense of course.
Click to expand...

I thought I made it quite clear, and have on several occasions, that I consider the NCAA an institution that is in violation of the spirit of academia, as well as being totally devoid of any sense of ethics in its own rules, procedures, and enforcement.

For someone who actually values the acadmics of an institution of higher learning, the existence of the NCAA is something that should be eliminated. As such, I support any individual or institution that violates any rule of the NCAA, anything that might lead to its destruction, and anything that further exposes its hypocrisy.

If you wish to support an organization that has the goal of reduction in the number of young people getting an education simply in order to promote athletic equality, you may do so. But, don't do it with the pretense that it has any honor.

If you wish to support an organization that was so obviously unconcerned witht he actual academic progress of graduation of an athlete under its authority until somewhat recently, you may do so. But, don't do so with the pretense that it has anything to do with the success of the student/athlete.

Don't pretend that these rules have anything to do with the protection of the student. They were all developed with the intent of promoting athletic competitiveness, not academic success, something that has never been a concern of the NCAA until the past ten years.
 
sybarite said:
I thought I made it quite clear, and have on several occasions, that I consider the NCAA an institution that is in violation of the spirit of academia, as well as being totally devoid of any sense of ethics in its own rules, procedures, and enforcement.

For someone who actually values the acadmics of an institution of higher learning, the existence of the NCAA is something that should be eliminated. As such, I support any individual or institution that violates any rule of the NCAA, anything that might lead to its destruction, and anything that further exposes its hypocrisy.

If you wish to support an organization that has the goal of reduction in the number of young people getting an education simply in order to promote athletic equality, you may do so. But, don't do it with the pretense that it has any honor.

If you wish to support an organization that was so obviously unconcerned witht he actual academic progress of graduation of an athlete under its authority until somewhat recently, you may do so. But, don't do so with the pretense that it has anything to do with the success of the student/athlete.

Don't pretend that these rules have anything to do with the protection of the student. They were all developed with the intent of promoting athletic competitiveness, not academic success, something that has never been a concern of the NCAA until the past ten years.
Click to expand...

There are a few problems with your argument but I will address only two.

1. The governing board of the NCAA is made up of a group of University Presidents and Chancellors. I'm pretty sure they are all very much interested in the academic progress of all students, including student athletes.

2. Some coaches don't even use all of their scholorships now, some of which are prepaid through endowments. Why give them any more when they aren't using all of their ships now? You can blame coaches for that but not the NCAA.

Now, I don't agree with every silly rule they have instituted, not by a long shot, but to say the entire organization is flawed because some problems exists, is simply not true.
 
seniorsooner said:
You "appreciate" those who have broken NCAA rules? Big Dave Bliss fan then? Todd Bozeman?

The phone calls thing is there for a legitimate reason, and let me tell you what that reason is: the recruits themselves. Imagine sitting in your home and the phone ringing 500 times a day, every single day. At all times of the day/night. Do you think that might get a little overwhelming? I think it would. They put limits on the amount of contact that can be had with these kids for a reason. To say that all NCAA rules are bogus and without merit is flat out dumb. No offense of course.
Click to expand...

I bet most programs are still breaking that rule, they just decided to make an example out of someone. I wouldn't be shocked if Capel is doing the same stuff right now that Kelvin was doing as far as the phone call stuff. Or Bill Self, Roy Williams, Coach K.
 
SoonerNorm said:
There are a few problems with your argument but I will address only two.

1. The governing board of the NCAA is made up of a group of University Presidents and Chancellors. I'm pretty sure they are all very much interested in the academic progress of all students, including student athletes.

2. Some coaches don't even use all of their scholorships now, some of which are prepaid through endowments. Why give them any more when they aren't using all of their ships now? You can blame coaches for that but not the NCAA.

Now, I don't agree with every silly rule they have instituted, not by a long shot, but to say the entire organization is flawed because some problems exists, is simply not true.
Click to expand...
Really? Let's examine the history of this.

Originally, a college would simply pay a good football player to join their team on a Friday or Saturday. Ten or fifteen dollars was a reasonable compensation for playing for good old Chicago University.

The problem was that the players didn't stay bought. They would play for Chicago U today and against Chicago U. tomorrow if Columbus U. offered more money. Some even complained that none of these players were actually students at either Chicago U. or Columbus U. Indeed, gold old Joe may be thirty years old and a professional fighter.

So, the schools began to get together to stop this practice of switching schools. It wasn't so much the hiring of players that bothered them. It was the switching. This was made quite clear when the rules that were institutied did not actually require that Joe be a student. They simply required that Joe be registered. Now, everyone was becoming happy. Joe couldn't switch schools from day to day.

Some people actually did begin to complaint hat Joe was simply a hired hand rather than a student. So, the assembled schools evolved a new rule. Joe had to be enrolled. Now, class attendance wasn't exactly required, nor was progress toward a degree. But, Joe had to be enrolled.

Sometime about this time,the organization of schools actually became the NCAA. Still, Joe wasn't actually required to graduate. The status of Joe wasn't actually checked. Joe just had to be a student.

Finally, they began to require some minimal progress as a student. Some very minimal standards were set to measure Joe's progress. Joe didn't actually have to make much progress toward a degree, and a good many Joe's didn't. There was little effort by the schools to check on Joe's progress, and none of the schools actually had any program that would help Joe make progress as a student.

Joe is still a hired hand and may as well be the gardener. The school is not interested in Joe, the student. Although you hear about the Joe's that took advantage of the education to get a degree, the NCAA doesn't actually do anything to promote that. Indeed, one of the charges leveled at Wilkinson when he was put on probation was supposedly that he had provided scholarships to students until they graduated---which the NCAA stated was inducement! A degree was an inducement.

The NCAA was still not really doing much to help Joe, the student. There were some minimal requirements for progress. As a result, many schools never graduated an athlete. There were no academic advisors or counselors. Joe, the student, was on his own.

Yet, the NCAA had a great number of rules about how Joe was recruited and paid. What did this have to do with Joe, the student? This was nothing more than the NCAA operating as a business organization, with the participation of the schools which had discovered that sports were a profit center. Nearly all of the NCAA rules had something to do with Joe's recruitment, something that had nothing to do with Joe, the student, and everything to do with the NCAA, the business organization.

Then, we had the ultimate proof. The NCAA actually limited the number of Joe's that could be granted scholarships. Rather than saying that a school could bring in thousands of kids and give them an education if they could play sports, the NCAA limited it to thirty per year. Was this for the students? This was nothing more than a crass attempt to control the business of sports and promote some balance that the NCAA thought would be profitable. This, of course, is the same NCAA that wanted absolute control of the television rights, forbidding any school or conference from making a TV deal until OU and Georgia took them down.

Why does an organization whose stated purpose is to protect the student athlete interested in reducing the number of people who can become students? Is this in the best interests of the student?

Still, there is not one rule that says that the NCAA is concerned with graduation---not one! This institution which exists for the student has a great number of rules about his recruitment, but not one rule that states that the student must graduate, should graduate, or even that it might be nice if he got an education.

Indeed, it would be another thirty years before the NCAA, for the first time, came up with a rule that stated that it would monitor the graduation rates of students. Almost a hundred years of paid players went by before the NCAA actually had a rule stating that a player should graduate. The NCAA existed for how many years before they began to pay attention to graduation rates?

We had kids who had degrees that were completely illiterate. The NCAA didn't seem to care. We had the most complex handbooks of rules that governed every part of a recruits visit, inducement, and benefits as a player, but almost nothing about his progress as a student. This, of course, was from an organization whose stated purpose was the welfare of the student-athlete.

You buying it? What in the history of the NCAA has indicated that they are the least bit concerned about the student-athlete? Why should this organization be permitted to exist on college campuses.

I could care less about their rules. Period.
 
If your complaint is that the NCAA has evolved from an organization that wasn't very good in the beginning to an organization that is a lot better today, I will agree with you.

I think you could say the same thing about most organizations.
 
SoonerNorm said:
If your complaint is that the NCAA has evolved from an organization that wasn't very good in the beginning to an organization that is a lot better today, I will agree with you.

I think you could say the same thing about most organizations.
Click to expand...
How much has it evolved? What is its real agenda? Is it more interested in the business or in academics? What are most of the rules concerned with? How many schools have been put on probation for not having strong academics? How many schools have been put on probation for not graduating students?

We have had programs killed for recruiting violations---the death penalty.

Is it not obvious what the agenda of this organization has always been, now and in the past?

The question on Kelvin was whether he was guilty of anything for which he should be forgiven. You are claiming that because he violated yet another "RECRUITING RULE" imposed by this organization that supposedly is interested in students, but isn't, he has done something for which he must be forgiven? Hardly.

You wish to comply with this hypocrisy? Too bad the CFA didn't cause it to fold.
 
I've forgiven him, he's being punished for his crimes. And OU has turned out much better with Capel. Kelvin's team had quit on him and was getting ready to combust. Wouldn't have landed Blake if he had stayed, so I'm glad the sneakthief tucked his tail and ran to Indiana, even if he left a mess behind.
 
sybarite said:
How much has it evolved? What is its real agenda? Is it more interested in the business or in academics? What are most of the rules concerned with? How many schools have been put on probation for not having strong academics? How many schools have been put on probation for not graduating students?

We have had programs killed for recruiting violations---the death penalty.

Is it not obvious what the agenda of this organization has always been, now and in the past?

The question on Kelvin was whether he was guilty of anything for which he should be forgiven. You are claiming that because he violated yet another "RECRUITING RULE" imposed by this organization that supposedly is interested in students, but isn't, he has done something for which he must be forgiven? Hardly.

You wish to comply with this hypocrisy? Too bad the CFA didn't cause it to fold.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe that University Presidents and Chancellors are concerned about the academia, I don't know what to tell you.

You never did comment on the point I raised about coaches who do not use all of the ships they are allocated. Do you honestly blame the NCAA for that too?
 
I hope this thread has been cathartic for the Sampson, SQ crowd. Kelvin has been gone for 4 years now. It’s time for the SQ crowd to let go of their anger and move on. Kelvin’s record at Oklahoma speaks for itself. His troubles with the NCAA have been well documented and it is what it is. 2 words come to mind as I reflect back on Kelvin’s tenure at OU. Those 2 words are lunch pail. His teams always played hard but they were limited. Recruiting was not one of Kelvin’s strong points. As a result, his teams had a difficult time getting past the first round of the tournament.

Now we have a blue blooded thoroughbred leading our team. He’s not only a good guy but he is a class act. He is a fantastic coach and a great recruiter. He has renewed the fan’s enthusiasm for OU basketball. It's great to see people excited about the basketball program again just like it was under Billy. It seems like every week there’s another positive article about the team. Top recruits want to play at Oklahoma because they know Jeff will prepare them to play in the league.

This is going to be an exciting year to watch OU basketball. I think the new kids coming in are going to surprise some people. We finally have our true pg. We have a big time scorer in WW and we have a cast of players to compliment his game. If the young guys learn to play solid team defense, this could be another special year. Getting past the Sweet 16 is not an unrealistic expectation. So enjoy the rest of your summer and get ready to cheer the Sooners on this fall.

:jcapel
 
Last edited:
SoonerNorm said:
If you don't believe that University Presidents and Chancellors are concerned about the academia, I don't know what to tell you.

You never did comment on the point I raised about coaches who do not use all of the ships they are allocated. Do you honestly blame the NCAA for that too?
Click to expand...
The concern of most university presidents is money, money, and more money.

Basketball doesn't use its scholarships. Football would probably use two hundred if it had the chance. Want to think about wrestling, baseball, softball, etc., where they only can give partial scholarships?

There isn't enough lipstick to make the NCAA anything other than a pig.
 
sybarite said:
The concern of most university presidents is money, money, and more money.

Basketball doesn't use its scholarships. Football would probably use two hundred if it had the chance. Want to think about wrestling, baseball, softball, etc., where they only can give partial scholarships?

There isn't enough lipstick to make the NCAA anything other than a pig.
Click to expand...

Then why aren't you attacking the college basketball coaches?

I really don't know what your beef is other than you apparently think schools should be giving more scholarships for athletics, some of which coaches don't even use. I strongly disagree that is needed or should be done. If football gave out 200 ships you would have half of them transferring because they couldn't get playing time. If more student-athlete turnover is what you are looking for, that would certainly be one way of doing it.
 
SoonerNorm said:
Then why aren't you attacking the college basketball coaches?

I really don't know what your beef is other than you apparently think schools should be giving more scholarships for athletics, some of which coaches don't even use. I strongly disagree that is needed or should be done. If football gave out 200 ships you would have half of them transferring because they couldn't get playing time. If more student-athlete turnover is what you are looking for, that would certainly be one way of doing it.
Click to expand...
If you didn't se4 the hypocrisy iin the NCAA history and present has been, I can't help you.
 
sybarite said:
If you didn't se4 the hypocrisy iin the NCAA history and present has been, I can't help you.
Click to expand...

What happened years ago has nothing to do with anything today. Those serving on the board now weren't even alive when the NCAA was formed.
 
SoonerNorm said:
What happened years ago has nothing to do with anything today. Those serving on the board now weren't even alive when the NCAA was formed.
Click to expand...
Show me some evidence that the underlying motivation of the NCAA has changed. Are the penalties more likely to be assessed for recruiting violations or for the failure of a university to graduate its students? Some universities and some programs have graduated nobody for years with no penalties. Of all of the probations now being placed on member institutions, how many are due to academics as compared to business matters? Has any school been threatened with the death penalty for failure to graduate its students?

Notice that I haven't even addressed the inequity between how the NCAA enforces the rules between different institutions, something that should be obvious. I have simply addressed one issue---the motivation of the NCAA is now as it always has been that of a profit center rather than its stated purpose of being supportive of the student-athlete.

At best, what we are addressing is whether there should be honor among thieves.
 
sybarite said:
Show me some evidence that the underlying motivation of the NCAA has changed. Are the penalties more likely to be assessed for recruiting violations or for the failure of a university to graduate its students? Some universities and some programs have graduated nobody for years with no penalties. Of all of the probations now being placed on member institutions, how many are due to academics as compared to business matters? Has any school been threatened with the death penalty for failure to graduate its students?

Notice that I haven't even addressed the inequity between how the NCAA enforces the rules between different institutions, something that should be obvious. I have simply addressed one issue---the motivation of the NCAA is now as it always has been that of a profit center rather than its stated purpose of being supportive of the student-athlete.

At best, what we are addressing is whether there should be honor among thieves.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ousooners1baby
Calvin Sampson
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Stikboy
S
TEvans4Three
The Godwin Particle (Moore added)
Replies
2
Views
390
BoulderSooner
BoulderSooner
B
I have no defense
Replies
5
Views
474
Boom Soon
B
W
Kelvin will be bringing the number one team in the country to Norman
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
5K
SoonerDutch
SoonerDutch
ousooners1baby
Juco anyone?
Replies
11
Views
766
ousooners1baby
ousooners1baby
Back
Top