The CardBoard
Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview (/thread-4528.html)

Pages: 1 2

Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - washingtonismoney - 12-13-2012

http://stanford.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1448903

Some interesting tidbits. Stephens status still unknown. I hope all the best for Stephens, but it's pretty remarkable that we haven't even heard a rumor about what's up.

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - StannyBoy - 12-13-2012

The rumor has been his grades.

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - CrazedZooChimp - 12-14-2012

(12-13-2012, 07:56 PM)young_money link Wrote:The rumor has been his grades.

Some article I saw (I think last week, maybe early this week) said we should know in about a week on Stephens.  Finals were this week...sooo...yeah, that'd be my guess (it is just a guess though).  Hope everything went well for him!

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - Farm93 - 12-14-2012

If that is even close to the reason I am thrilled.

I would be happy to learn that he is physically OK and that his family is fine.  And then I would be happy to know that the AD, the coaches and/or the school decided to have him focus on school rather than play his way to failing grades.  I am always amazed at how many bowl teams seem to lose a handful of players for the bowl game because of academic issues.  And with the semester complete it is revealed that the students never attended class, had 0.6 GPAs, etc.  And those program's coaches and administrators seem to be largely indifferent and sometimes even excited that the news will enable the school to offer another scholarship to a JuCo or 4 star athlete.

If true, this way was much better, IMHO.

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - socalstanfan1 - 12-14-2012

(12-14-2012, 06:47 PM)garvin link Wrote:When I was in school, it really would have been difficult to know whether students in humanities and liberal arts were flunking -- even for the students themselves. In the vast majority of classes I took, the grade was entirely dependent on a final and/or paper that wouldn't be turned in until finals week. Obviously, the student himself knew whether he was attending class, doing the reading and grasping the material, but there was no external manifestation of any of that.

I have been an professor of History for 10 years at a major public university and, while these things certainly vary widely from institution to institution, I can speak a bit about how the issue was handled where I worked.

Most importantly, regarding athletes, all instructors were required to submit two progress reports on all student-athletes to the Athletic Department, to be sure the students were keeping up with their grades.  Of course, I'm not sure if Stanford has any similar method of keeping track of student's course work, but given the clear importance the University places on its academic reputation, I would be surprised if they did not.

Also, at my previous teaching institution (I am currently working in China for another University), we were not allowed to have any single portion of the grade weighted for more than 35% of the overall grade.  With midterms, discussion participation, small papers, quizzes and the like accumulating through the first half of the semester, one could tell pretty quickly if your grade was falling.  Of course, it is still possible that up to about 70% of the grade could come due at the end of the semester (say, a Final Exam and a Final Paper), but one could imagine that a failing grade at the midway point, based on midterms and class performance, might be enough to get coaches who take the academics seriously to tell the player get your but in the classroom and catch up.  Especially if the grades were down across the board.

IF this is the case with Stephens, kudos to the coaches (and maybe the student himself) for putting the academics first, even at a crucial point of the season.  Makes one proud.  Also, I'll echo the earlier post: I would be relieved to hear that it wasn't something more deeply personal or family related.  Poor grades are not good, but they pale in significance to the more serious things in life like health and family stability

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - 81alum - 12-14-2012

(12-14-2012, 01:59 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:  And then I would be happy to know that the AD, the coaches and/or the school decided to have him focus on school rather than play his way to failing grades.  I am always amazed at how many bowl teams seem to lose a handful of players for the bowl game because of academic issues.  And with the semester complete it is revealed that the students never attended class, had 0.6 GPAs, etc.  And those program's coaches and administrators seem to be largely indifferent and sometimes even excited that the news will enable the school to offer another scholarship to a JuCo or 4 star athlete.
I agree with the sentiments, and have always felt good about Stanford athletics because they have been one of the few universities that I though has always maintained high academic standards.  It is important, however, to watch for any signs of slippage.  Fortunately, since the advent of the APR system, it is no longer in any university's interests to have students fail academically to "free up"  a scholarship for another player.  The loss of scholarships for poor APR is real and has seriously hurt some programs. 

Each student counts as two "points" in the APR index.  One point is awarded for each scholarship athlete who stays in school, and one point is awarded for each scholarship athlete who is academically eligible.  Like a batting average, the total points awarded is compared with the total points possible and expressed in a percentile number.  Because of the two-point system, athletic programs have a great interest in keeping their students making academic progress each quarter since the APR reacts immediately to failures--unlike the old graduation rate system that did not react to failures until after the athlete's playing days were over.  It is an ingenious system and has made a big difference in the culture of many athletic programs.

That is not to say that athletics cannot still corrupt academic standards.  These days, the corrupting effects of athletics on academics has shifted ground.  Now it is more apt to be played out in inequality in academic support--with athletes getting lavish support and other students often left to "sink or swim."  Of course, much of that academic support can take the form of "advising" students to take certain classes that are known to be easy.  This, unfortunately, may have happened at Stanford from 2001-11:
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/03/09/1046687/
However, athletic programs now have every incentive to keep their athletes in school and making progress, one way or the other.

To be academically eligible at Stanford, the Stanford Student/Athletic handbook states that student/athletes must enroll in 12 units, pass 6, and maintain a GPA fairly close to Stanford's required 2.0 (gets a bit closer each quarter.)  You fail to do any of those things and you become academically ineligible and the program loses your point towards its overall APR.

Faculty are routinely asked to send in midterm "grade checks" on athletes that can be easily filled out electronically, unlike decades past.  Like drug tests, this is one of the sacrifices of privacy that athletes make when they accept their scholarships.  Academic advisors and tutors hired by athletics departments find out how athletes did on their midterms and if it looks as if an athlete might be doing poorly in class -- and this could drop them below the minimum GPA or units at the end of the quarter -- then there will be some sort of "intervention."  This would usually take the form of mandatory study halls, possibly supervised by tutors, and restrictions or elimination of practice time.  The program sort of "voluntarily" makes an athlete ineligible in order to prevent the mandatory ineligibility that could otherwise be tripped.

Believe it or not, the biggest football factories (SEC) have created the most elaborate academic support systems with their piles of money.  Oddly enough, it is universities which traditionally have put more emphasis on academics than athletics--and consequently are NOT the football factories--that have the hardest time  coming up with the lavish support services required to keep marginal students eligible for athletics.  Stanford does not fall into either category, really, since its very high admissions standards removes most of the need for remedial support services.

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - fullmetal - 12-14-2012

There are differing levels of attention paid to different sports.  Football, for example, has (or had) mandatory study hall requirements (complete with attendance sign-in sheets) in the AARC.  It was really up to the coach to determine how much tracking went into each sports' athlete academic progress.

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - DC - 12-14-2012

Two things confuse me about this situation:

1/ Stephens is a senior.  Wouldn't one have figured out by then how to maintain grades and take classes where you could maintain grades during the football season?

2/ In an interview, Randy Hart talked about Law School.  Wouldn't bad grades more or less preclude Law School, at least the good ones?  Law Schools admit mostly on undergraduate grades.

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - terry - 12-14-2012

I don't see any good reason to speculate about Stephens' situation.

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - DC - 12-14-2012

The Wisconsin OL and power running game makes NT Stephens a very important player, even with backup Parry's good play.  When Parry needs a rest, doesn't Anderson move to the middle, and he is a little undersized for NT.

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - Oasis - 12-15-2012

I don't know anything about Stephens and would like to know more, but I agree with Terry. He's entitled to his privacy whether he is struggling or on the Phi Beta Kappa list.

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - tfeldstein - 12-15-2012

This whole thread is off base and people should really try harder to keep their  ill-informed speculation to themselves.

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - CowboyIndian - 12-15-2012

(12-15-2012, 08:29 AM)bowlorbust link Wrote:This whole thread is off base and people should really try harder to keep their  ill-informed speculation to themselves.
Shut down the Internet!
I agree with your sentiment but you are, as we say, micturating into the maelstrom.

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - Roberton3 - 12-15-2012

(12-15-2012, 04:52 PM)garvin link Wrote:Sorry, but when you're a starter for a big-time football program and you suddenly aren't playing, fans are going to speculate about the reason. That's just the way it is. You want to live in a cone of silence, play football at Menlo College or Howard Payne.

If I leave an expensive car parked with the keys in the ignition, someone will steal it.  That's just the way it is.  But does that make it OK to steal the car?  Of course not.

I fully understand the temptation to engage in irresponsible speculation about Stephens.  But I wish people would show a bit more respect for the young man's privacy.

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - tfeldstein - 12-15-2012

I guess my objection is to posters who profess to know something, state it is something, but actually have no idea and are wrong.

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - pefloresjr - 12-15-2012

I agree with Garvin.  When a starter is suddenly gone and it's not an injury, of course people are going to wonder and speculate.  It is not wrong to do so.  If a person posts a rumor and discloses that it is only a rumor, then we can disregard it as such.  If somebody else on the board knows the rumor is false, then there is no harm in posting that the rumor is false even if the truth can't be revealed. 

I hope Stephens and his family are well and I wish them the best.  If it is Stephen's grades, I hope he gets them cleared up and gets to rejoin the team.  If it is something else, I'll miss him from the team.  I think it's great that this board is used by fans who support and respect the team, players and coaches.  However, I don't think that we have avoid potentially touchy subjects.  I want to hear the rumors even if it is to have them set straight by others. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - Hank 91 - 12-16-2012

(12-14-2012, 08:49 PM)81alum link Wrote:Of course, much of that academic support can take the form of "advising" students to take certain classes that are known to be easy.  This, unfortunately, may have happened at Stanford from 2001-11:
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/03/09/1046687/

I never understood why that "revelation" was such a big deal. The football players were passing around a list of easy classes? The horror! This is no different than what happened with all undergraduates. When making a schedule, how many students went with the idea of packing in 18 units of the most demanding classes in the course catalogue? I heard plenty of conversations freshman year that went something like this: "I'm taking Calc 43 and Physics 51, so I think I'll also take either Anthro 1 or Art 10." It just makes sense.

These players are pretty busy, especially during the season, so I have no problem at all if they're taking easier classes. When Andrew Luck, the noted scholar, was asked about his course load at last year's media day, his answer was simple: "I'm not exactly sure yet, but I know it will be the minimum."

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - 81alum - 12-16-2012

(12-16-2012, 10:36 PM)Hank 91 link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=7177.msg55267#msg55267 date=1355543380]
Of course, much of that academic support can take the form of "advising" students to take certain classes that are known to be easy.  This, unfortunately, may have happened at Stanford from 2001-11:
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/03/09/1046687/

I never understood why that "revelation" was such a big deal. The football players were passing around a list of easy classes? The horror! This is no different than what happened with all undergraduates. When making a schedule, how many students went with the idea of packing in 18 units of the most demanding classes in the course catalogue? I heard plenty of conversations freshman year that went something like this: "I'm taking Calc 43 and Physics 51, so I think I'll also take either Anthro 1 or Art 10." It just makes sense.

These players are pretty busy, especially during the season, so I have no problem at all if they're taking easier classes. When Andrew Luck, the noted scholar, was asked about his course load at last year's media day, his answer was simple: "I'm not exactly sure yet, but I know it will be the minimum."
[/quote]
Perhaps it was not a big deal.  All of us probably "balanced" our schedules as students.

The reason it was controversial at the time, though, was that list was created and distributed by advisors paid by the Athletics department (the Athletic Academic Resource Center), and not by students or by other academic advisors.  In fact, academic advisors elsewhere in the university did not know about it--so the list was not generally available to non-athletes.



Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - dabigv13 - 12-17-2012

Not that surprising...my Stats 1 class was full of athletes, as well as a few of the less rigorous fuzzy courses I took. They were probably in them partially for the same reason I was, to balance out an otherwise heavy schedule (for me it might've been a 20 unit schedule with a lot of BioSci reqs, for them a brutal practice schedule).

I think most other students, and I certainly fit in this group, thought that the athletes on campus on average were not as smart as the general student populace. The gap at Stanford is just much much smaller than at most other places, and that's not to say there weren't plenty of athletes who were smarter than I was.

Re: Drukarev post-practice Shaw interview - JohnR34231 - 12-17-2012

It never ceases to amaze me how kids get into college (presumably with decent SAT math scores) and then can't even do high school algebra. Guess they just forget when they learned rapidly.