Saban's response to Rosen's comments regarding the demands of college football

[Royale with Cheese]

7 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Yep this.  My friend's daughter was D1 volleyball at Miami of OH.  Came in intending to major in engineering.  Had to get the dean of students and NCAA involved her jr year when the coach scheduled extra weightlifting practice (not team drills, just picking it up and putting it down) off-season that conflicted with a required engineering prerequisite, and wouldn't allow her to make it up at another time.  She won her point and graduated summa cum laude but now turn that to a big revenue-generating sport like football or men's bball.

 

One of my teammates had to quit ball because of his Architecture major.  They are required to put a certain amount of hours each week in the lab or they can't pass.  He couldn't do both.

 

I had to take a bunch of worthless classes just to remain eligible my senior year.  I was an Education major and I couldn't do student teaching because that's 7:00-3:00 M-F.  I couldn't miss more than 3 days in my internship or I would fail.  This is why it took me 5 years to graduate.

 

My practice schedule was 1:00-5:00 M-F.  I had to take all my classes before practice or take classes at 6:00 pm.  Weight training was at 7:00 pm so if I had an evening class, I had to make up weight training another time.  Really sucked I never really got to sleep in while in college during the school year....every day my first class was 7:30 am just because of practice.  During the season, I missed at least 2-3 classes a week.  

5 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

Rosen contends that college football and academics don't mix. Well, ten of thousands of football players before him have played football and earned degrees, many in very demanding majors. Is it easy? Obviously not. Is mixing college football and academics more difficult in the last 3 years since Rosen has been at UCLA? I hardly think so.

 

I guess you're going to disagree with Ramsay and Rolle too.

 

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/7/9/5885433/ncaa-trial-student-athletes-education

 

Kevin Trahan@k_trahan

 

 

Ramsay: "There exists a culture that demonizes anything that doesn't directly help the program." (Like internships). Wow.

3:06 PM - Jul 9, 2014

 

Brad Wolverton

 

✔@bradwolverton

 

 

Rolle says many teammates struggled academically. They “go through this academic machinery…left torn, worn, no idea of their purpose.”

 

[Sky Diver]

11 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

It's fine.

I'm not anti-Alabama.  I know and have acknowledged that it's a good academic school.  It's obviously an elite athletic school.

IMO, Sky Diver is just going way overboard and very sensitive if UA is not being talked about as super fantastic happy hour.

 

Does Alabama have lower admission standards than UCLA? Obviously. 25th to 75th percentile is 23 - 32 for Alabama and 27 - 33 for UCLA. The two schools serve a different demographic. I don't have any idea what the numbers are for football players, do you? It's well documented that UCLA has lower standards for athletes vs non-athletes. Anyway, at the end of the day, it matters more about where you end up than where you start.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Sky Diver

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

Rosen contends that college football and academics don't mix. Well, ten of thousands of football players before him have played football and earned degrees, many in very demanding majors. Is it easy? Obviously not. Is mixing college football and academics more difficult in the last 3 years since Rosen has been at UCLA? I hardly think so.

 

Rosen said that playing major-program college football and attending college are both full time jobs:

"Trying to do both is like trying to do two full-time jobs. There are guys who have no business being in school, but they’re here because this is the path to the NFL. There’s no other way. Then there’s the other side that says raise the SAT eligibility requirements," Rosen said. "OK, raise the SAT requirement at Alabama and see what kind of team they have. You lose athletes and then the product on the field suffers.  Rosen also said that "human beings don't belong in school with our schedules."

"No one in their right mind should have a football player's schedule, and go to school," Rosen adds."It's not that some players shouldn't be in school; it's just that universities should help them more—instead of just finding ways to keep them eligible."

 

Which of those specific statements do you disagree with?  Tens of thousands of people do work two full time jobs.  The fact that they do so, and survive, or the fact that some students play D1 sports and thrive academically, doesn't contradict what Rosen actually said about

1) how difficult it is

2) that some players are in college because it's their path to the NFL, not because they want to pursue college or are equipped academically to succeed in college

3) that universities focus on keeping student athletes eligible, not on helping them academically

 

That's the sad thing here, Sky Diver - you're so frothy over any aspersion on Alabama that it seems to have robbed you of your ability to actually read and comprehend

1) what Rosen actually said

2) why the points you keep bringing up about Alabama actually don't contradict it or really address it at all

[Royale with Cheese]

1 minute ago, Sky Diver said:

 

Does Alabama have lower admission standards than UCLA? Obviously. 25th to 75th percentile is 23 - 32 for Alabama and 27 - 33 for UCLA. The two schools serve a different demographic. I don't have any idea what the numbers are for football players, do you? It's well documented that UCLA has lower standards for athletes vs non-athletes. Anyway, at the end of the day, it matters more about where you end up more than where you start.

 

To think that any SEC school outside of Vandy doesn't lower their standards to get players in is extremely naive.  

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Rosen said that playing major-program college football and attending college are both full time jobs:

"Trying to do both is like trying to do two full-time jobs. There are guys who have no business being in school, but they’re here because this is the path to the NFL. There’s no other way. Then there’s the other side that says raise the SAT eligibility requirements," Rosen said. "OK, raise the SAT requirement at Alabama and see what kind of team they have. You lose athletes and then the product on the field suffers.  Rosen also said that "human beings don't belong in school with our schedules."

"No one in their right mind should have a football player's schedule, and go to school," Rosen adds."It's not that some players shouldn't be in school; it's just that universities should help them more—instead of just finding ways to keep them eligible."

 

Which of those specific statements do you disagree with?  Tens of thousands of people do work two full time jobs.  The fact that they do so, and survive, or the fact that some students play D1 sports and thrive academically, doesn't contradict what Rosen actually said about

1) how difficult it is

2) that some players are in college because it's their path to the NFL, not because they want to pursue college or are equipped academically to succeed in college

3) that universities focus on keeping student athletes eligible, not on helping them academically

 

That's the sad thing here, Sky Diver - you're so frothy over any aspersion on Alabama that it seems to have robbed you of your ability to actually read and comprehend

1) what Rosen actually said

2) why the points you keep bringing up about Alabama actually don't contradict it or really address it at all

 

[Sky Diver]

Did you need Rosen to tell you that playing football and getting a degree is difficult?

 

Rosen demeaned Alabama (and Clemson as well as players who earned degrees that he doesn't think are worthy) and I have simply pointed out the facts about the academics at Alabama. That he went there with his comments says a lot about his personality and why there are so many questions about him.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Sky Diver

[Royale with Cheese]

Just now, Sky Diver said:

Did you need Rosen to tell you that playing football and getting a degree is difficult?

 

Rosen demeaned Alabama (and Clemson as well as degrees that he doesn't think are worthy) and I have simply pointed out the facts about the academics at Alabama. The fact that he went there says a lot about his personality and why there are so many questions about him.

 

 

Time to grow up Sky.  You shouldn't get that uptight because someone said something mean about your favorite school.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

Did you need Rosen to tell you that playing football and getting a degree is difficult?

 

Rosen demeaned Alabama (and Clemson as well as players who earned degrees that he doesn't think are worthy) and I have simply pointed out the facts about the academics at Alabama. That he went there with his comments says a lot about his personality and why there are so many questions about him.

 

And there we have your motivation in a nutshell.  Rosen demeaned Alabama in your eyes by suggesting their football players don't have the good SAT scores (a contention that posting the overall SAT scores of a 38 thousand enrollment school does nothing to address) and that universities in general, including Alabama, care more about player eligibility than player education.  And you are full-off-salt thereby, and can't lose any opportunity to hash it up.

 

But I believe in you, Sky Diver.  I think you can get over it.  I really do.  You can do it, Big Guy!

 

[dave mcbride]

35 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

Did you need Rosen to tell you that playing football and getting a degree is difficult?

 

Rosen demeaned Alabama (and Clemson as well as players who earned degrees that he doesn't think are worthy) and I have simply pointed out the facts about the academics at Alabama. That he went there with his comments says a lot about his personality and why there are so many questions about him.

I think you're making a basic error here. Rosen wasn't really demeaning either Alabama or Clemson. He picked them out because for two year running they have been the most elite programs in the country, and teams that are loaded with five-star recruits. At this point in time, they get way better talent than any school not named USC. That's the point. 

[Sky Diver]

Academics are probably a lot less challenging now than they used to be.

 

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/43767/

3 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I think you're making a basic error here. Rosen wasn't really demeaning either Alabama or Clemson. He picked them out because for two year running they have been the most elite programs in the country, and teams that are loaded with five-star recruits. At this point in time, they get way better talent than any school not named USC. That's the point. 

 

Stanford has an elite football program and it's academic standards are a lot higher than UCLA.

 

UCLA is just a crappy football team that got worse on Rosen's watch.

 

Rosen is a whiner who can't take any personal responsibility for his team's poor performance and his academic failings.

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Sky Diver

[dave mcbride]

11 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

Academics are probably a lot less challenging now than they used to be.

 

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/43767/

 

Stanford has an elite football program and it's academic standards are a lot higher than UCLA.

 

UCLA is just a crappy football team that got worse on Rosen's watch.

 

Rosen is a whiner who can't take any personal responsibility for his team's poor performance and his academic failings.

 

I honestly don't know what your point is. What does Stanford have to do with this *at all*? Are you also aware that UCLA's defense was among the worst in the country (117th out of 130 schools) and that Rosen played only half a season the year before?

Argue better.

[Sky Diver]

48 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I honestly don't know what your point is. What does Stanford have to do with this *at all*? Are you also aware that UCLA's defense was among the worst in the country (117th out of 130 schools) and that Rosen played only half a season the year before?

Argue better.

 

I thought my argument was obvious. Rosen was implying that there is a correlation between admission standards and the quality of a football team. I used Stanford as an example of a school that has much higher academic standards than UCLA and has a much better football team.

 

UCLA's record pre-Rosen was 10 - 3. During Rosen's tenure UCLA was 8 - 5, 4 - 8 and 6 - 7. He didn't lift the team; the team became worse.

[dave mcbride]

18 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

I thought my argument was obvious. Rosen was implying that there is a correlation between admission standards and the quality of a football team. I used Stanford as an example of a school that has much higher academic standards than UCLA and has a much better football team.

 

UCLA's record pre-Rosen was 10 - 3. During Rosen's tenure UCLA was 8 - 5, 4 - 8 and 6 - 7. He didn't lift the team; the team became worse.

You are misquoting him. He is clearly referring to SAT admission standards for the athletes, not the general student population. I am also very confident that he knows that UCLA has quite low SAT standards for its football players too. He named Alabama because they are flat-out the best program in the country. Like UCLA, most (not all) of the guys they recruit are basically knuckle draggers. The same goes for other elite public universities like Michigan and (infamously) UNC. 

 

As for Stanford v. UCLA, Stanford's admissions standards are higher, but it is a fact that UCLA is the second-most difficult public university to get into (based on acceptance rates) in the country after Berkeley. Comparing public and private universities is an apples-and-oranges exercise in any case; they serve different functions.  As an institution overall, UCLA is pretty much always ranked in the top 15 universities globally. Stanford is higher, but it's not as if there's a huge gap. As for comparing their football teams over the long haul, UCLA's record is infinitely better than Stanford's. Stanford has, however, been a lot better in the last decade or so. UCLA had a lot of bad coaches of late despite constantly bringing in talent.

 

Finally, football is a team game. UCLA's defense this year was historically awful. Jalen Hurts, who sucks, had a very good won-loss record if you believe in that sort of thing. I don't.

Edited April 10, 2018 by dave mcbride

[Royale with Cheese]

4 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

You are misquoting him. He is clearly referring to SAT admission standards for the athletes, not the general student population. I am also very confident that he knows that UCLA has quite low SAT standards for its football players too. He named Alabama because they are flat-out the best program in the country. Like UCLA, most (not all) of the guys they recruit are basically knuckle draggers. The same goes for other elite public universities like Michigan. 

 

As for Stanford v. UCLA, Stanford's admissions standards are higher, but it is a fact that UCLA is the second-most difficult public university to get into (based on acceptance rates) in the country after Berkeley. Comparing public and private universities is an apples-and-oranges exercise in any case; they serve different functions.  As an institution overall, UCLA is pretty much always ranked in the top 15 universities globally. Stanford is higher, but it's not as if there's a huge gap. 

 

I've tried explaining this over and over and over again but he doesn't want to hear it.

[Sky Diver]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

You are misquoting him. He is clearly referring to SAT admission standards for the athletes, not the general student population. I am also very confident that he knows that UCLA has quite low SAT standards for its football players too. He named Alabama because they are flat-out the best program in the country. Like UCLA, most (not all) of the guys they recruit are basically knuckle draggers. The same goes for other elite public universities like Michigan and (infamously) UNC. 

 

As for Stanford v. UCLA, Stanford's admissions standards are higher, but it is a fact that UCLA is the second-most difficult public university to get into (based on acceptance rates) in the country after Berkeley. Comparing public and private universities is an apples-and-oranges exercise in any case; they serve different functions.  As an institution overall, UCLA is pretty much always ranked in the top 15 universities globally. Stanford is higher, but it's not as if there's a huge gap. As for comparing their football teams over the long haul, UCLA's record is infinitely better than Stanford's. Stanford has, however, been a lot better in the last decade or so. UCLA had a lot of bad coaches of late despite constantly bringing in talent.

 

Finally, football is a team game. UCLA's defense this year was historically awful. Jalen Hurts, who sucks, had a very good won-loss record if you believe in that sort of thing. I don't.

 

We don't know what the admission standards are at UCLA, Alabama and Clemson for football players, and neither does Rosen, which makes this comment stupid. We do know that UCLA has lower admission standards for athletes.

 

"OK, raise the SAT requirement at Alabama and see what kind of team they have."

 

Stanford does not relax it's academic standards for athletes, so if Rosen is right, they should have a really bad football team, and obviously they don't.

 

Rosen is a mixed up kid and if he couldn't throw a ball, no one would care what his opinion was on anything of substance.

[Royale with Cheese]

5 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

We don't know what the admission standards are at UCLA, Alabama and Clemson for football players, and neither does Rosen, which makes this comment stupid. We do know that UCLA has lower admission standards for athletes.

 

"OK, raise the SAT requirement at Alabama and see what kind of team they have."

 

Stanford does not relax it's academic standards for athletes, so if Rosen is right, they should have a really bad football team, and obviously they don't.

 

Rosen is a mixed up kid and if he couldn't throw a ball, no one would care what his opinion was on anything of substance.

 

So AL.com is stupid because they said we should be thanking Rosen for his comments?

[dave mcbride]

8 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

We don't know what the admission standards are at UCLA, Alabama and Clemson for football players, and neither does Rosen, which makes this comment stupid. We do know that UCLA has lower admission standards for athletes.

 

"OK, raise the SAT requirement at Alabama and see what kind of team they have."

 

Stanford does not relax it's academic standards for athletes, so if Rosen is right, they should have a really bad football team, and obviously they don't.

 

Rosen is a mixed up kid and if he couldn't throw a ball, no one would care what his opinion was on anything of substance.

Stanford absolutely relaxes its academic standards for athletes (I speak with authority on this because I know someone who was recruited there). So does Duke, Northwestern, Vandy, and ND. I can't believe you said that!

 

And we do know the admission standards for football players at UCLA, Alabama, and Clemson: in a word, low.

Edited April 10, 2018 by dave mcbride

[Royale with Cheese]

5 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Stanford absolutely relaxes its academic standards for athletes (I speak with authority on this because I know someone who was recruited there). I can't believe you said that!

 

But this is not actually true. Although we do not have comprehensive statistics comparing athletic admits to regular admits, some data does exist. Looking at a group of 10 elite colleges and using SAT scores (on the 1600 point scale) as a proxy for academic ability, Princeton researchers found that being a recruited athlete gave an admissions boost equivalent to scoring 200 points higher on the SAT. We can also look at high school scouting reports for football players. Looking at the Stanfordrecruitment class of 2009 (this year was quite typical in terms of test scores), the median football player who reported scores got an 1800 out of 2400 on the SAT and 26 on the ACT. Based on university statistics, this puts the football median comfortably in the bottom quartile and likely somewhere in the bottom 10 percent in terms of test scores. Stanford football players are quite smart, but the data suggests they place near the bottom of Stanford’s admits.

 

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/02/22/the-price-of-athletics-at-stanford/

[MAJBobby]

7 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

Don't worry, in a decade or so your inferior team just might come within 30 points of the National Champion University of Alabama Crimson Tide. Try not to let the jealousy and hate build until then; it's like poison, ya know?

Saban is and it isn't close.

 

Quiter

and there is a college forum for the Saban sluts to worship him

[Royale with Cheese]

This is not an attack on athletes, nor is it a suggestion that all athletes are underqualified. In fact, my inspiration for this op-ed came from an article by John Urschel, who, aside from being an offensive lineman for the Baltimore Ravens, is also a published mathematician. Urschel suggests that football players, including those at Stanford, are letting their sport take precedence over their education.

Urschel’s argument is one part of my broader concern. At Stanford, there is a serious tradeoff between athletics and academics: a tradeoff that is under-recognized and goes largely undiscussed. Athletics is not mentioned as part of Stanford’s purpose in the Founding Grant, nor in the mission statements of any of the seven schools. Yet we are making substantial sacrifices for athletics, in terms of financial resources and spots in each entering class. I believe the fundamental question is how much we, as a university, value athletics for its own sake. If our actions are out of line with our values, then we need to change.

It’s time for us to consider whether Stanford’s policies of heavy investment in athletic programs and recruitment are really in line with the university’s mission. Regardless of what we decide to do, we as a university should have a frank discussion about how much we are willing to sacrifice academics for athletic success.

[Sky Diver]

2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

So AL.com is stupid because they said we should be thanking Rosen for his comments?

 

Okay, so let's all give Rosen a round of applause for saying that it's is difficult to manage college football and academics.

 

I didn't see that he offered any insightful solutions or provide any alternatives to the status quo, did you? I might actually find that interesting.

 

The only we know is that he is bolting from college without earning a degree. 

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Sky Diver