Out Of Action, Part II

Let the Bruin flaming about poor academics begin.

This is getting ridiculous. Really, how difficult is it to get a 2.0 GPA when taking only three easy classes, with tutors also provided?

Just pathetic.

Perhaps the academic reason is they need to begin studying for finals?

Or their tutoring time is during practice?

Maybe?

OK now that scares me...that guy is a stud and we need all the top notch DL we can get..the game is won in the trenches..I hope somebody gets him help real quick..

no of you have a clue of the details so don't speculate...

Not getting a 2.0 with tutors and all the other gimmes that athletes get at all schools is either a) a lack of effort and taking your privlege for granted or b) you are truly stupid and never should have gotten into USC.

Hey, weren't we supposed to get our Open Forum answers yesterday?

yes they have tutors but if any of you all were student athletes you would know that the work load is much greater than the normal student. especially in football when they have a ton more weight training requirements.

i'm not excusing it but it's part of the program and we just have to hope they get it together. these guys are 18-21 year olds learning to live on their own. no need to call them stupid. i doubt most of you were totally focused on schoolwork in college either.

Good call Pablo, and any of UCLA fans, you know that it happens there to. It happens at almost every "U". No excuses for these kids (student-athletes), they need to buckle down, focus and learn (both on and off the field).

Trojan JP, as a Bruin fan, I don't think this something that one should poke fun at.

This is getting a little serious. From what I've heard, SUC has has a good set-up for student athletes where they can get all the help they need in the class. So you have to look at players now. When football season rolls around, what's going to happen then?

I can only imagine that it gets tougher during that time...

I don't think it should be poked fun at, but you know at some point 13-9 will show up and give his two cents about why USC sucks.

Pablo:

Completely ridiculous claim from you. How come the athletes for the other sports at SC don't have the same academic issues? Why does the football team have a much higher percentage of players experiencing academic problems than the other sports, including basketball which has the same demographics?

There is no excuse for this, especially since we already had a kicker thrown out of school for academics. He didn't need to learn the playbook, hardly had to work out and only kicked a few times a day and during a game. No excuses, he didn't belong at USC.

How come Pat Haden, Mike Van Raaphorst and Brandon Hancock didn't have academic problems and all went on to graduate school?

There is no excuse. It's a combination of stupidity and laziness. USC's last president, James Zumberge, stated that the football team enrolled people throughout the 1970s solely for their athletic abilities and they did not belong at USC. He cleaned the football program by saying that those athletes were intellectually deficient and hurt the reputation of the university. We're having the same problem now.

There is simply no excuse for any football player to be on academic probation. 2.0 is hardly a difficult goal to achieve. If they can't get it, kick them out. Better yet, don't bring these kind of athletes into USC to begin with.

Serious question. Are these guys just not allowed to practice in the Spring or does this carry over to the Fall semester as well?

USC is a freaking joke.

13-9

CalPolyBruinFan, at this time these players cannot practice during the rest of the spring. However, there is the risk that they will not be eligible for the Fall. Info on that will come down later (probably late May).

There ya go, i knew 13-9 would not let me down.

"However, there is the risk that they will not be eligible for the Fall. Info on that will come down later (probably late May)."

Where in the world would you get info like that? Unless you work for SC and/or in the football program, you have no idea of what you speak of.

turnstiles -
your wrong. please be specific on what comment(s) are riduculous.

most of our athletes would not be accepted to SC without athletics. do you really think these football players are natural book worms. that's crazy to think that these superior athletes should also be great students. are you that well rounded? highly doubtful. if so, great. God made you a freak of nature. most people have strengths and weaknesses. the majority of these athletes have been raised from grade school with their focus on athletics not acedemics.. if they did they wouldn't be playing ball.

these are inherent problems with student athletes and it doesn't seem out of the historical norms. stat nerd help me out here?

i'm also fairly certain your wrong on your % between football and basketball. there are 90+ in football and basketball has around 15? stat nerd help me out here as well, if possible.

not only does your team suck, they are all a bunch of morons too.....viva la mexico!!!

I don't know if you've noticed, but the only players to decommit from UCLA to become Trojans are dumb. Coincidence?? They are all dumb enough to believe they will be the next Reggie Bush. 13-9 and scoreboard in the other sport. All trojans are dumb.

to say there is "NO excuse" is ignorant.

you do not know the specific plight(s) of each athlete having acedemic hardships. even if you did your attitude tells me you are incapable of empathy.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the only players to decommit from UCLA to become Trojans are dumb. Coincidence?? They are all dumb enough to believe they will be the next Reggie Bush. 13-9 and scoreboard in the other sport. All trojans are dumb.

Pablo:

Great, we're talking about academics and you say, "your wrong." It is YOU'RE! Clearly you are another one of our fans who never went to USC. Such is life.

Just what am I wrong about?

You asked "please be specific on what comment(s) are riduculous." Again, great spelling, but I digress. I already addressed what was ridiculous about your comments, but you have difficulty comprehending basic English. So for your sake, I'll go through it point by point:

1. "yes they have tutors but if any of you all were student athletes you would know that the work load is much greater than the normal student."

- No they do not. They take only three classes a semester as opposed to four for a "normal student." They also get tutors and study hall. There are also very strict NCAA rules governing how many hours a week an athlete is allowed to practice and it is not that great. So are you saying that if they did not practice for an hour a day, during only certain weeks of the year, they would be in their rooms studying? Right.

2. "especially in football when they have a ton more weight training requirements."

- No more than any other sport, including swimming, water polo or basketball. Other than Gabe Pruitt, no other basketball player had academic problems the past two years, while there were no academic problems on the swimming and water polo teams.

3. i doubt most of you were totally focused on schoolwork in college either.

- Out of 2,700 freshman at USC last year, less than 1% were placed on academic probation, so there goes another argument. Guess where the majority of that 1% came from...?

KP....what does that stand for? are you a utensil sanitation technician? That must be a very difficult major, lets hope some of the football players don't try to make it through that program. It sounds almost as tough as, dare I say, ballroom dancing.

turnstiles -
who cares about my misspellings.. you understood me.

1) you're wrong - athletes are required to graduate with the same amount of units as the student body. there is no difference. if they take three classes rather than four then they are having to make it up during summer. as far as ncaa rules you might know something. as far as the time requirements outside actual football practice you know not.

2) you're wrong -(at least when i was at SC) football weightroom requirements are both broader in scope and monitored and punished with greater ferver.

3) you just don't get it... the regular students are naturally more gifted in school work (they got into SC on their acedemic merits). of course, the football and basketball players are going to have more acedemic hardships compared to both the regular student body and other athletes.. you gotta look at who we are talking about and how they were conditioned since they were in elementry school. we're not talking about the same apples.

Pablo:

Clearly reading comprehension is not your forte.

1) Yes, they take summer school, but what does that have to do with taking only three classes during the fall and spring semesters? Answer: Nothing.

2) Wrong about the weight room. It doesn't take away from studying and still falls under the rules governed by the NCAA if it is mandated or there is an official staff member there.

3) The issues regarding these specific players has nothing to do with being "conditioned since they were in elementry school." It is a combination of stupidity and laziness. They are not nuclear physics majors. They are mostly sociology majors. They take only three classes a semester and have access to tutors that "normal students" would have to pay an hourly fee to if they want assistance.

It is practically impossible to fail to get a 2.0 GPA unless the person is stupid, lazy and on some occasions, on drugs.

Troy Van Blarcom is a perfect example. A kicker is someone who should never, under any circumstances, have academic troubles. Yet he was placed on academic probation after his very first semester, which gave him two semesters to get his grades up or he would be kicked out of school. He was never able to get a 2.0 and was thrown out of school. Turned out that he had no business being at USC in the first place. He had academic troubles in high school and was denied admission to USC, but there were ways around getting him admitted.

The fact of the matter is, the football team now brings in players that we would not have admitted in the past. You can make the argument "you can't win unless you have thugs," but that's false on several levels.

First of all, what's the point of having intellectually-deficient thugs if they can't get the grades to remain eligible and end up getting kicked out of school?

Second, the 2002 squad that went to the Orange Bowl and finished the season No. 4 was an almost-entirely inherited team, which did not have the issues of the recent teams. They produced wins and did not have the classroom or off the field issues the recent teams have had. Why was that? Because academic standards for the football team were lowered to NCAA minimums in February 2001. Yet we still showed we could get wins with the previous players; all it took was a coach like Norm Chow. The talent was there, but the coaching had been lacking

So, no, I don't buy the argument that you must have players who are solely athletes that cannot perform in the classroom in order to win. These players simply have no business being at USC and whenever any of them gets kicked out or is ruled ineligible, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Isn't it interesting that Brandon Hancock spent more time in the weight room than any other football player yet managed to get a 3.9 GPA and started graduate school while still on the team.....?

Pablo, I don't believe for a moment you went to USC. Sure we all make spelling errors and attribute it to typing mistakes, but you keep spelling "academic" wrong every single time. Rather ironic, don't you think? Each time, you write it as "acedemic" and even did it twice in the same paragraph! So based on how you spelled this most ironic word incorrectly in each of your posts (including the aforementioned twice in one paragraph debacle), I would have to surmise it is not a mistake.

Look, there is no shame in not having gone to USC, but don't claim something that's simply not true. If you're trying to make a point about academics, the last thing you should do is misspell "academic" over and over and over again!

I'm actually being kind here by not highlighting all your other misspellings, poor arguments and quite questionable grammar. But as I said, there is no shame in never having attended USC, but you simply make yourself look bad when you have such a poor showing on a board that is read by actual USC alumni.

Try to have a nice day!

Haha! I was actually thinking the same thing about the 'acedemic' spelling! Damn near fell off my chair!

Fight on!

you know what's really dumb? A name like "fantasma flojo"

what the fuc* is that???

A toothpaste? A new kind of vacuum cleaner??

Jesus these UCLA people are stupid...haha

Man thank god USC doesn't have fans with names like that..sounds like a drag queen..in his "powder blue" uniform...hahaha

UCLA SUCKS ASS

66-19 and check the footballscoreboard any other year loser :o))

Yes yes yes we are all familiar here with how UCLA used to be a great basketball school and beat USC this year..wow..cool..3 things:

1. I am sick of hearing about what the UCLA basketball team did in 1972. And btw nice choke again vs. Florida this year. UCLA sports are the king of all losers..football basketball, you name it. They choke it all away..(Notre Dame 2006 ring any bells?)

2. This is a site about FOOTBALL not basketball

3. Come back and see us when you actually WIN a bowl game and don't go 6-5 in a year..or have a NC

hahaha

I just finished paying my taxes(welfare tax) to UCLA. I am proud to say I have never recieved any public education. Public eduation = garbage.

young grasshoppers – thank you, academics. i stand corrected. but try and use your melon(s) to overcoming the easy pray of my bad spelling and reply to my point (as this blog is about SC football not academia).

SC is big boy football and with big boy football comes academic problems and scrutiny. the sky is not falling. that’s my point and opinion.

however superfluous, my empathetic viewpoints seem to be falling on deaf ears.

haha. prey not pray.

It's "try TO use" not "try AND use." Also, the use of superfluous and empathetic didn't make any sense.

Sorry, I got nothing against you or your points Pablo, I just felt left out of the grammar policing. Carry on.

"He cleaned the football program by saying that those athletes were intellectually deficient and hurt the reputation of the university. We're having the same problem now."

I don't know how it's been since you went to college--if you did, that is--but you have to remember that not only are these student-athletes dealing with adjusting to classes and football, they're learning how to conduct themselves on their own in a setting where they don't have parents to watch over them. Many freshmen non-athletes slack off, too. Goodness knows I did.

"There is simply no excuse for any football player to be on academic probation. 2.0 is hardly a difficult goal to achieve. If they can't get it, kick them out. Better yet, don't bring these kind of athletes into USC to begin with."

Try being a collegiate football player, or any athlete for that matter. Are there excuses for non-athletes to be on academic probation? A 2.0 can be difficult to achieve. I, for one, am straddling a 3.0 (which I brought up in the last year), and I don't have the additional stress of athletic commitment. And as evidenced with Van Blarcom, USC isn't tolerant of those who can't get their academics in order.

"No they do not. They take only three classes a semester as opposed to four for a "normal student." They also get tutors and study hall. There are also very strict NCAA rules governing how many hours a week an athlete is allowed to practice and it is not that great. So are you saying that if they did not practice for an hour a day, during only certain weeks of the year, they would be in their rooms studying? Right."

You're wrong, too. A "normal" full-time student can take anywhere from three to six classes, 12-18 units. For instance, my sophomore and junior years, I took three two-unit journalism core classes and three four-unit general education and international relations courses each semester. Now, my senior year, I've taken three four-unit classes. You're telling me I'm not "normal"? And, to clarify, a majority thereof take summer school to compensate for the classes they'd be taking during the year which they put off to lighten their loads during the season. Yes, there are stringent guidelines regarding practice, but you don't think athletes use the Lyon Center in their spare time? I know they do, as I've seen them there. Also, what student is going to spend his downtime studying? Goodness knows how many of my friends opt for video games or other diversions rather than studying.

" 1) you're wrong - athletes are required to graduate with the same amount of units as the student body. there is no difference. if they take three classes rather than four then they are having to make it up during summer. as far as ncaa rules you might know something. as far as the time requirements outside actual football practice you know not."

Yes, athletes have the same major requirements. I have had international relations courses with Shaun Cody and Collin Ashton (they were two of the best in my global economy discussion section, and I found that class challenging!), communication classes with David Ausberry and Dallas Sartz, and so on. It's not like they get preferential treatment. Amen to this response.

--ashleyatusc

ashleyatusc:

I cannot even begin to say what's wrong with what you wrote, so I'll try to touch upon just some of it.

1) A 2.0 GPA is very, very easy to obtain. The number of undergraduate USC students who failed to get a 2.0 and were placed on academic probation was very small.

2) The average student takes 16 units each semester. The actual number of classes is irrelevant so long as it adds up to 16 or so. Football players take 12 units, including "Thursday Night at the Movies," which is hardly a difficult class.

3) No need to tell us how hard you had to work to get a 3.0 GPA, we don't care! That's not a particularly impressive GPA, especially for journalism, which friends of mine at Annenberg who majored in it (whether it was broadcast or print) all stated was an 'easy' major.

4) You prove the point everyone has made about USC not being "tolerant of those who can't get their academics in order." Van Blarcom was kicked out of school and so will any other football player who can't cut it in the classroom. The decisions to kick players out for academics are made by the university, not the football program. People like Van Blarcom and other football players in his situation had no business ever even being at USC. SO they get kicked out.

4) It's not important whether "many freshmen non-athletes slack off, too." Football players have been given a full scholarship that includes room and board (which academic scholarships do not cover) and admission to a university that they would not have qualified for were it not for NCAA minimum grade standards. They have been given an amazing opportunity to attend one of the world's top universities and have everything paid for. If they can't be bothered to study and obtain a minimum 2.0, then they are not worthy of being Trojans and should be kicked out.

So don't go around saying that football players have it so much harder than other students. Why don't athletes in other sports have the same issues? The swimmers are probably the best athletes on campus, work out more than any other sport, yet no academic problems.

Your arguments are flawed, Ashley. Good luck trying to find employment as a journalist with your biases and lack of any coherent evidence.

Ashley, Ashley, Ashley....is it possible for you to make a single post where you don't name drop all the football players whom you claim you know and how they are all such innocent, pious beacons of society?

Oh, and even an idiot can get a 2.0 as an undergrad.

FluorTower:

I agree with your points, but have to say I'm tired of hearing students brag about how easy a major was. Unless they have earned a perfect 4.0 in honors classes with a minor or double major, or worked full time while earning a degree, they aren't qualified to call it easy simply because they haven't challenged themselves to the fullest.

Every time we hear how easy a USC degree is it devalues a USC education. Trust me on this - I seem to spend more time defending the quality (and rigor) of a USC education to my work colleagues (who have considerable hiring authority) and these comments certainly don't help.

USCNY:

I never said that a USC degree is easy. I stated that it is very, very easy to get a 2.0 GPA, especially in majors like sociology which most of the football players are enrolled in.

I also stated that a 3.0 in journalism is not difficult and I stand by that. Not one broadcast or print journalism major I have ever known at USC has ever said that it was even remotely challenging. They all laughed it off as being easy.

So I didn't say that a USC degree is easy to earn; only that a 2.0 GPA was very easy and journalism is not a difficult discipline.

I hear you, and agree a 2.0 should be a given - especially if you are accepted to USC - and journalism has traditionally been an "easy major." All I am saying is that everyone I know that said something was "easy" were the ones that did the least work. Journalism could be more challenging depending on how much the person puts into it - like I said earlier combining it with another major, minor etc. If it was so easy, did they do anything else to challenge themselves? Probably not.

My main point was that we (SC grads) do ourselves a disservice when we say our education was easy (regardless of major) because this is what people outside our circle hear and then generalize about SC.

But to your original point, I agree these players really have no excuse.

13-9

You almighty damn intellectuals:
List your freaking majors since you are so eager to impress, OK shinny foreheads? BTW I forgot to note your perfections>BS...

Fluor, you fail to see that, for the most part, I agreed with you, and resort to attacking me, which is very juvenile and unnecessary. It's not like I'm a Bruin.

1) A 2.0 GPA is very, very easy to obtain. The number of undergraduate USC students who failed to get a 2.0 and were placed on academic probation was very small.
---
Not for everyone.

2) The average student takes 16 units each semester. The actual number of classes is irrelevant so long as it adds up to 16 or so. Football players take 12 units, including "Thursday Night at the Movies," which is hardly a difficult class.
---
The average student may take 16 units. The average student-athlete does not. There is a distinction, obviously. I was only making the point that athletes tend to take three classes or 12 units during the semester, and take a class in summer school to make up for it. Football players may take the renowned Thursday night cinema class, but they also take much more, such as major courses.

3) No need to tell us how hard you had to work to get a 3.0 GPA, we don't care! That's not a particularly impressive GPA, especially for journalism, which friends of mine at Annenberg who majored in it (whether it was broadcast or print) all stated was an 'easy' major.
---
Well, that is wonderful for your friends. Did they attend USC since the convergence core was implemented? If not, then your friends' assertions aren't valid anymore. If so, are you implying I'm less than your supergenius friends? I resent your not-so-veiled insult. Frankly, law of mass communication isn't the easiest class, nor is editing packages on AVID when it isn't your forte.

4) You prove the point everyone has made about USC not being "tolerant of those who can't get their academics in order." Van Blarcom was kicked out of school and so will any other football player who can't cut it in the classroom. The decisions to kick players out for academics are made by the university, not the football program. People like Van Blarcom and other football players in his situation had no business ever even being at USC. SO they get kicked out.
---
Redundant.

4) It's not important whether "many freshmen non-athletes slack off, too." Football players have been given a full scholarship that includes room and board (which academic scholarships do not cover) and admission to a university that they would not have qualified for were it not for NCAA minimum grade standards. They have been given an amazing opportunity to attend one of the world's top universities and have everything paid for. If they can't be bothered to study and obtain a minimum 2.0, then they are not worthy of being Trojans and should be kicked out.
---
Not every single student does well in the classroom. There are a variety of circumstances, including the way one learns (i.e. aural v. visual). Some choose not to devote their time to schoolwork at all, and while that's their prerogative, they're punished for it. What's your point?

So don't go around saying that football players have it so much harder than other students. Why don't athletes in other sports have the same issues? The swimmers are probably the best athletes on campus, work out more than any other sport, yet no academic problems.
---
I'm saying that all athletes have a disadvantage compared to other students. As for swimmers being the "best" athletes, talk about bias.

Your arguments are flawed, Ashley. Good luck trying to find employment as a journalist with your biases and lack of any coherent evidence.
---
I don't need luck, but I appreciate your concern. I would like to see your proof of my so-called but nonexistent bias, and your faulty reasoning of my evidence being incoherent, when you, too, fail to show actual "evidence."

--ashleyatusc

Ashley, Ashley, Ashley....is it possible for you to make a single post where you don't name drop all the football players whom you claim you know and how they are all such innocent, pious beacons of society?
---
Sure it is. Try this one. :)

Seriously though, athletes do take classes, and they aren't Basket-Weaving 101, which is the point I was making. I happened to mention a few that I knew personally, and that two of them especially were rather intelligent in the class I had with them. I never said they're "innocent, pious beacons of society," just that a good deal are both students and athletes; but I applaud your hyperbole.

Oh, and even an idiot can get a 2.0 as an undergrad.
--
Then my aerospace engineer friend who works for a prominent space technology firm is a few notches above idiot?

--ashleyatusc

I agree with your points, but have to say I'm tired of hearing students brag about how easy a major was. Unless they have earned a perfect 4.0 in honors classes with a minor or double major, or worked full time while earning a degree, they aren't qualified to call it easy simply because they haven't challenged themselves to the fullest.
--
I find it amusing that, for the most part, I was agreeing with Fluor, yet he still found it necessary to attack me, academically and ethically. I don't have a 4.0, and I'm proud, because while at USC, I learned many lessons. I learned how to rely on myself, how to study and retain longterm (not just the regurge routine of high school), and how to find ways to expand myself. So not all students do the same. So there are students with 4.0s majoring in biomedical engineering and philosophy who win the Rennaissance Scholarship. Truth be told, regardless of how my GPA ends up, I will graduate from USC knowing that I have grown and learned, and that's the ultimate consummation of college.

Every time we hear how easy a USC degree is it devalues a USC education. Trust me on this - I seem to spend more time defending the quality (and rigor) of a USC education to my work colleagues (who have considerable hiring authority) and these comments certainly don't help.
--
Since USC instituted the breadth-with-depth program, USC's academics have gone way up, and for good reason. I believe that a USC diploma signifies a considerable amount, especially in relation to what it meant only several years ago. It hurt me that someone would call the journalism program 'easy,' as I sat in on an accreditation roundtable just two years ago and heard my fellow students call USC's journalism (and public relations) program(s) rigorous and intensive, indicative of a real-world environment. A USC degree isn't a cakewalk, it's the summation of four (maybe two or three, maybe five) years of dedication and work. For anyone to devalue that, in any department, from fine arts to chemistry, is a travesty.

--ashleyatusc

I never said that a USC degree is easy. I stated that it is very, very easy to get a 2.0 GPA, especially in majors like sociology which most of the football players are enrolled in.
--
Why don't you enroll at USC as a sociology major and get back to me? Maybe it's easy for you, but that doesn't make it easy for the whole world. I hope you realize that you aren't the world's exemplar.

I also stated that a 3.0 in journalism is not difficult and I stand by that. Not one broadcast or print journalism major I have ever known at USC has ever said that it was even remotely challenging. They all laughed it off as being easy.
--
Again, unless these friends of yours were in the convergence core, their evaluation no longer stands. As for journalism being easy, I wonder why, if it's such a simple program, it's one of the best programs in the nation?

--ashleyatusc

I hear you, and agree a 2.0 should be a given - especially if you are accepted to USC - and journalism has traditionally been an "easy major."
--
"Traditionally," but in the last few years? I would like to know why it's supposedly "easy."

All I am saying is that everyone I know that said something was "easy" were the ones that did the least work. Journalism could be more challenging depending on how much the person puts into it - like I said earlier combining it with another major, minor etc. If it was so easy, did they do anything else to challenge themselves? Probably not.
--
Journalism's convergence requirements are challenging, period. Adjusting to broadcast from print isn't all-that-easy, as one must drop the more flowing, rhythmic cadence of print writing for a shorter, snappier broadcast style that appeals to a listener. Plus, rather than using one's words to paint a picture, one must have the aesthetic for broadcast, as well as the timing in terms of video and audio. On top of this, there's the online aspect of finding the balance between a visually stimulating online package and elements that are dull or assaulting. Then there's the (dreaded) copy-editing component. I defy anyone on this blog--and their journalism major friends--to take a copy-editing test (though admittedly, I'm good at that). And, for the record, I'm also an IR major, and for a while, was a Spanish minor. USC pushes double-majoring and minoring, especially because of the Rennaissance Scholars program. It's a matter of allocating time between studies, and then there are extracurriculars, so it's not as though students have their heads in the books every waking moment.

--ashleyatusc