The NYTimes had an article about it this am. I tried to link the article below. I had heard the scandal was put to rest, but it sounds like it is still festering and may ultimately have major repercussions. The allegations are disgusting, IMO. Reading about it, I become disheartened that major college sports is really workable. How can Cal compete with schools that are blatantly, or not so blatantly, cheating on this scale? The conflicts between running a university with academic integrity and housing a semi-pro athletic operation dedicated to winning at all costs are just profound.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/sports/ncaabasketball/north-carolina-final-four-cheating-fake-classes.html?_r=0

Bearprof;842828016 said:

---

The NYTimes had an article about it this am. I tried to link the article below. I had heard the scandal was put to rest, but it sounds like it is still festering and may ultimately have major repercussions. The allegations are disgusting, IMO. Reading about it, I become disheartened that major college sports is really workable. How can Cal compete with schools that are blatantly, or not so blatantly, cheating on this scale? The conflicts between running a university with academic integrity and housing a semi-pro athletic operation dedicated to winning at all costs are just profound.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/sports/ncaabasketball/north-carolina-final-four-cheating-fake-classes.html?_r=0

---

It was bad enough 50? years ago when it was mostly egos. Now there are huge dollars at stake. Not only does money never sleep, it hardly ever loses.

Bearprof;842828016 said:

---

The conflicts between running a university with academic integrity and housing a semi-pro athletic operation dedicated to winning at all costs are just profound.

[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/sports/ncaabasketball/north-carolina-final-four-cheating-fake-classes.html?_r=0[/url

---

Oddly, Stanford football doesn't seem to be bothered by this conflict at all. We claim to be their equal or betters, do we not? Why can they consistently turn out Top 10 football & Rose Bowl teams and we can't?

Also: Don't forget that in the latter years of Tedford's time at Cal, there weren't a lot of football players playing much attention to academics. At least NC BB wins. What is really sad is that Cal lost consistently during Tedford's latter years in spite of the players not going to class. The players he left Dykes & Dykes left Wilcox are below average football players at best (Goff major exception).

Cal has a very limited fan base, both in the student body and in the general public/alumni. Tough to recruit with any consistency.

Bear19;842828102 said:

---

Oddly, Stanford football doesn't seem to be bothered by this conflict at all. We claim to be their equal or betters, do we not? Why can they consistently turn out Top 10 football & Rose Bowl teams and we can't?

---

We often ask ourselves the horrifying question: "Stanfurd is just like us, but with tougher academic standards. Why do they do infinitely better than us on the football field? What are we doing wrong?"....

....and forget that the answer is that they are among college football's "haves" while we're clearly among the "have nots". (Arillaga getting their stadium rebuilt during a single offseason should make that clear).

Not to mention that them being a private institution allows them to make a myriad of decisions that support their football program very easily, while we.....can't. If you had to give both institutions a grade for "institutional support of football", they'd get an A+ or A at worst, while we'd get a D-.

nothing new here. Just another NYT attack on college sports.

fwiw: Cal had plenty of classes with little rigor back in the days that I attended. Philosophy 101 was the utlimate mick. Upper division; class attendance not required. A final in which you choose your own question and answer it. The vast majority of students showed up to the final with their Blue Books completed. Once the final period started, everyone just looked around to see who had the cajones to be first to turn in the completed Blue Book. If I recall, the first to "finish" his essay did so in ~20 minutes. My buddy turned in an essay on Winnie the Pooh that he completed in HS English. Taken P/F, it was an automatic pass. May have even been 5 units.

Big Dog;842828144 said:

---

Cal had plenty of classes with little rigor back in the days that I attended. Philosophy 101 was the utlimate mick.

---

In the late '60s I tried Classics 17, which had a reputation as a mick. Oops, wrong prof, had to work for a C. I actually had an easier time in honors and majors classes where you were assumed to be bright and the curves were more generous. I found those more interesting as well.

stu;842828152 said:

---

In the late '60s I tried Classics 17, which had a reputation as a mick. Oops, wrong prof, had to work for a C. I actually had an easier time in honors and majors classes where you were assumed to be bright and the curves were more generous. I found those more interesting as well.

---

You should have taken Slottman. I somehow got an "A" in Classics 17 but have no idea how...

510Bear;842828141 said:

---

. If you had to give both institutions a grade for "institutional support of football", they'd get an A+ or A at worst, while we'd get a D-.

---

Good points, I agree with your grading.

However, I think their football & basketball success defend far more on who is coaching: Buddy Teevens, Walt Harris etc. moaned & groaned about how difficult it was to recruit given Stanford's academic standards & inflexibility, while losing year after year.

Stanford plays before lots of empty seats, year after year in their stadium, in spite of winning consistently.

Jim Harbaugh & now David Shaw turned those academic standards into a recruiting advantage. Jeff Tedford's latter teams did poorly in comparison with players who simply did not graduate.

Sonny Dykes found it difficult to recruit & win with his constant & public job hunting in Texas. He came to Cal after the stadium and football facilities were brought up to standard.

While Mike Montgomery was at Stanford, they did well. Before & after, their BB team just flounders.

The difference between winning & losing depends on who is coaching far beyond any other factor.

UNC shouldn't be even competing in the tournament if the NCAA applied their own bylaws with any consistency. In fact they should have received the death penalty for men's basketball and women's basketball. It would be nice if someone filed a lawsuit to reveal the NCAA's failings.

Friend of mine (grew up in and went to HS in SF) turned down admission to Cal to do his undergrad at UNC. He says he's so glad he did that, as he thinks UNC students are infinitely happier than their Cal counterparts thanks to their basketball team, nice weather, social scene, mood on campus, lack of openly hostile profs, etc. without giving up too much on the "prestige of your degree" scale. FWIW.

510Bear;842828400 said:

---

Friend of mine (grew up in and went to HS in SF) turned down admission to Cal to do his undergrad at UNC. He says he's so glad he did that, as he thinks UNC students are infinitely happier than their Cal counterparts thanks to their basketball team, nice weather, social scene, mood on campus, lack of openly hostile profs, etc. without giving up too much on the "prestige of your degree" scale. FWIW.

---

Deluded on several of those fronts.

510Bear;842828400 said:

---

Friend of mine (grew up in and went to HS in SF) turned down admission to Cal to do his undergrad at UNC. He says he's so glad he did that, as he thinks UNC students are infinitely happier than their Cal counterparts thanks to their basketball team, nice weather, social scene, mood on campus, lack of openly hostile profs, etc. without giving up too much on the "prestige of your degree" scale. FWIW.

---

This is just about every single one of your posts. Something bitter about Cal and positive about some other school. Quite a commitment to this shtick. The eeyore meme is kind of tiring, but mostly incredibly contrived.

Corruption so out in the open and brazen...and no one seems to really mind if their team wins in either sport and politics.

I find it really disturbing...and it makes me feel really naive...I actually believe in principles and don't understand taking any pleasure in victory earned through cheating (cutely called things like gaming the system or finding a loophole...but it's cheating). I thought the whole ideal of sport was to pit competitors in an evenly conducted contest with understood and objective rules--if not, what is the point to the endeavor?

So, it seems that cheating pays off in the end.

CalEnviroLaw;842828757 said:

---

So, it seems that cheating pays off in the end.

---

Yup. because in the end the.....

1) NCAA is about the enrichment of a very few in the upper echelon of coaching and ADs
2) Since football doesn't derive the majority of NCAA revenue it falls to hoops. And so the most important programs - not sanctioned.

Frustrating because basketball is such a wonderous sport which the NCAA (and the shoe companies) have essentially ruined.

82gradDLSdad;842828077 said:

---

It was bad enough 50? years ago when it was mostly egos. Now there are huge dollars at stake. Not only does money never sleep, it hardly ever loses.

---

Really? Ever heard of Sam Gilbert, UCLA donor?

http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/columnists/starkey/s_685788.html