B1G Loser Mentality

[Mierin]

 The disconnect in this discussion is that @Landlord is the one who first mentioned the word noble. No one else is saying it was noble to use partial qualifiers. However, Landlord said it wasn’t noble and that he wouldn’t have done it.

I don't think that's where the disconnect was. Landlord never said not noble meant unethical or immoral. That conclusion was jumped to.

 

[Head Coach Scott Frost]

Harvard's last national championship was in 1920.
Yale's was (I believe 1909)

Virtually all of the Ivy League "National Championships" were before the widespread adoption of football at universities across the country and before NCAA records were even kept. This is an example of how statistics are like bikinis. What they show you is revealing, but what they HIDE is VITAL.

Also, most of Yales were before the forward pass was invented.  

 

[JJ Husker]

I don't think that's where the disconnect was. Landlord never said not noble meant unethical or immoral. That conclusion was jumped to.

He said it wasn't noble. Nobody else was saying it was noble. He said he wouldn't have done it and when asked why he started in on other people's false dichotomies. Near as I can tell he constructed that noble straw man so he had something to prop up his position.

Is it late August yet? This one isn't going to get us there  :lol:

 

[huKSer]

Also, most of Yales were before the forward pass was invented.  

So they should be credited with Rugby championships?  

 

[BigRedBuster]

It's another step on the slope of forsaking academics alltogether. College athletics, or at least football, is already on the brink of being a total sham academically (and at some schools already is), which I think is a disservice to those players and also the other players and other students who care about a quality education. Every factor you bring in that further places emphasis in the direction away from academics further cheapens the quality of the education for everybody. Think of it this way - let's say 43 players on the team were full academic qualifiers who had legitimate care for their studies, and 42 players on the team were partial qualifiers. The presence of HALF the team not being up to snuff causes the program and the university to create fake or hilariously easy class curriculums, extremely overbearing programs where tutors will do nearly everything except sign your name on your work, and also normalizes bad academic behavior which makes it easier to justify stricter or more time-intensive non-academic requirements (since the kids don't have to try at classes then we can take the 2 hours they should have for studying and make more mandatory weight room time). Now, is that fair to the players that actually want a quality education? Or is it fair to the players who will never make it pro, and even if they don't think they want a good education and are happy to skate by, but are left with no actual skillset after graduating? 

It's just one factor of many that pushes the entire structure of an organization slowly and further away from a valuable focus and service to the kids in the form of a quality education that sets them up well after they leave school.

Now, in contrast to that, there are a lot of good arguments for valuable opportunities for kids who deserve a chance or at least are willing to put in the work and prove that they can take it seriously and belong. Which I also think are legitimate, and which is why I hold my opinion very loosely and only slightly tipped in the direction of not being in favor.

Here's the fallacy in all of this.

If my memory serves me correct, the NCAA and Big 8 standards at the time were higher than what UNL required for entrance as a freshman.  Again, if my memory serves me correct, UNL required a 2.0 gpa and the NCAA and Big 8 required a 2.5 gpa.  That's just one example.  Also, I believe many (if not all) of the partial qualifiers fell in between those two requirements.  So, let's say a kid coming out of HS has a 2.3 gpa.  He qualifies for UNL but not the NCAA.  Under the partial qualifier rules, he could enroll at UNL, work to get his GPA above 2.5 and then start participating in football.

It absolutely boggles my mind as to how this is somehow degrading the academic standards of the institution or college in general.

 

[Huskers93-97]

Here's the fallacy in all of this.

If my memory serves me correct, the NCAA and Big 8 standards at the time were higher than what UNL required for entrance as a freshman.  Again, if my memory serves me correct, UNL required a 2.0 gpa and the NCAA and Big 8 required a 2.5 gpa.  That's just one example.  Also, I believe many (if not all) of the partial qualifiers fell in between those two requirements.  So, let's say a kid coming out of HS has a 2.3 gpa.  He qualifies for UNL but not the NCAA.  Under the partial qualifier rules, he could enroll at UNL, work to get his GPA above 2.5 and then start participating in football.

It absolutely boggles my mind as to how this is somehow degrading the academic standards of the institution or college in general.

I agree. I have not done any research but my guess would be more of those kids who were partial qualifiers ended up being more successful on average than kids who go JUCO.

Being at a regular university I imagine provides more structure for them to grow. If they cant play football, whats wrong with working to get qualified at that university instead of going to a JUCO farm.

 

[everybody knows my name]

One thing about the B1G that bothers me is the "loser" mentality compared to other conferences. The conference puts itself in a disadvantage where it is harder to compete. For example what Michigan did in baseball is considered a miracle due to the conference self appointed recruiting restrictions. Also most other conferences over-sign but the B1G restricts that as well, more conference games, higher academic requirements, etc all put every school in the B1G at a disadvantage.

It seems the B1G thinks they are "too good" to do what everyone else is doing and makes it harder to compete. Even the big 10 network doesn't push for it's teams to get into the playoff when they have legitimate claim (PSU, WI, OSU have been passed by other teams with same losses by the committee and the B1G didn't put up much of a fight) like all the other networks do. It could be that the conference always wanted to go to the rose bowl as it's prime goal but I think the attitude needs to change if it wants to have long term success. 

The money is great for the schools but the self appointed restrictions will make winning championships even more difficult.

I'm with you, man.  Honor and integrity are for losers.  Nebraska to the SEC, where if a student athlete can read and write it's just icing on the championship cake!

 

[Mierin]

He said it wasn't noble. Nobody else was saying it was noble. He said he wouldn't have done it and when asked why he started in on other people's false dichotomies. Near as I can tell he constructed that noble straw man so he had something to prop up his position.

Is it late August yet? This one isn't going to get us there  :lol:

I don’t think so, on both.

 

[Landlord]

So mental note...do not ever hire Landlord to run a collegiate sports program. He will/would not attempt to sign, completely within the rules, the best possible players and there would be no bonus benefit of giving some kids a chance at a higher education that they would not have otherwise had.

This is 100% true do not hire me I don't have the right approach or instinct for that job whatsoever. 

I suppose you can imagine those things might happen but I sure would like to see some proof that IS what happened due to TO’s use of partial qualifiers. As far as I’m aware Nebraska has not and did not go the route you seem to be concerned about. It’s one thing to say you don’t like the whole idea of partial qualifiers for those reasons but it’s another thing to say you wish TO wouldn’t have done it or that you would not have done it like TO did.

You won't get that proof from me because I don't have it because I don't know if it even exists. It's all in my head as just a hunch. I only started this whole thing saying I kind of wish TO didn't do it because of my general disposition to the idea (theoretically). But people kept asking me to expound and now it seems like this is some high horse crusade of mine :lol:

 

[CriticalFan]

That usually happens when people spend a bunch of time getting on their high horse about BIG10 standards. Somehow we have fallen into the BIG10 security blanket of "well we cant compete because we care about academics" argument. That doesnt make me feel better.

Yeah, who thinks college students should care about academics!  Crazy!

 

[Born N Bled Red]

Interesting question here on partial qualifiers. What was the intent behind allowing them? I believe those arguing that the intent was to allow superior athletes to compete when otherwise they would not be eligible, for the sole intent to win games are accurate. 

However those students were then able to prove they belonged, have success both on and off the field, and gain am education that likely extremely changed the course of their life significantly for the better. 

So, does the fact that the 2nd outcome was not the intent behind the policy damper the good that happened as a result?? I think not. This is what is called a win/win situation. You play, we win more, and you get the benefit of all the amazing academic services we provide to ensure your success in the classroom, to ensure that when football is over you can have a degree to help ensure your success in life. 

This was a positive for all involved.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Interesting question here on partial qualifiers. What was the intent behind allowing them? I believe those arguing that the intent was to allow superior athletes to compete when otherwise they would not be eligible, for the sole intent to win games are accurate. 

How so?  They weren't allowed to compete until they were eligible.

I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[JJ Husker]

This is 100% true do not hire me I don't have the right approach or instinct for that job whatsoever. 

You won't get that proof from me because I don't have it because I don't know if it even exists. It's all in my head as just a hunch. I only started this whole thing saying I kind of wish TO didn't do it because of my general disposition to the idea (theoretically). But people kept asking me to expound and now it seems like this is some high horse crusade of mine :lol:

Well darn it! Was trying to blow this up and drag it into the beginning of the season. I don't think it will make it. May have to go start an abortion thread in P&R  :lol:

 

[Redux]

It's not a thread until Landlord busts out "dichotomies".

 

[BIG ERN]

How so?  They weren't allowed to compete until they were eligible.

I agree with the rest of your post.

It's called taking a risk on a good football player. Nothing more or less. Washington, Watt, Canty, Mills, Thompkins, and Bland were all guys who had academic issues that we gave a scholly to. Some were good choices, and others were not. It just delays or hurts someone else who could come in and contribute. Some coaches would just rather not spend their time and energy hoping to get those types of kids. Washington and Mills could be massive payoffs for us.