From: delaw@eos.ncsu.edu (DOUGLAS EDWARD LAW )
Subject: Re: Prop 48...
Keywords: Flag, country, ashokan fiddle music, etc. redundancy, repetition
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:37:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.143906.19806@ms.uky.edu>, fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:
|> DOUGLAS EDWARD LAW writes:
|> >
|> >2. Assume Prop 48 is canned. How do you insure against schools turning into 
|> >football/basketball factories?  
|> 
|> So, since the schools can't be trusted, the student should be punished?
|> There are admissions policies at every school. Every school, apparently,
|> has a profile of the kind of kid it wants to educate and programs in
|> place to attract these kinds of kids. Why not substitute for Prop 48
|> a rule which would prohibit a school from accepting a kid from outside
|> its "target" base. If it has programs in place to educate "high risk

    What do you mean by "target" base? If you mean acadeamic target base then 
    who determines what that target is for each school? Is it the same for 
    Duke and, say, my school, N.C. State?
 
|> students who aren't athletes, fine. It would be permitted to accept
|> high risk students who were athletes. It would be up to the NCAA member
|> institution to show compliance under some arbitrary cut-off point. A  
|> school wouldn't be able to fill ALL of its "high risk" slots with athletes.
|> The program would have to monitor and encourage ALL of the students
|> in the program.  It isn't too hard to imagine a set of constraints
|> that would promote some kind of fairness. As an added attraction,
|> it would Share the Wealth: non-athletes from bum educational backgrounds
|> could conceivably coat-tail their way into schools.


|> Let's take, for example, Georgetown and Patrick Ewing. Did Georgetown
|> have a program in place to encourage non-7' high risk kids. Or did
|> it create a program solely for Ewing's benefit. Under a plan like
|> I would envision, the burden would be upon the school to demonstrate
|> that simple exploitation wasn't on their minds. Some schools -- someone
|> mentioned Idaho -- accept all high school graduates from their
|> state. Fine and dandy. Under my "plan" the school would be able to 
|> accept any athlete from Idaho high schools who graduated. Idaho
|> has already accepted its mission to educate all comers. Why should the
|> NCAA care? I object to Prop 48 because it misplaces the burden.

  Accepting everybody who graduated from high school is a nice idea for public schools, but you're not putting everyone on scholarship. You are with athletes. The problem with getting rid of Prop 48 is that you bring into your university people who don't care about getting an education (i.e. Chris Washburn). The non-athlete who can't afford to attend college gets hurt. 

  If I had my way, I would scrap Prop 48. I would make all athletes on scholorship "red shirt" their freshman year. I would still allow four years of elligability (i.e. five years to graduate). If an athlete leaves school before graduating (by going pro, dropping out, failing out, etc.) they must pay back the amount of money spent up to that point on their education. If they graduate, they don't have to pay back the money.  
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.college