Vandalus;842679311 said:

---

Yeah, except it was our AD saying it on a live tv broadcast. It wasn't exactly a boston market source.

---

I'm really trying hard to see how you don't understand this. Past athletic directors have been quoted in the local newspapers in the past on the issue of academics. They have blatantly lied. I trusted those statements as I agree with you, they aren't boston market sources. Every year the grad rates came out. Every year they sucked. Every year they said the academics was better but they didn't show up in the public statistics yet because they were working off the poor results of the previous regime. And then the next year the results were the same. Given that Cal administration has the information about how student athletes are performing in class, I trusted those statements because I did not believe they would just lie to cover their ass. I was wrong then. I will not be wrong again. Official results come out in the April/May timeframe every year. I see no reason to comment on results until they are official. When they come out I will give props for positive and criticize the negative. I will also point out that as late as last year there were statements about turning academics around and then our APR sucked again.

For some reason, one of the best, if not the best, academic institutions in the world has gotten away with horrific results with respect to its student athletes for literally decades with very few blips in that terrible record. Trusting the statements of administrators did not change that. Dirks deserves a lot of credit for coming in and rather than listening to the line of bullshyte excuses from the athletic director and saying "eh, I don't give a damn about sports anyway", canning her ass and demanding actual results.

You can make fun of me for not trusting what they say as much as you want, but trusting what they say had been the wrong strategy for 50 years. Sorry to Mike Williams and Dirks, but they inherit that legacy. The results today go a long way to buying credibility. But the last regime also made great strides on the academic front only to see it slip away. I must admit that the first year there was evidence that things were slipping, I was too quick to pass it off as a fluke given the past success. It is an issue that is too important and one that Cal has been far too complacent on.

I will also point out that there are those on this thread who made the argument that Tom Holmoe should be kept because he was so great on academics because they believed the athletic department. Yes, I remember. And he was horrible on academics. Their willingness to buy that BS kept the guy around long past his expiration date. My unwillingness to acknowledge results until they are officially reported does nothing but delay some congratulations by a couple of months.

I look forward to next April/May when I can again congratulate coaches, players, the athletic department, and the administration for another year of solid results.

OaktownBear;842679344 said:

---

I'm really trying hard to see how you don't understand this. Past athletic directors have been quoted in the local newspapers in the past on the issue of academics. They have blatantly lied. I trusted those statements as I agree with you, they aren't boston market sources. Every year the grad rates came out. Every year they sucked. Every year they said the academics was better but they didn't show up in the public statistics yet because they were working off the poor results of the previous regime. And then the next year the results were the same. Given that Cal administration has the information about how student athletes are performing in class, I trusted those statements because I did not believe they would just lie to cover their ass. I was wrong then. I will not be wrong again. Official results come out in the April/May timeframe every year. I see no reason to comment on results until they are official. When they come out I will give props for positive and criticize the negative. I will also point out that as late as last year there were statements about turning academics around and then our APR sucked again.

For some reason, one of the best, if not the best, academic institutions in the world has gotten away with horrific results with respect to its student athletes for literally decades with very few blips in that terrible record. Trusting the statements of administrators did not change that. Dirks deserves a lot of credit for coming in and rather than listening to the line of bullshyte excuses from the athletic director and saying "eh, I don't give a damn about sports anyway", canning her ass and demanding actual results.

You can make fun of me for not trusting what they say as much as you want, but trusting what they say had been the wrong strategy for 50 years. Sorry to Mike Williams and Dirks, but they inherit that legacy. The results today go a long way to buying credibility. But the last regime also made great strides on the academic front only to see it slip away. I must admit that the first year there was evidence that things were slipping, I was too quick to pass it off as a fluke given the past success. It is an issue that is too important and one that Cal has been far too complacent on.

I will also point out that there are those on this thread who made the argument that Tom Holmoe should be kept because he was so great on academics because they believed the athletic department. Yes, I remember. And he was horrible on academics. Their willingness to buy that BS kept the guy around long past his expiration date. My unwillingness to acknowledge results until they are officially reported does nothing but delay some congratulations by a couple of months.

I look forward to next April/May when I can again congratulate coaches, players, the athletic department, and the administration for another year of solid results.

---

So... I was right?

As an aside, the coach with the problem now is Gottlieb. 941 for women's hoops is not good. She's OK for now, as the four-year average is still OK, but that yearly number can't continue for long. After the Final Four year with so much promise, it's not clear to me what the problem is over on the women's side, but if the trends on and off the court continue as they did this year, she's going to be on the hot seat.

Jeff82;842679348 said:

---

As an aside, the coach with the problem now is Gottlieb. 941 for women's hoops is not good. She's OK for now, as the four-year average is still OK, but that yearly number can't continue for long. After the Final Four year with so much promise, it's not clear to me what the problem is over on the women's side, but if the trends on and off the court continue as they did this year, she's going to be on the hot seat.

---

Gottlieb gets a lot of slack because she seems really nice and seems to really care about her players. Not to make this comparison in all respects, but that was part of the deal with Holmoe, people assumed that he MUST be good on the academics because he seemed to really care about people.

Jeff82;842679348 said:

---

As an aside, the coach with the problem now is Gottlieb. 941 for women's hoops is not good. She's OK for now, as the four-year average is still OK, but that yearly number can't continue for long. After the Final Four year with so much promise, it's not clear to me what the problem is over on the women's side, but if the trends on and off the court continue as they did this year, she's going to be on the hot seat.

---

Well all her players have been graduating with degrees and Dev Hampton (from Boyle's era) even earned her degree so not sure where that figure comes from. One player was dismissed from the team in the fall before the season began...does that factor in? No seniors on the roster this year and only 2 next.

As for "trends" on court, the team is young. One mediocre season is not cause for alarm. She did manage to guide Anigwe to an historic national freshmen of the year honor. As a Brown graduate Gottlieb puts a premium on academics so I would view the result as an anomaly.

That's certainly possible. My dad, who follows the women more closely than I do, says the issue was depth, and it was unexpected, as a result of unplanned for departures and injuries. Basically, Anigwe had to carry the load by herself this year. If they continue to develop players around her, they should be back on track.

BearBackerinLA;842679443 said:

---

---

More to come? Aw hell yes!!!

NYCGOBEARS;842679446 said:

---

More to come? Aw hell yes!!!

---

Welcome to Cal Demetris!!!

Too soon?

Zerk;842679447 said:

---

Welcome to Cal Demetris!!!

Too soon?

---

When Peeler tweets stuff like that, really good things tend to happen.

NYCGOBEARS;842679450 said:

---

When Peeler tweets stuff like that, really good things tend to happen.

---

Shhh this could be a great week/weekend

Today results

Draft weekend

And Monday???

going4roses;842679459 said:

---

Shhh this could be a great week/weekend

Today results

Draft weekend

And Monday???

---

That's more like over the next two weeks.

Oops

OaktownBear;842679344 said:

---

I'm really trying hard to see how you don't understand this. Past athletic directors have been quoted in the local newspapers in the past on the issue of academics. They have blatantly lied. I trusted those statements as I agree with you, they aren't boston market sources. Every year the grad rates came out. Every year they sucked. Every year they said the academics was better but they didn't show up in the public statistics yet because they were working off the poor results of the previous regime. And then the next year the results were the same. Given that Cal administration has the information about how student athletes are performing in class, I trusted those statements because I did not believe they would just lie to cover their ass. I was wrong then. I will not be wrong again. Official results come out in the April/May timeframe every year. I see no reason to comment on results until they are official. When they come out I will give props for positive and criticize the negative. I will also point out that as late as last year there were statements about turning academics around and then our APR sucked again.

For some reason, one of the best, if not the best, academic institutions in the world has gotten away with horrific results with respect to its student athletes for literally decades with very few blips in that terrible record. Trusting the statements of administrators did not change that. Dirks deserves a lot of credit for coming in and rather than listening to the line of bullshyte excuses from the athletic director and saying "eh, I don't give a damn about sports anyway", canning her ass and demanding actual results.

You can make fun of me for not trusting what they say as much as you want, but trusting what they say had been the wrong strategy for 50 years. Sorry to Mike Williams and Dirks, but they inherit that legacy. The results today go a long way to buying credibility. But the last regime also made great strides on the academic front only to see it slip away. I must admit that the first year there was evidence that things were slipping, I was too quick to pass it off as a fluke given the past success. It is an issue that is too important and one that Cal has been far too complacent on.

I will also point out that there are those on this thread who made the argument that Tom Holmoe should be kept because he was so great on academics because they believed the athletic department. Yes, I remember. And he was horrible on academics. Their willingness to buy that BS kept the guy around long past his expiration date. My unwillingness to acknowledge results until they are officially reported does nothing but delay some congratulations by a couple of months.

I look forward to next April/May when I can again congratulate coaches, players, the athletic department, and the administration for another year of solid results.

---

I'm 85% pulling your chain here. You made a comment that directly contradicted what was being reported, and I felt that it was unjustified given what Williams had literally just said a few days prior. Your response was something to the effect of "I've been lied to before" which is essentially what all of the above is about. I'm sorry that you can recall prior examples of the Cal AD publicly lying about our academic progress. I cannot - either I'm younger than you, forgetful or haven't cared enough to recall the times you are speaking of (all three probably qualify). You've been burned on this, so you are/were taking a wait/see approach and that's cool. It's not a big deal. I was just f'ing with you.

And I was making a joke with the white courtesy phone - I knew that you hadn't been online yet (your profile said as much) so I wasn't making any commentary or interference there. I know you don't live on this board to respond to my stupid jokes.

OaktownBear;842679344 said:

---

I'm really trying hard to see how you don't understand this. Past athletic directors have been quoted in the local newspapers in the past on the issue of academics. They have blatantly lied. I trusted those statements as I agree with you, they aren't boston market sources. Every year the grad rates came out. Every year they sucked. Every year they said the academics was better but they didn't show up in the public statistics yet because they were working off the poor results of the previous regime. And then the next year the results were the same. Given that Cal administration has the information about how student athletes are performing in class, I trusted those statements because I did not believe they would just lie to cover their ass. I was wrong then. I will not be wrong again. Official results come out in the April/May timeframe every year. I see no reason to comment on results until they are official. When they come out I will give props for positive and criticize the negative. I will also point out that as late as last year there were statements about turning academics around and then our APR sucked again.

For some reason, one of the best, if not the best, academic institutions in the world has gotten away with horrific results with respect to its student athletes for literally decades with very few blips in that terrible record. Trusting the statements of administrators did not change that. Dirks deserves a lot of credit for coming in and rather than listening to the line of bullshyte excuses from the athletic director and saying "eh, I don't give a damn about sports anyway", canning her ass and demanding actual results.

You can make fun of me for not trusting what they say as much as you want, but trusting what they say had been the wrong strategy for 50 years. Sorry to Mike Williams and Dirks, but they inherit that legacy. The results today go a long way to buying credibility. But the last regime also made great strides on the academic front only to see it slip away. I must admit that the first year there was evidence that things were slipping, I was too quick to pass it off as a fluke given the past success. It is an issue that is too important and one that Cal has been far too complacent on.

I will also point out that there are those on this thread who made the argument that Tom Holmoe should be kept because he was so great on academics because they believed the athletic department. Yes, I remember. And he was horrible on academics. Their willingness to buy that BS kept the guy around long past his expiration date. My unwillingness to acknowledge results until they are officially reported does nothing but delay some congratulations by a couple of months.

I look forward to next April/May when I can again congratulate coaches, players, the athletic department, and the administration for another year of solid results.

---

+1 ... waiting for an official announcement is very reasonable ... you stated your reasons well.

Yah. Now time to get a Rose Bowl before 2997.

Vandalus;842679470 said:

---

I'm 85% pulling your chain here. You made a comment that directly contradicted what was being reported, and I felt that it was unjustified given what Williams had literally just said a few days prior. Your response was something to the effect of "I've been lied to before" which is essentially what all of the above is about. I'm sorry that you can recall prior examples of the Cal AD publicly lying about our academic progress. I cannot - either I'm younger than you, forgetful or haven't cared enough to recall the times you are speaking of (all three probably qualify). You've been burned on this, so you are/were taking a wait/see approach and that's cool. It's not a big deal. I was just f'ing with you.

And I was making a joke with the white courtesy phone - I knew that you hadn't been online yet (your profile said as much) so I wasn't making any commentary or interference there. I know you don't live on this board to respond to my stupid jokes.

---

Got it, Vandalus. We're cool.

SonOfCalVa;842679501 said:

---

+1 ... waiting for an official announcement is very reasonable ... you stated your reasons well.

---

Appreciated, Son

SonOfCalVa;842679262 said:

---

furd lower than $c, omg, the shame, and fucla below them ... :woohoo:

---

USC... ballroom dancing... nuff said, no?

It goes beyond Dykes... APR requires attention to detail in the program/ athletic department higher ups. And it does require a coach to buy in and push the agenda a bit, or at least be fine with missing on a few players and be fine with running off, or threaten to run off, players for poor class attendance and poor effort in the classroom despite their athletic talents.

What I find interesting is that the APR rise has taken place BEFORE the 80/20 rule goes into effect. As in on 20% of incoming players can be admitted with academic indexes below UC minimums. I sure hope the 80/20 is not a complete overreaction to laziness by the prior AD (or the prior AD bascailly getting steamrolled by the former coach).... because we have seen that APR increases can be accomplished w/o that rule in effect yet.

I'm a little afraid that APR gains were accomplished by cutting off the very low end of academic risks, but the new rule will cut off far more players....far more than was necessary to bring up APR at least. We'll see.

goldenokiebear;842679230 said:

---

... Most noticeable score of other Pac schools was Furd's - would love to see some stories about that slip in the local rags, but won't be holding my breath...

---

I'd like to some explanation as well, but (spoiler alert) - it doesn't look like Wilner will be quite as critical or thorough on clarifying the Stanford situation as he was in condemning the Cal performance of previous years.

I noted that his initial article on the APR results stated "Also worth noting: Stanford's single-year scores, no doubt affected by NFL attrition, are the lowest since the NCAA began reporting that piece of the puzzle late last decade." and then added "The Cardinal's multi-year score remains the best (tied) in the conference."

The thing is - the APR is structured so that if a player leaves for the NFL [U]in good standing[/U] that player is removed from the numerator and the denominator in the APR calculation. So, if a player leaves for the NFL and is in good standing, the APR is (essentially) unchanged. The only way players leaving for the NFL have a negative impact on the APR is if they are NOT in good standing when they leave - which happens when players prepare for combines and the draft and simply skip/drop/ignore all their coursework to focus on the NFL. So, the 971 is a significant drop in APR, and isn't simply explained away by players leaving for the NFL. It is a long way from the 4-year average "danger zone" of a 930 APR, but it is worth some more explanation and clarification in what actually happened. It's not a simple "accounting" issue as the article would lead you to believe.

Big C_Cal;842679371 said:

---

Gottlieb gets a lot of slack because she seems really nice and seems to really care about her players. Not to make this comparison in all respects, but that was part of the deal with Holmoe, people assumed that he MUST be good on the academics because he seemed to really care about people.

---

He regularly threw his players under the bus in the press.

In addition, Bobby Petrino will receive a $500,000 bonus for Louisville's APR higher than 935.

going4roses;842679896 said:

---

In addition, Bobby Petrino will receive a $500,000 bonus for Louisville’s APR higher than 935.

---

Tell me this is part of a new comedy bit you've been testing out.

Vandalus;842679902 said:

---

Tell me this is part of a new comedy bit you've been testing out.

---

Nope per USA today via coaching search

Lol

Way to set the bar high Louisville. To be fair, their 4 year avg is 982... this after losing 3 scholarships in 2010 for having a 908. Since they have gone 911, 924, 947, 977 and now 982.

But still 500k