"The opener could boost Cal's reputation..."

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
41

<p>Strykur, before you go about patting yourself, I'd take a long look at some of your previous posts before you start yakking.</p>

<p>I didn't need to respond to any points in that post, because there were none. First off, qw553 takes a stand that me and CalX have a "lack of knowledge" when it comes to college sports; I wholeheartedly disagree and from what I've seen CalX contribute to other sports forums, I would say that assumption is wrong. Saying it doesn't make it so. Firstly, I don't care if Cal has or has not admitted students with low academics "over the years." That's not what the posts leading up to this has been about, we're talking Tedford era here. "In general, players are basically on the same academic level..." wow, what a terrible statement: so I guess all high school football players are underwhelming in high school unless, of course, as the poster contends, that player eventually lands at a school like Stanfurd, Duke, ND, etc. which somehow justifies his performance in high school. One's GPA depends on the courses one takes, duh. However, again, for your assumption to be correct, then a Cal football player must take "easier" classes than an equivalent USC player. The poster says this by saying either (1) football players take easy courses= high gpa or (2) that if football players actually take challenging courses, then the classroom performance of the non-athlete population at Cal is equal to that of the athletes, which he has already hinted at being, essentially, dumb; Cal students are no slouches (please don't chime in Shiboing). What a thinly-veiled, silly attempt at a jab at Cal. Then the poster goes on to mutter a couple of extra somethings, but no one really cares.</p>

<p>As for Sakky, whether or not I have concrete statistics packaged in a nice report and available by electronic copy online is irrelevant. It seems your affinity for numbers has drawn a faithful gathering. The truth of the matter is, that there are no official reports to go by. I must say, that this is refreshing to see especially in Cal's case because, as I have mentioned, we won't have a true indication of Tedford's influence until his first recruiting class graduates, which will be this spring. I wouldn't be surprised if the first set of data is released sometime next summer. I am still wary regarding your usage of All-Academic teams as supposed measures of performance. I cannot find the actual selection criteria, though it must be noted that "significant contributor" and "3.0 GPA" are but eligibilty indexes. Eligibility does not equal automatic qualifier. One document that suggests this is WSU's athletic handbook, where it is written:</p>

<p>"The Pac-10 Conference recognizes All-Academic Teams for each sport. Media information officer and coaches provide nominees to the Awards and Scholarship Committee. Selected nominees are forwarded to the Pac-10 Conference Office. The student-athletes must be a significant contributor and maintain a 3.00 or higher cumulative GPA."</p>

<p>There is an intermediary process here, and it's not a matter of checking report cards and putting student-athletes on the Honor Roll. This is also evidenced in the somewhat arbitrary manner in which one student-athlete is awarded a First-Team over Second-Team. Also, If you look from year to year, sometimes a player appears (on 1st, 2nd, or HM) and sometimes he doesn't. We can attribute this to whether one qualifies as a "significant contributor" or not, but all else being equal, there doesn't appear to be any other thresholds unless one considers what WSU presents: a nomination process at the university level and, perhaps, an additional selection process at the conference level (for example, in the determination process of the 1st and 2nd team make-ups). Even if Cal had 30 players that qualified, they would not all have made the list. As for the graduation rate, there is a post in following link that suggests data comes from the American Football Coaches Assocation, you can access it by clicking on the link and finding the entry titled "Academic Achievement is Restricted to Private Schools?"</p>

<p><a href="http://sturdygoldenbear.blogspot.com/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://sturdygoldenbear.blogspot.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>While Sakky has rightfully contested one point made in my posts, it was not the main purpose of my post to discuss academic performance at the collegiate level. I wanted to illustrate the fact that recruits see Cal's academics as a bonus. Sure, these may be 2.0 students with a 890 SAT (old SAT), but that doesn't mean that they don't value academics and that they don't consider their eventual degree's worth. Among other things, parents are heavily involved in the college recruiting process and it's not unusual to find a mother suggesting Berkeley because of it's academic reputation. Whether or not this actually translates into actual performance is beside the point.</p>

42

<p>I am shocked by TedfordisGod's link. Stanford didn't even make the 70% mark in 2006. I wonder what happened to them. They used to have one of the highest rates:
<a href="http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2005/Preview/Program_Rankings_Graduation.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2005/Preview/Program_Rankings_Graduation.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

43

<p>
[quote]
I am still wary regarding your usage of All-Academic teams as supposed measures of performance. I cannot find the actual selection criteria, though it must be noted that "significant contributor" and "3.0 GPA" are but eligibilty indexes. Eligibility does not equal automatic qualifier. One document that suggests this is WSU's athletic handbook, where it is written:

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, I never said that the all-Academic data was comprehensive. But it is a piece of data that is publicly available and can be checked, and that is better than a simple assertion (by anybody, including myself). </p>

<p>What I do find remarkable is that the numbers of all-Academics have stayed relatively constant. For example, the teams under Tedford have had the same number of all-Academics as the teams under Holmoe. So at least in that respect, it seems to me that there is no change.</p>

<p>
[quote]
While Sakky has rightfully contested one point made in my posts, it was not the main purpose of my post to discuss academic performance at the collegiate level. I wanted to illustrate the fact that recruits see Cal's academics as a bonus.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This point, I have no serious issue with. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I am shocked by TedfordisGod's link. Stanford didn't even make the 70% mark in 2006. I wonder what happened to them. They used to have one of the highest rates:
<a href="http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2...Graduation.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2...Graduation.htm&lt;/a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's probably a 1-year anomaly for Stanford. As you can see from the link you presented, Stanford was tied for 3rd in graduation rate, whereas Cal was tied for #74. Again, this is mostly (probably purely) Tom Holmoe data, but still, that's just more evidence of the utter disaster that was the Tom Holmoe era.</p>

<p><a href="http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/inst2005/674.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/inst2005/674.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

44

<p>My post was mainly questioning your and Calx's unfounded claims of Cal football players' high GPA and the tough courses they took. You certainly avoided it. I made the comparison between players and nomral students' GPA out of total respect for Berkeley and its students' academics because I can not believe athletes can outperform regular students there.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I've seen CalX contribute to other sports forums, I would say that assumption is wrong

[/quote]

This fact doesn't prove his knowledge at all, especially because it's from what you've seen.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I wanted to illustrate the fact that recruits see Cal's academics as a bonus

[/quote]

This is certainly possible, but does not mean they can do well academically. And to say this happening in Tedford's era implied it wasn't in Holmea's. What happened then with Cal? Does Tedford have the magic to instantly boost Cal's academics? If you say Tedford recruits his kind of players, then I want to share 2 stories with you: First, Lynch was a borderline high school student, even as a prime athlete. USC and UCLA all didn't want him, but Tedford took the risk, and later admitted Lynch is worthy of the gamble. Another high school player, whose name escaped me, was turned down by Pete Carroll for the questionable academics and maybe some other reasons. Tedford picked him up again, but the guy didn't even pass the NCAA bottom line, so he hasn't made Cal team yet. These are just showing that Tedford recruits to win, academics is just his second thought as should be in any other college coach's mind in the country. People will be thrilled if any football player can win a Nobel prize, but nobady expect it.</p>

45

<p>Lynch carries a 2.9-3.0 GPA at Cal. His SAT was abysmally low coming in, but the correlation between SAT scores and success in college is very far from perfect. Lynch and many other student-athletes have high academic motivations and blossom in college but they came in with poor backgrounds and schooling. In a sense, the football program is doing what the campus at large hasn't been allowed to do lately, apply affirmative action.</p>

<p>There are no media outlets publishing the fact that Cal's team GPA is 3.0 because Cal's PR sucks. BTW that info came directly from Tedford himself, so you can bank on it.</p>

<p>There are no mickey mouse majors at Cal, every department on campus has a world-class faculty. The student body is quite excellent and competitive. There are a couple of majors that are very collegial and don't emphasize grades like CNR, but that department is one of the top in the world, with a high caliber of students.</p>

<p>People are quick to praise the graduation rate of schools like Stanford or Duke, but how hard is it to stay eligible at schools where something 95% of the grades awarded are As and Bs? Cal must have one of the lowest spreads between its average campus GPA and its football team's GPA.</p>

<p>PS sakky: Holmoe was not a cheater, the violations under his watch were more a matter of his managerial and leadership ineptitude. In the past several decades, Cal only had one coach who was a bona fide cheater in FB, Mike White (mid-70s), and one in basketball, Bozeman. That's two too many of course, but let's not tarnish the reputation of the whole athletic dept and the dozens of coaches for the ethical shortcomings of these two coaches.</p>

<p>The difference with Tedford is that he has very strong leadership and managerial qualities, he has been able to inspire his players to achieve in the classroom and give them the support necessary to succeed. The student-athletes have a very draconian and tightly regimented schedule that leaves very little time outside of training and studying. Interestingly, some of the study programs he instaured at Cal where programs that he had difficulty running at Oregon as they were peceived to interfere with football.</p>

46

<p>
[quote]
Strykur, before you go about patting yourself, I'd take a long look at some of your previous posts before you start yakking.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Another red herring. Pull another one, I dare ya. Talking about the GPAs of our football players versus the current standings of our teams seems to be the norm in this thread nowadays, huh? This whole discussion has been a farce anyways - you take comfort by deflecting the mention of your [disputable] fallicies by criticizing me? Hilarious. Stop attacking aesthetics for once.</p>

47

<p>I was not bagging on Lynch. My examples were to show Tedford was not, and is not recruiting good classroom students. His emphasis on academics is mainly for maintaining eligibilty and good team attitude no matter what he brags. I really applaud his effort, since it implicitly gives the young men good education. </p>

<p>As for the "academic game plan", I don't know how Tedford games it, but at every major NCAA school, enormous resources are put into supporting their money making machines academically (which certainly does a lot of good things to the athletes). You don't do better just because you invent a name to call it. And a world class graudate department hardly makes difference to an athlete's undergraduate study. Now Karl Dorrell at UCLA claimed all his player doing summer school at UCLA got a GPA of 3.85. How do you think about it?</p>

<p>I am here purely because I can not stand people who are making up facts, or spreading what others made up whenever there is a need. I can not understand when you are praising your team, why do you have the need to backstab other schools like USC and UCLA. Also bashing Matt Leinart's dancing class can be fun sometimes, but doing it again and again whenever there is a chance is moronic. Especially credit should be given to him for almost getting a degree in 4 years while achieving great things on field that no one at Cal team has ever, or will ever achieve in the foreseeable future.</p>

<p>Now about Tedford, I think he is a good coach. But he never performed in big games. Whenever there is attention from the media, and public, he collapsed. He did best when he is under the radar, like the Vt game from years ago, or USC 2003. The game at USC 2004 could be used as a counter example, but I have different view about it. I think he will overcome it as he already led Cal team overcoming a lot to get to the current status. Cal players are definitely more talented than they showed up at UT. That game was a showcase of poor coaching, poor preparation, and some bad luck. Losing that way definitely damaged a lot on image, but the true teststone for Tedford will be this coming game with Minnesota. I hope they can do well. Let's wait.</p>

48

<p>QW553: Exactly what are you bagging on then? Take a few minutes and read the thread before you continue with your bashing. </p>

<p>You claim you are here because you can't stand when other schools bash USC and UCLA. TTG's post #19 highly praises UCLA and USC's football talent program. in the following threads there's no bashing of either of those schools.
Various CAL students in posts 27, 29, 30 again mention the graduation rates at USC and UCLA but not negatively. So, where is the bashing?</p>

<p>You also claim you are on this thread because while "bashing Leinert's dance class can be fun sometimes, but doing it over and over again whenever there is an opportunity is moronic..." TTG mentions Leinert's dance class ONE TIME in post #28. </p>

<p>You are here to trash CAL's football program, Jeff Tedford, our academics, our GPA. Get over it. You claim you are from USC, you post on UCLA's threads more than on USC, 35 to 33. You spend a lot of time trolling.</p>

49

<p>
[quote]
You also claim you are on this thread because while "bashing Leinert's dance class can be fun sometimes, but doing it over and over again whenever there is an opportunity is moronic..." TTG mentions Leinert's dance class ONE TIME in post #28.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>QW553 meant to say his comment as part of larger context - beyond CC, Leinart's dance shenanigans have been chastised from ESPN to the lowest college football fan sites. Even if one person mentions it now on CC, it's already too much, and a very weak rebuttal.</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
Also bashing Matt Leinart's dancing class can be fun sometimes, but doing it again and again whenever there is a chance is moronic. Especially credit should be given to him for almost getting a degree in 4 years while achieving great things on field that no one at Cal team has ever, or will ever achieve in the foreseeable future.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, I also don't see why this is such a big deal. What's so bad about Matt Leinart taking a dance class? He was doing it because he was a redshirt senior who only needed 2 more units to graduate. A lot of players (whether at Cal, USC, or any other 1A school) don't even graduate. Heck, plenty of college students, whether they are players or not, don't even graduate. </p>

<p>I remember a guy at Cal who was entering his 7th year, and STILL wasn't close to graduating. And he wasn't even participating in an extracurricular activity and certainly wasn't going to win anything like the Heisman Trophy or win the National Championship in anything (unless there's a national championship in laziness, as he might have won that). The guy was basically just lollygagging around. </p>

<p>Besides, Cal also offers physical education courses for credit, including, yes, dance (both jazz and modern), as well as aerobics, yoga, tennis, and golf . In fact, I know people who have used physical education classes to get just above the minimum number of units required to maintain satisfactory academic progress. I remember seeing former Cal basketball player (and now Phoenix Sun) Sean Marks in a Cal weight-lifting class. I'm sure there have been plenty of other Cal athletes who have taken physical education classes for credit, including potentially dance clases. So what's so bad about what Matt Leinart did?</p>

51

<p>
[quote]
Leinart's dance shenanigans have been chastised from ESPN to the lowest college football fan sites. Even if one person mentions it now on CC, it's already too much, and a very weak rebuttal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think 'chastising' is the right word, at least not on ESPN (I can't speak for the fan sites). I think what ESPN was pointing out was a quirk in the NCAA eligibility rules that state that in order to be eligible to play, you have to be taking a certain number of units unless it is your final semester. In Matt Leinart's case, he had finished his entire degree except for a few units, so all he needed was a dance class to push him over the top. </p>

<p>But what's wrong with that? Would it really have been any better if Leinart had not finished almost all his requirements before his redshirt senior year? So we should 'punish' Leinart for completing most of his requirements before his final semester? I'll tell you this. In my final semester of both undergrad and grad, I had very few classes to do, because I had frontloaded my course schedules. I know many people like that - people who completed numerous courses early on, and so only needed 1 or 2 classes in their final semesters to graduate. Why is that a bad thing? </p>

<p>For example, one of my friend's relatives had set up his schedule such that in his final semester, all he had to do was complete the American Cultures requirement, and he would graduate. He basically spent that last semester working almost full-time, showing up only to that class, and he got a waiver from the Dean to take that class on a UC-Extension basis (which means that he took the same class ,but he paid Extension fees, not regular semester tuition fees). Is that wrong? Are you saying that he should he have not front-loaded his schedule, so that he would have had to take a full courseload in his final semester? </p>

<p>Personally, I think front-loading is a great strategy if you can handle it. It gives you great freedom in your final semester to do what you want.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
There are no media outlets publishing the fact that Cal's team GPA is 3.0 because Cal's PR sucks. BTW that info came directly from Tedford himself, so you can bank on it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I don't know about that. I don't take Tedford at his word, just because I don't take ANY college football coach at his word. The coaches are clearly not impartial. Pete Carroll, Bobby Bowden, Mack Brown, and, yes, Jeff Tedford, will all want to talk about how great their players are as students, but I don't particularly believe it. In the case of the first 3 coaches (and Pete Carroll especially), we all know that his players are going to their school primarily because they're trying to get to the NFL, not because they' really care about academics. That's just how Division 1-A football is. </p>

<p>
[quote]
There are no mickey mouse majors at Cal, every department on campus has a world-class faculty. The student body is quite excellent and competitive. There are a couple of majors that are very collegial and don't emphasize grades like CNR, but that department is one of the top in the world, with a high caliber of students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Every school out there, whether it's Cal or anywhere else, has some majors that are easier than others. It's also no secret that any major football program tends to have its players crowd into certain majors. Only something like 5% (probably fewer) of Cal's students are majoring in American Studies, but far far more than 5% of CAl's football players major in American Studies. </p>

<p>It doesn't matter whether a department has a 'world-class faculty' or not, the major can still be mickey mouse in the sense that the classes are easy to pass. Maybe difficult to get A's in, but easy to just pass. To give you an example, both George Bush and John Kerry have admitted to being extremely lazy and unmotivated students while at Yale. Everybody knows that Bush was just a frat party-boy at Yale, and John Kerry admitted that he once told his father that "D stood for Distinction" and that he was more interested in learning how to fly planes than in his coursework. Yet Bush majored in history, and Kerry majored in poli-sci, 2 of Yale's strongest departments. </p>

<p>So I'm sure the same thing is true at Cal. There are majors at Berkeley that may have prominent profs, but which are almost impossible to flunk out of. It may not be easy to get A's, but it's almost impossible to fail. There are majors at Berkeley (and elsewhere), where, as long as you do the work, you're going to pass. You may not get a top grade, but you're going to pass. And for many football players, passing is all they really care about. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Cal must have one of the lowest spreads between its average campus GPA and its football team's GPA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet another thing that I would dearly love to see documented in actual data. </p>

<p>
[quote]
PS sakky: Holmoe was not a cheater, the violations under his watch were more a matter of his managerial and leadership ineptitude. In the past several decades, Cal only had one coach who was a bona fide cheater in FB, Mike White (mid-70s), and one in basketball, Bozeman. That's two too many of course, but let's not tarnish the reputation of the whole athletic dept and the dozens of coaches for the ethical shortcomings of these two coaches.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It doesn't really matter whether you as a head coach or a cheater or not. If cheating happens on your watch, then that's your head. That's what it means to be a head coach. Holmoe should have been running a tighter ship. </p>

<p>All you're doing is simply reinforcing the basic point, which is that Tom Holmoe was a terrible choice for head coach. Furthermore, it also demonstrates that Cal does not have a stellar history when it comes to running ethical sports programs. Sad, but true. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The difference with Tedford is that he has very strong leadership and managerial qualities, he has been able to inspire his players to achieve in the classroom and give them the support necessary to succeed. The student-athletes have a very draconian and tightly regimented schedule that leaves very little time outside of training and studying. Interestingly, some of the study programs he instaured at Cal where programs that he had difficulty running at Oregon as they were peceived to interfere with football

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, we all agree that Tedford is better than Tom Holmoe. Heck, it's hard NOT to be better than Tom Holmoe. </p>

<p>But my point is, we have to be restrained in our enthusiasm for Cal football. I'm sure that Tedford has increased the graduation rate, and he may well have increased the team GPA also. But, at the same time, let's not make unsubstantiated claims. If he really did graduate 75-80% of his students, then we should be content to wait until such time as the NCAA data reflects that.</p>

53

<p>There is official data in this very thread showing that the grad rate for Cal football was over 70% last year. Why do you dismiss it (other than the fact that it obviously contradicts the slanderous perception of a mercenary program at Cal...)?</p>

<p>Tedford is a man of his word. Do you think he would actually lie about his team's GPA at alumni fundraising functions, functions that most insiders attend (such as the families of players themselves, who are aware of their grades)? </p>

<p>It's easy to be a lazy student at Yale where the grading is extremely lax and students are pampered. You say "I'm sure it's the same at Cal" but in reality it's day and night. Stanford had a recent article in its campus rag written by students who were advocating removing or restricting the use of Bs as grade, claiming indignantly that no one at the farm actually deserved Bs. Such an article would get laughed at in Berkeley...</p>

<p>Of course Holmoe is responsible for any wrongdoings during his watch, but there is a big difference between him instigating the cheating and cheating occurring under his watch without his knowledge. You really should see a difference here, and you really shouldn't smear the program because no Cal football coach has actually cheated in the last three decades.</p>

<p>As far as NCAA stats, you do realize that Tedford's first class of recruits will only be fully accounted for in about five years in those stats given the huge lag. You have other evidence here that you conveniently dismiss, while knowing that the NCAA data is outdated.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It may not be easy to get A's, but it's almost impossible to fail.

[/quote]
as opposed to other schools, where the majority of students do get As.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And for many football players, passing is all they really care about.

[/quote]

if that were the case, you wouldn't see average GPAs around 3.0. 2.3 is passing. 3.0 is much, much better than passing. It sounds like most players are wasting their time studying too hard...</p>

<p>You use innuendos to trash our football players by saying for example "It's also no secret that any major football program tends to have its players crowd into certain majors" as if being an American Studies major was somehow an academic copout and this were a dirty secret at Cal. In fact, the major includes classes from depts such as English, History, Sociology, Poli Sci, Geography, all of whom are top-notch depts. The major has hundreds of students, the overwhelming majority of whom aren't student-athletes.</p>

<p>About Leinart: his taking one dance class and nothing else while playing football at USC is a travesty. It clearly shows that he has absolutely no interest in academics...</p>

54

<p>
[quote]
There is official data in this very thread showing that the grad rate for Cal football was over 70% last year. Why do you dismiss it (other than the fact that it obviously contradicts the slanderous perception of a mercenary program at Cal...)?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Did I dismiss it? YOU were the one who claimed 75-80%. I am still waiting for data that substantiates that. If it's over 70%, then just say that it's over 70% (for one particular class). But there is nothing to be gained from exaggerating the gain. </p>

<p>
[quote]
It's easy to be a lazy student at Yale where the grading is extremely lax and students are pampered. You say "I'm sure it's the same at Cal" but in reality it's day and night. Stanford had a recent article in its campus rag written by students who were advocating removing or restricting the use of Bs as grade, claiming indignantly that no one at the farm actually deserved Bs. Such an article would get laughed at in Berkeley...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet the fact remains that there are some majors at Berkeley that are highly populated by football players. I highly doubt that they are disproportionately represented in those majors for any reason other than that they are relatively easy. Why is it that so many football players major in American Studies? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Of course Holmoe is responsible for any wrongdoings during his watch, but there is a big difference between him instigating the cheating and cheating occurring under his watch without his knowledge. You really should see a difference here, and you really shouldn't smear the program because no Cal football coach has actually cheated in the last three decades.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said that Tom Holmoe was a 'cheater'. I said that the football program was a cheating program. Whether it was Holmoe who did the cheating or not, he was still the head coach when cheating occurred. That's a problem any way you want to look at it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
As far as NCAA stats, you do realize that Tedford's first class of recruits will only be fully accounted for in about five years in those stats given the huge lag. You have other evidence here that you conveniently dismiss, while knowing that the NCAA data is outdated

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I freely stated that the NCAA data is outdated. You however have refused to provide any data that substantiates a 75-80% graduation rate. Please present it, or else concede that you don't have it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
as opposed to other schools, where the majority of students do get As.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The "majority"? No more so than what happens at Cal, for certain of the 'football' majors. </p>

<p>
[quote]
if that were the case, you wouldn't see average GPAs around 3.0. 2.3 is passing. 3.0 is much, much better than passing. It sounds like most players are wasting their time studying too hard...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And where is the data that supports this? Please present it. I challenged ttiang to provide data that the average GPA of the football players was a 3.0, or that half of the players were getting 3.0+ GPA's, and even he honorably conceded that he didn't have it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Aut Leinart: his taking one dance class and nothing else while playing football at USC is a travesty. It clearly shows that he has absolutely no interest in academics...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? How is that? If he REALLY didn't care about academics, then he wouldn't have graduated, just like many other players at USC or Cal or any other 1-A program don't graduate. </p>

<p>If he really didn't care about academics, then why did he nearly finish his ENTIRE degree in his 4 years previous to his last semester? Why? He didn't have to. He could have stayed all those years and come nowhere close to actually graduating. </p>

<p>I'll put it to you this way. If you only have 2 units needed to graduate, as Leinart did in his final semester, why exactly would you take a lot during your final semester? In my final semester, I took very little, because, like I said, I had completely frontloaded my schedule, so at the end, I needed only a few more units to graduate. I worked extremely hard in my early semesters so that I could get that easy last semester. So did several other people I know. What's wrong with that? </p>

<p>To give you a sterling example. I know one former graduate student who took ONE class at MIT in his final semester. That's right - ONE. But on the other hand, in his first semester at MIT, he took a ridiculous TEN, when most grad students take no more than 4 or 5. So what's wrong with him taking one class in his last semester? As far as I'm concerned, HE'S EARNED the right to do that. You take 5 classes at MIT in 1 semester, and you're dying. He did TEN. </p>

<p>The point is, if Leinart really didn't care about academics, he would never have frontloaded his schedule the way he did. Why should he? He didn't have to. Obviously he didn't frontload as much as my ridiculous MIT colleague did, but he still did a lot more than a lot of other football players did. </p>

<p>Again, there were a lot of Cal players (especially in the Tom Holmoe era) who never even graduated. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You use innuendos to trash our football players by saying for example "It's also no secret that any major football program tends to have its players crowd into certain majors" as if being an American Studies major was somehow an academic copout and this were a dirty secret at Cal. In fact, the major includes classes from depts such as English, History, Sociology, Poli Sci, Geography, all of whom are top-notch depts. The major has hundreds of students, the overwhelming majority of whom aren't student-athletes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Am I saying something that is not well known? The fact is, just because you take a class from a highly-ranked department doesn't mean that the courses are necessarily rigorous. </p>

<p>Look, I am saying that Cal is no better or no worse on this score than other schools with 1-A teams. Are you really trying to take the position that Cal is better? That Cal really doesn't have football players who don't care about academics, when all other schools do? That Cal really is completely immune to these kinds of problems? Please.</p>

55

<p>Of course Cal is better. I seriously doubt that most other top football teams are carrying fairly high GPAs, or that the academic environment is more rigorous at other schools.</p>

<p>About the American Studies major and its popularity with football players: a good part of the reason is that the classes they take actually take their schodules into account. For example, they have makeup exams when they are traveling for a road game, due to the fact that there are several students in the same boat. At many other departments, professors will not go out of their way to do those basic things (which they are actually REQUIRED to do.) There were many instances where former chancellor Berdahl intervened with some profs to have them take into consideration the travel and schedule obligations of the student-athletes. And sometimes those interventions were ignored. The prevailing campus culture is generally hostile to the football program at Cal, unlike at most other colleges.</p>

<p>Leinart: of course he doesn't care about academics. He only cared about school as long as he was eligible to play football. He didn't even care to take <em>ONE</em> class while he could. Anyone who could take any class he wanted and had the time to do so but doesn't is clearly not interested in academics. You state that you know someone who took 10 classes in on term at MIT, as if Leinart had taken 10 units at USC...</p>

<p>The data from LAST YEAR stated a grad rate above 70%. It isn't unreasonable to extrapolate and state that the rate is higher now. I follow the team pretty closely, closely enough to state with confidence that almost all players recruited by Tedford have been graduating or joining the NFL a few units short of graduating.</p>

<p>OK, I'm done with this thread, this is a waste of a Friday night.</p>

56

<p>CalX,</p>

<p>You seem wasting your Cal education. It isn't unreasonable to extrapolate and state that Cal players are wasting more:) haha, I hope you will be alright if your team loses to Gophers tomorrow (I trully hope they win, but the possibility is there). Actually I feel relieved when USC lost to Texas in the rosebowl. Although it's great opportunity to make the history, I just can not imagine how frenzy the fans and media will be if it indeed happened.</p>

<p>As for the link stating 70% for Cal's graduation rate, although I have no problem to believe Cal will do better, it is still just a data from AFCA, not NCAA, and CAL is only second tier buried with 22 other schools. The methodology is defintely different. If it were me, I would wait to make BOLD claims. Also please note, in the enormous amount of football information on the internet, you would not have any difficulty to find one or two lists similar to The London Times or Shanghai SJTU's ranking. Trust me. </p>

<p>If you really know your players, could you post the courses they took so we can see how serious they are in academics (anonymously)? Or we can get a good Friday nigth laugh:)</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
I hope you will be alright if your team loses to Gophers tomorrow (I trully hope they win, but the possibility is there).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Minnesota beat Kent State 44-0, so I'm not going to say anything yet.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't think 'chastising' is the right word, at least not on ESPN (I can't speak for the fan sites).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I know that diction is a little extreme, but at least it put my point across.</p>

58

<p>Why people always say Tedford is a good leader? I haven't seen that much thug-ish behavior in one football game from one team. Your #1, 7, 10 certainly have no class. Granted this is the first time I watch CAL playing team other than USC.</p>

59

<p>Lynch is talented but undisciplined.</p>

60

<p>We still won.</p>