Conference 7.286::sports_91

    ...and they'd probably whup BOTH pro teams in LA! ;-)

    I'd take the Alcindor teams... they had balance... the Walton teams
    too (Michael Warren, Allen... or Marques Johnson, Nater... I forget
    who played when...)

>    too (Michael Warren, Allen... or Marques Johnson, Nater... I forget


Was that the Michael Warren who used to be in Hill Street Blues?

Or am I all shroomed out again?

    Bingo, one and the same... Sidney Wicks, Curtis Rowe and Lucius Allen
    were all in there somewhere too...

    Wicks and Rowe were sophomores in Alcindor's senior season and I'm not
    sure they played much.  They had graduated before Walton came on the
    scene as a sophomore.  Certainly if all the players UCLA had were
    lumped together, they'd be unstoppable, as no one has ever had the
    talent they did over their ten-year stretch of dominance.  I'm talking
    single season or single graduating class, though-- with preceding
    years' performance used only as supporting evidence.
    
    I think Alcindor's teams were superior to Walton's.  Walton's
    performance might have been better (21 for 22 from the field in that
    one championship was simply stratospheric-- no one has ever come 
    close to matching it), but Walton's teams were at least challenged in 
    both regular- and tournament-season play.  Other than the one game 
    with Houston and Elvin Hayes in the Astrodome, Alcindor's teams blew 
    through everyone.
    
    glenn
       

    I'd take Alcindor's team of '67 or '68 as well.  The ultimate
    dominating center would certainly throw a new twist on the Tark and
    make him sit up and take notice.  It's quite likely that the other 4
    positions would favor the Rebels, but Lew would dominate the inside on
    both ends of the court, preventing the fast break by his lonesome.
    
    I love to hear Wooden talk about Alcindor of those days.  I remember
    after game 1 of the 1985 NBA finals, when the Celtics had blown out the
    Lakers on memorial Day, Wooden said something to the effect that the
    Lakers would win the series, "because the have Lewis".
    
    Dan

    U.N.L.V. the best ever? Maybe in this decade...
    
    	N.C.State..1974
    
    B.A.

 The 1976 Indiana Hoosiers also have to be ranked with the all-time best
 teams as well as the 1982 North Carolina Tar Heels.
 
 This Vegas squad is certainly great, no doubt about that.  Are they the
 proverbial greatest ever ???  Nostalgia makes me say "No" but that could
 be a very wrong claim.
 
 One thing is for certain ... They are the best collection of professional
 players without a salary cap on this continent.
 
 Bob Hunt

SI did an article on just this thing....

They interviewd a few players from the UCLA glory days as well as a few from
the dominant Indiana teams and a couple from Phi Slamma Jamma and the UNC days
of Perkins, Jordan et al.

Basically all the players from these teams thought they'd mop the floor with
UNLV. Most of them seem to forget how the game has changed over the years and
seem to have inflated their opinions of themselves as time went by. I doubt any
of the teams of old had a backcourt that would even compare to UNLV's. I doubt
any of those teams could have shot the 3 pt basket as well as UNLV.

SI seemed to think that the UCLA teams with Walton and Kareem (lew) would have
beaten this current crop of UNLV simply because of what Oliver Miller did 
against UNLV. Si took it as an indication that UNLV couldn't stop a big man. My
contention is that UNLV could drop into a sagging zone at any time against any
big man and deny him the ball. I doubt that the guards for any of the UCLA teams
could have put up the point production to top UNLV.

UNLV can shoot so well outside as well as play inside a big man on defense isn't
going to significantly shut down their game.

SI had UNLV ranked 3rd in their all time list. If they don't choke and lose
in the final 4 I'd have to rate them tops of all time on my list. 

They contended that the Houston phi slamma Jamma team would have given them
their best game.....

Metz

    Walt,
    
    Michael Warren of Hill St. fame played with Alcindor not Walton...
    Personally I think that UNLV would get beat by any number of UCLA
    teams. The 75-76 Hoosiers, the 74 NC State, the San Francisco
    teams from the Russell and Jones days and the Carolina team from 82
    or 84 would probably beat UNLV...
    
    Cap

    1964	Gail Goodrich, Walt Hazzard
    1965	Gail Goodrich, Keith Erickson
    1967	Lew Alcindor, Lucius Allen, Lynn Shackelford, Mike Warren
    1968	Lew Alcindor, Lucius Allen, Lynn Shackelford, Mike Warren
    1969	Lew Alcindor, Curtis Rowe, Lynn Shackelford, Sidney Wicks
    1970	Steve Patterson, Curtis Rowe, Sidney Wicks
    1971	Larry Farmer, Larry Hollyfield, Steve Patterson, Curtis
    		Rowe, Sidney Wicks
    1972	Henry Bibby, Tommy Curtis, Larry Hollyfield, Greg Lee, 
    		Swen Nater, Bill Walton, Keith Wilkes
    1973	Tommy Curtis, Larry Hollyfield, Greg Lee, Dave Meyers, 
    		Swen Nater, Pete Trgovich, Bill Walton, Keith Wilkes
    1975	Marques Johnson, Andre McCarter, Dave Meyers, Pete
    		Trgovich, Brett Vroman, Richard Washington
    
    These are the players I can pick out of my Final Four program as being
    the prominent players from the UCLA dynasty.  They either played pro
    ball, became UCLA coaches or gained prominence in another field, like
    Mike Warren as an actor in Hill Street Blues.
    
    I may have missed Larry Farmer and Henry Bibby on one team or another
    on either side of the 1972 team.
    
    John 

    Quick trivia :
    
    Notice Swen Nater on the UCLA roster ? What is his great college/pro
    distinction (as far as I know) ?
    
    
    re basenote
    
    Any team with good balance and a great center would have given UNLV
    hell. Hence the Alcinder/Allen/Warren/Shackleford/Lynn team at UCLA
    would have certainly have been a great game.
    
    I think that the UNC team of 82 would have been a good matchup, but
    Smith would have gotten outcoached something terrible by Tark.
    
    How about the 1982 and 84 Hoyas ? Pat Ewing would have certainly made
    Johnson move out of the paint, while Floyd/Wingate and Augmon would
    have waged war ....
    
    But for me (and I admit bias), the 83-84 Houston Cougars were the
    greatest team in college history not to win a title - yet on pure
    matchups, the Drexler/Akeem/R.Williams/Anders/Micheaux/Gettys gang
    would have done a number of UNLV, IMO.
    
    People talk about UNLV-Seton Hall - try Houston-Louisville. NOBODY was
    supposed to be able to run with the Cards, much less outrun them. ha.
    What the Coogs did in that 2nd half I have never seen again ....
    
    But UNLV comes damned close. I think that a UNLV vs the 83 Coogs would
    be the most entertaining game.
    
    However, Tark is 10 times the coach Guy Lewis was.
    
    Unless an Akeem or Clyde took the game on their shoulders, Guy would
    blow this one like he did to NC State.
    
    For a better matchup for talent and coaching, I'd rather see the '74
    Wolfpack, or the Bruins, or the Hoyas.
    
    Last factor - take it for what it's worth :
    
    Don't forget the impact of 'hardship' entries into the NBA. UCLA never
    had to cope with Lew Alcindor leaving early, or Walton. Neither did the
    74 'Pack.
    
    I would love to have seen the Coogs keep all of their players 4 years
    (Clyde, Akeem, and Rob Williams all left early.), or UNC with Worthy
    and Jordan ....
    
    Funny thing here with this note. I get the impression that people are
    ready to cannonize the Rebels.
    
    Just remember, the Coogs-Wolfpack game was supposed to be a coronation
    too ....
    
    Doc

    
    >  <<< Note 125.2 by SONG::ASHE "Whatever happened to the Hudson Brothers?" >>>
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Rock died of AIDS a few years ago.  The other one was sent up the
    river.
    
    Dickstah
    

    .12�    Don't forget the impact of 'hardship' entries into the NBA. UCLA never
    .12�    had to cope with Lew Alcindor leaving early, or Walton. Neither did the
    .12�    74 'Pack.
    
    	But you forget...They had to deal with the "No Freshman"
    rule...Only three years to get it done!
    
    	It all adds up...different times and different ref's, coach's and
    fans...
    
    B.A.

    	Swen Nater backed up both Jabbar and Walton.  Get over to the
    ACC note.  Caught is already laying the foundation that a UNC win
    over UNLV would be, to quote Murad Mohammed "the greatest event
    in the history of events".  And I guess a win over talent laden
    Kansas would only qualify as one of the greatest upsets in NCAA
    history.
    
    				/Don

Swen Nater had a very respectable NBA and European career.  At
the end of his career, he was once again backing up Kareem. 
Swen came to the Lakers with Byron Scott in the Norm Nixon
trade.  He was the Lakers' backup center in the '83-84 season.

Laker_Ken

    Swen Nater led the NBA in rebounding with the S.D. Clippers around
    1980. I think he was the only center other than Moses to lead the league
    for a 7 year period ...
    
    However, that is not the answer. The answer to the question is this :
    
    
    
    Nater is probably the only backup center to ever be a first round pick
    in the NBA ....
    
    Doc

    >Notice Swen Nater on the UCLA roster ? What is his great college/pro
    >distinction (as far as I know) ?
    
    Led the ABA in rebounding one year.  Starting center, prob. one of the
    best in the ABA, on some very good Spur teams that challenged the Dr. J
    Nets.
    
    Dan

    Slight mistake in my transcription yesterday.  Henry Bibby played in
    1970-72, while Larry Farmer played in 1971-73.
    
    John

    The Russell teams of San Francisco would get destroyed by UNLV.
    Remember, Russ is only 6-9, and they had no one else on that team
    taller than 6-6.  UNLV would have outrun them, and also wore them
    down.
    
    The Indiana team in 1976 won with smarts and precision.  They were
    a great defensive team.  But only Scott May was a real scorer, and
    Stacy Augman would have shut him down.  UNLV's talent and athleticism
    lets them cruise to victory.
    
    THe 1968 UCLA team had a great backcourt, a fine corner jump shooter
    in Shackleford, and, of course, Alcindor.  But Warren and Allen would
    have been neutralized by Hunt and Anthony, and Johnson would have a
    field day inside.  UNLV by 15-20 points.
    
    The Walton-led 1973 team probably would give UNLV its best battle.
    With Meyers and WIlkes at forward, their frontcourt with Walton and
    Nater is probably better than UNLV's.  But Lee, Curtis, and Trgovich
    are hardly a match for Anthony and Hunt.  I see a very close game,
    but UNLV winning.
    
    The 1983 Houston team had as much raw talent, but UNLV's backcourt
    would really pick apart Alvin Franklin and Reed Gettys.  ANd Guy
    Lewis would help Houston find a way to lose.
    
    I think another team from 1983 would have a chance against this
    UNLV team, and that's Louisville's squad that included the McCray
    brothers, and was coached by Denny Crum.  That was an excellent
    team that got "Phi Slamma Jamma-ed" in the second half of the
    semifinal game.
    
    The 1974 NC State team would have been routed.  Monty Towe would
    have been embarressed.  Burleson would have fouled out.  Norn Sloan
    would have picked up a couple of technicals.  A 30 point UNLV win.  
    
    For one game, no one beats this team.
    
    NAZZ

>    THe 1968 UCLA team had a great backcourt, a fine corner jump shooter
>    in Shackleford, and, of course, Alcindor.  But Warren and Allen would
>    have been neutralized by Hunt and Anthony, and Johnson would have a
>    field day inside.  UNLV by 15-20 points.

     For 1970, however, I doubt that Johnson would have come close to matching
     Alcindor's output, the UCLA backcourt would outscore the UNLV backcourt,
     and UNLV would not have been able to generate nearly the number of
     turnovers needed to beat UCLA.  Bruins by 6-10 points.
    
>    The Walton-led 1973 team probably would give UNLV its best battle.
>    With Meyers and WIlkes at forward, their frontcourt with Walton and
>    Nater is probably better than UNLV's.  But Lee, Curtis, and Trgovich
>    are hardly a match for Anthony and Hunt.  I see a very close game,
>    but UNLV winning.
    
     More than likely, UCLA would dominate the boards, the UNLV running
     game would be neutralized, and Walton would be on a tear (similar to
     his championship game against Memphis State).  Bruins by 10+ points.


     However, probably these teams are the only ones that could beat this
     year's Vegas squad.

    Lance Haffner Computer Games of Nashville is running an Unbeatens Only
    computer tournament.  UNLV dominated the boards to beat the '76
    Hoosiers yesterday, 78-70.  Also, the '67 UCLA team beat the '57 UNC
    team, 82-66.  Their semifinals will be '72 UCLA vs. '73 UCLA and '91
    UNLV vs. '67 UCLA.  Let you know if I hear any more in the next few
    days.
    
    Joe

    
    
    	I love this stuff and after seeing the UCLA lineups, it's simply
    awesome.
    
    	In all this discussion I think one factor has been overlooked for
    the mostpart though, and that is the coaching.  Say what you will about
    the talent factor at UCLA, but Wooden is still considered by many as
    the best college coach ever.  Tark's not a bad coach, but Wooden was
    a master.  One thing in UCLA's favor was the fact that they were so
    fundamentally sound and played well as a unit, which was the Wooden
    factor.
    
    	Vegas might, and I say might have a slight overall edge in talent,
    but playing as a team, no way.  How soon people forget UCLA's 2-2-1
    fullcourt zone or the Jacksonville game.  
    
    	Wooden had great players, but he was the glue that held them 
    together.  I remember seeing a tape of Jabbar talking about the
    concepts that Wooden taught.  Kareem said that the first time he saw
    the pyramid (Wooden used each block in a pyramid to represent a key
    fundamental area), he laughed.  But now that he was a pro, he owed
    his success to that pyramid principle.
    
    	Add the genius of Wooden together with the two most dominating 
    players to ever play the college game (Walton and Jabbar) with a
    great supporting cast, and UNLV would go down like a rock.
    
    	I'd also give the Indiana team a good chance too because they had
    good talent and they had the better coach.  
    
    								bill..g.

    FWIW, in the computer simulated games, Lew Alcinders 1968 team beat the
    UNLV 91 team by about 8-10 points, as ALcinder scored 43 points, pulled
    down 24 rebounds and blocked 8 shots.  IN the other semifinal, Bill
    Walton's 73 team beat his 72 team, as Walton scored 32 points, with 24
    boards and 8 blocks against himself.
    
    JD

    DUKE WON.
    

    
    	As Kenny Rogers sings " don't count your money while your sitting
    	at the table "
    
    						Regards,	Peter
    

    Well I think the question has been answered and this topic can be
    put to rest. UNLV couldn't stop Laetttner, could you imaging what
    Alcindor or Walton would have done to them. I don't understand the
    play after the timeout, I still think Larry Johnson should of driven
    to the basket and stopped. Don't get me wrong, I think UNLV played
    a bad game, but they are not the best team ever, I still rank them 
    third or fourth.
    
                                                             Dan

    Larry Johnson took the gaspipe at the end of regulation. He could has
    blown by Laettner, and didn't. He up-faked him, and CL bit for it ...
    then *Johnson still passed the ball to a double-teamed Hunt* ....
    
    Gag .....
    
    UNLV played not to lose, and it killed them.
    
    Question : Has anyone found Stacy Augmon yet ?

    
    
    	I just want to say that there is no way that Duke should
    have beat UNLV.  I would have to say that Duke played an excellent
    ball game, especially the way they prevented the UNLV team from
    executing their fastbreak (in second half).  But coach Tarkanian was
    outcoached.  He should have told his "hotdog" guards, who are 
    overrated, and ball hogs, to get the ball inside to Johnson.  He is
    the main player on that team.  Why he didn't shoot that last shot,
    I'm not sure????????  But hats off to that Duke team who definitely
    rebounded from last years defeat to UNLV and stuck to a game plan 
    which payed off.  Let's hope they can finish things with Kansas, who
    will be tough to beat.  Duke showed that a total team effort will
    always beat a few individuals.
    
    
    
    
    Lets Go BlueDevils
    
    
    Jim
    

    Terrible refs hurt UNLV, too.  Several phantom foul calls kept
    Duke in the game.  Fourth foul on Anthony was a pathetic call,
    and a critical call.  Anthony actually backed away from Hurley, 
    was at least two feet away, and still got the whistle.  Simply
    terrible.
    
    Nevertheless, I thought Tark coached not to lose, rather than
    win.  IMO, he should have played Waldman at the point when Anthony
    got his fourth foul.  Hunt is not a point guard.  ALso, he should
    have instructed his guard to force-feed Johnson the ball down low.
    They should have tried to go to him every time down the court.
    UNLV also should have pressed more, too.
    
    NAZZ

    As you look at the game, you look for places to put in the "ifs, buts,
    shoulda's and coulda's"  
    
    Here's one:  The stupid offensive goaltending play by Gray.  Why he did
    that, no one will ever know.  
    
    Forgetting that Larry Johnson was on the team.   And not crashing
    Spencer and Eckles to the boards.  Laetnerr wasn't even covering the
    UNLV center - so Tark has him stand up in the high post - DUH!  They
    should have posted the center low on one side, Johnson on the other -
    they can't leave the center uncovered then.
    
    Funniest article on the game - Guy in Seattle paper saying how great
    a job Hurley did defensively on Hunt and Anthoney.  yeah, Hunt scored
    29 and ANthoney 19 - great job Bobby.
    
    JD

    One of the biggest plays down the stretch was Hurley's 3-pointer when
    UNLV was leading by 5 with about 2 minutes left.  I didn't want Vegas
    to lose, but it certainly was an entertaining game to watch.  One thing
    that surprises me most is that UNLV didn't play a terrible game and
    still lost.  All the more credit you gotta give Duke.  
    Vegas never really got rolling.  No big runs in this game.  I don't
    even remember UNLV getting any dunks in this game.
    
    Interesting that everyone thought UNLV would be too focused in this
    tournament to let themselves get beat (especially in the Final 4), yet 
    they didn't really play that great in this tournament.  They did have
    the big 2nd-half run in the SHU game, but still it was close for the first
    half.  They also didn't breeze throught the Big West tournament.  In
    the championship game against Fresno State, it was close into the 2nd
    half.  They were playing their best ball about 4-6 weeks ago, when they
    beat Arkansas and NMSU at Las Cruces.
    
    Joe
    

    It seemed to me that Vegas was not as quick/fast as they had been all
    season.  At the beginning of the game especially, Duke was getting up
    and down the floor quicker that UNLV.
    
    I agree that the goaltending call was big - it was a really stupid
    play.  I also thing that Hurley is overrated.
    
    =Bob=

    I love the Guy Lewis analogy. I thought that the last play wasa poorly
    conceivd one, not helped by the fact that Johnson (a power forward) was
    20 feet from the hole, then passed up a shot, then gave the ball to a
    double-teamed player ....
    
    re "Playing not to lose"
    
    For me, it means not being aggressive on offense and defense. UNLV did
    not seem to be in an attack mode for most of the game. And Tark's
    assertion that Lattener could not be handled was a master NEGATIVE
    stroke mentally. 
    
    Bad job Tark.

The shark was outcoached plain and simple. The UNLV players lacked the mental
conditioning down the stretch. They also lacked the composure to play the ameoba
the same way they had all year instead of running out to meet Duke on the 
perimeter exposing the inside passing lanes.

I'll have to agree now that with Tark as the coach Walton and Alcindor would
have eaten the Rebels alive. With an inovative coach like Pitino they would
be a better team than they are now....


Quote of the day from Tark himself....

"we'll be back next year and we'll be a very good team."



Metz

>Quote of the day from Tark himself....
>"we'll be back next year and we'll be a very good team."
    
    The man was so sad when he said that, it made me feel sorry for him.  I
    imagine this year's been extremely stressful, and I really do believe
    that most of his feeling was for his "kids".
    
    I hope what he said was true.
    
    Dan

 �   The man was so sad when he said that, it made me feel sorry for him.  I
 �   imagine this year's been extremely stressful, and I really do believe
 �   that most of his feeling was for his "kids".
 
 Dan, you have got to be kidding me.  Say it ain't so, Dan, please say it
 ain't so.    
 
 "Tark's Kids", Dan ???   Tark's 23 and 24 year old juco-transfer,
 semi-professional, non-salary capped, real estate-licensed, T-shirt
 retailing, non-student "kids", Dan ???
 
 Tark gets about 500 season tickets every year to peddle to his big shot
 pals in Vegas, Dan.  He recruits "students" like Lloyd Daniels, Dan.   He
 gat a $100K bonus for winning the big one last year, Dan.   He got one of
 the most incredible gifts the NCAA has ever given out when they allowed
 him to "negotiate" his program's punishment, Dan.
 
 Shoe contracts, television and radio shows, Vegas hotel perks, huge
 recruiting budgets, powerful lawyers, fortress-like hotel accomodations in
 Indianapolis, network shills like Packer falling all over themselves to
 get near you, the top-ranked team all year, cupcake competition, and on
 and on and on and on ...
 
 Put your thumb and your forefinger together and squeeze them real, real
 tight, Dan.  Now look between them and you'll see just how "sad" I feel
 for Jerry Tarkanian.
 
 Not to mention that he's probably headed off to the greener pastures of
 the NBA while leaving the Daniels mess behind for the next group of "kids"
 to bear.
 
 Bob Hunt

    >                -< Not one of your better moments, Dan >-
    
    Bob, there's a lot of people here who probably think I never have any
    good moments.  It's never stopped me before.  Someone's gotta swim
    against the stream.
    
    - I've always liked Tark's team's style of play.  It's exciting,
    up-tempo, challanging.  He doesn't preach slyness or coyness.  It's
    direct, attack, play in your face D.  I think he's a major influence on
    college basketball today.
    
    - His schtick has always been that he's giving big time college hoops
    to "kids" who otherwise wouldn't get that chance.  He's won without the
    talent and with it.  He took players with all kinds of questions,
    academics among them.  I truly believe that he personally cares about
    his players as much if not more than almost all coaches.  And it's
    probably a lot harder with the down-and-outers he's collected than with
    the fresh-faced, good students that the big programs and good schools
    can attract.  He's going to have a higher number of personal
    disappointments that way, and I'm sure it's hard on him.
    
    - He has (thus far) successfully stood up to the NCAA.  Who else had
    the guts?  Is this an organization that should be stood up to?  In my
    view, yes.
    
    - Yeah, everyone loves to finger blame whenever they get a chance: it's
    the American way.  But he lost one game all year.  What a year!  Should
    it be so quickly forgotten or scorned because of one loss?  It was
    greatness.  It was accomplished in the face of exceptional adversity
    and delibrate and unfair complicity by the NCAA.
    
    - Tark was up front the other night on Lloyd Daniels.  He told Ted
    Koppel in an otherwise PR disaster on Nightline that he wanted to give
    Daniels one year in college and that chance to make the NBA.  Is that
    really so bad?  Is their some other attractive options that he stole
    from Daniels?
    
    - Tark personally brought UNLV, a no-account small commuter school into
    national prominence.  He may not have always played by the rules, but
    so haven't a lot of others.  It also was never a level playing field
    for him.  He did this from the other side of the tracks, which always
    causes resentment.
    
    From what I've read, there's a real good chance he's gone.  I'd rather
    see him accept the penalty and rebuild the program, and I know he'll
    make a team worth watching again if the NCAA would let him.
    
    Dan
    

 Good Note Dan...very unusual...

 ;^)

    Dan,
    
    I agree with you on tark and UNLV.  I've always liked there style - I
    remember then giving Dean fits in the 1970's in the tourney when they
    had Reggie Theus and about 4 guys named Smith (Robert Smith, Chi.
    Bulls, was one).  Dean went to the 4 corner stall early (YUCH..)
    
    I read a long article in the Seattle Times a few weeks ago about UNLV
    and the players Tark has had there.  For better or worse, to a man they
    had one common theme - that Tark was the first real male leadership
    role model that they ever had in their life.  That he gave them
    direction, that he showed love and caring for them, and that he made
    them better men.   Is that, to paraphrase Dan, really a bad thing?
    
    Given the socio-economic background that they came from, and where most
    of them have ended up (in business of some sort - successful compared
    to their peers from the same socio-economic background) - I'd say Tark
    has suceeded at some things.  
    
    Yep, he's 'bent' the rules, and he's definitely made mistakes.  He's
    been punished.  I think he'll stay at UNLV and build another team. 
    
    
    JD

    Count me among the people that would like to see UNLV
    come back strong nexted season with Tark at the helm, but as
    far as coaching goes, Tark is a charter member of the "I can
    recruit tons of great players, but I don't know what to do with
    them" club.  This club's president is Guy Lewis, and the charter
    members include Lefty Dreisell, Bill Frieder, Jim Boeheim, Bobby
    Cremins, Nolan Richardson, and Lute Olson.
    
    NAZZ

    Nazz I won't argue with you about most members of that club, but Tark
    doesn't deserve to be in there (I do believe that the 87 (?)
    Gilliam/Banks/Wade club should have won it all), and neither does
    Richardson - yet. The Hogs shocked me by their lack of heart (or so it
    seemed) this year, but this is the first time IMO, that Nolan has had a
    championship-cailber club, and failed to achieve.
    
    If he screws up next year - make him an associate member ....
    
    As for Guy Lewis, he shouldn't be president ....
    
    
    
    He ought to be the damned patron saint !!!!!
    
    
    Doc

    It's my impression that Tark labored a *long* time, and quite
    successfully too, with scrap heap type of talent, not the stuff of
    recent UNLV-head line-making material.
    
    But everyone just loves to stick underachiever labels all over the
    place, whether they belong or not...
    
    BTW, I heard rumors that Richardson is leaving the Hogs.  Kicked out
    for poor taste in clothing perhaps?
    
    Dan

I didn't see John "I recruit big studs" thompson in that list. Surely he has
to be one of the charter members.

I dunno enough about Tark's past squads to make a judgement but he took the 
gaspipe during the game vs. Duke. I'd like to see him stay at UNLV and field
a winning squad and play within the "rules" set by the NCAA. Then I'd be 
convinced that his overload of talent resulted from recruiting instead of from
handing out Bennies that the other teams don't.


Metz

    Metz (and others)
    
    Many of Tark's 'recruits' have come from the JUCO ranks.  Not recruited
    in the traditional sense (i.e. high school player, visits to campus,
    etc...)  I know Larry Johnson was JUCO player of the year before going
    to Vegas.  
    
    JD

    I think Anthony was a JUCO too.
    
    NY Post had an article about one of Tark's guys... Richie Adams, maybe?
    School's leading rebounder until this year.  Anyway, he watched the
    finals from a jailcell in NY.  Not all of Tark's players change their
    ways...

    I read the story in the New York Times about Richie Adams,who was the
    leading rebounder in UNLV history. Sad,too often heard story of a
    talented athlete who loses the battle to drugs. Tarkanian was portrayed
    in the article as a coach who prides himself in taking kids from bad
    backgrounds and turning them around. After one of Adams' scrapes with
    the law,Tark sent him plane money to come back out to Vegas and work
    there,but Adams cashed the check. 

    At least Tarkanian gave Adams (and lots of other kids like him)
    the chance to escape their environment and make something of
    their lives.  Adams was a failfure, unfortunately; many others
    that came out of Tark's program are successes.
    
    NAZZ

    The shark is pretty sharp.  How else can you get a basket weaving
    major basketball player to play.  Let him go to junior college first
    then bring him up to the big time.  I just dont understand John
    Thompson's beef with the NCAA's.  Big time college sports is like
    horse racing.  It used to be that you went to college learn then
    play ball.  Now you play ball to learn.  They used to breed horses
    to run.  These days they run horses to breed.  Money$ Money$ Money$
    
    
    
    Greg
    
    
      
    

    >Can't fault Tark for trying.
    
    Yeah ya cain.  You cain fault Tark for three things:
    
    1) Obtaining competitive advantage by cheating.
    
    2) Diluting what remains of our nation's educational ethos by sending
       into the inner cities the message that laziness, incompetence, and
       subliteracy aren't problems cuz the system cain be beat... if you
       only spend tens of thousands of hours hanging out at the court 
       instead of, maybe, studying.
    
    3) Being a total hypocrite.  He's not trying to help anybody but himself.
       As one wag points out, if he cares so much about poor black kids where
       are all the 5-9 slow-footed ones with bad hands in his program?
    
    Big10 Tom 

    >1) Obtaining competitive advantage by cheating.
    
    What advantage and what cheating?
    
    >2) Diluting what remains of our nation's educational ethos..
    
    You're gonna blame a basketball coach at a commuter school for this? 
    Geez, we've got some immoral president who's about 10 million times
    more responsible and you're holding the Tark to blame?
    
    >3) Being a total hypocrite.  He's not trying to help anybody but himself.
    >   As one wag points out, if he cares so much about poor black kids where
    >   are all the 5-9 slow-footed ones with bad hands in his program?
    
    A bogus point.  And logically incorrect as well.  He could very well be
    trying to help out his players, and still not recruit poor hoopsters. 
    It's a silly argument that you're attempting to propagate.
    
    Dan
    

    >You're gonna blame a basketball coach at a commuter school
    
    Yes I am.  He's being watched by tens of millions of our nation's
    youth, most of whom are bums in school to begin with, are poorly
    motivated, and end up that much more difficult to motivate given
    the rotten example held up most of all by Tark's Runnin' Rabble.
    Go to the ghetto and see the millions in UNLV (or Gougetown) jackets
    and understand that they wear these jackets not outta reverence for
    what cain be learned there but with the impudent understanding that
    if they hang out on the blacktop long enough one day maybe they too
    cain finesse the system through laziness.
    
    >What advantage and what cheating?
    
    Most schools won't allow their programs to in effect adopt illiterate
    widebodies and fund their tuition in a prep school so that they might
    one day come to college to enter fifth grade level courses.  Tark's
    infamous for that.  It stands to reason that there are a lotta great 
    hoopsters out there simply too stupid to matriculate.  Therefore, if
    one cain expand his recruiting universe by reaching into New York City
    crack houses, he gains competitive advantage over those who cain't (or
    won't).  Tito Horford prooves that Tark-the-leader indeed has followers.
    As for the evidence, I refer you to the NCAA.
    
    >stupid argument you're trying to propagate.
    
    Not me, but your fave source John Feinstein, whom apparently in this
    matter you don't see fit to believe.
    
    Big10 Tom
             

    One last thing: Is UNLV the best ever?
    
    Haaa.  Also ha ha to choke-artist Anthony's lame claim that "we're 
    the best team to not win the Championship."  Sorry, but *that*
    honor would go to either the '75 Hoosiers (whose star had a broken
    arm) or to the great UCLA squad that went down to the great NC State
    team with David, Junior, Monte, and that big ugly center.
    
    HA ha ha hAAAAAAAAAAAAHahahahahahahaha !!
    
    Oh ho ho, I cain steal see Larry choking at the trey arc.  I cain steal
    smell the acrid stench from showboat Anthony's so very sad "draft me
    I'm a star!" histironics.  I steal laugh at their point guard's punky
    violent behavior.  But I'm going to the Men's Room to wipe away the
    last remaining dingleberry's hanging in testament to the cruddy job 
    turned in by that old cheat "coach" Tark.
    
    Hee hee hoo haa ha.
    
    Big10 Tom

    Holding Tark responsible for the education crisis in America is silly. 
    Beyond belief.  He could do more for the cause, yes, but his effect as
    a basketball coach is negligable relative to the real issues, such as
    quality of schools, teachers, money available, family life, etc.  Tark
    does nearly as much for education in this country as does Knight as
    does Smith which is almost nothing in the Big Picture.  They're
    basketball coaches.
    
    Do you think kids in the ghetto running around in Indiana jackets do so
    because Knight thinks education is a good thing?
    
    As for the advantage gained by cheating, sure UNLV has lower standards,
    as does Tark.  But for years they not only got by, but excelled with
    lesser athletes as well.  I don't associate lower standards with
    cheating and I do think it noble (if it's sincere) that Tark would get
    these kids in because he thought they deserved a shot at big time hoops
    even if their brains and backgrounds conspired to make them unworthy
    for better universities.  I've always had a problem with college
    basketball and football being de facto and nearly mandatory minor
    leagues for the NBA and the NFL.
    
    It's not fair to good students who only expect to have to compete
    against good students.  It's not fair to poor students who are
    effectively barred from climbing the ladder.  Tark gave 'em a way, and
    I can live with that.    
    
    >Not me, but your fave source John Feinstein, whom apparently in this
    >matter you don't see fit to believe.
    
    Feinstein has never been my "fave source", but the demands of
    intellectual honesty insist that I examine each argument for its
    substance rather than by its messenger.  In this case, StuffedShirt
    Feinstein has made a foolish argument, and you've foolishly repeated
    it.
    
    Dan
                                            

    Best team to never win the NCAA Championship:  1973 Providence
    College.  C - Marvin Barnes; F - Fran Costello and Nehru King;
    G - Ernie DiGregorio and Kevin Stacom.
    
    If Barnes doesn't go down with a knee injury in first half of
    semifinals against Memphis State (and Providence up by 7), the
    Friars would have given UCLA and Bill Walton all they could handle.
    
    NAZZ

 Don't forget the 28-2 top-ranked 1984 North Carolina Tar Heels who, as we
 all so well know, lost to a huge underdog Indiana Hoosier team in the East
 Region Semi-Finals in Atlanta.
 
 Michael Jordan, Sam Perkins, and Brad Daugherty.
 
 Only Dean Smith could have lost that one.
 
 Bob Hunt

    Gotta agree, the '84 Heels were probably the all-time best Carolina
    team.  Jordan, Perkins, Daugherty, Steve Hale, Kenny Smith.  Dynamite
    team that went undefeated in the ACC.
    
    
    - ACC Chris

The 84 heels also had another first round NBA pick, Joe Wolf. But, let's
remember that this team also didn't win the ACC tournament that year.
This team had already choked before the regionals.

TTom

>The 84 heels also had another first round NBA pick, Joe Wolf. But, let's
>remember that this team also didn't win the ACC tournament that year.
>This team had already choked before the regionals.

 but that's not what Chris said, he said they were undfeated in the ACC,
 what gives....

 ;^)

mike

Dean sets his goal on having the best regular season ACC record. That
year, they went 14-0 during the season. Dean checked that goal off which
left one other goal, make the final 16. Along the way, they "forgot" to
win the ACC tournament and then they "forgot" to keep winning after
making the final 16. These, as should be obvious to anyone, are not goals
of Dean or the System.

TTom

    How anybody couldn't coach that team to a title is beyond me.  Heck,
    you should just be able to sit on the bench twiddling yer thumbs to get
    30 victories.   With that team, Dean's coaching ability was probably
    needed to win a few games - like in a tourney setting.  But NO.  He
    gagged.
    
    JD

    >Holding Tark responsible for the education crisis in America is silly
    
    I agree.  So what?  Misrepresenting my statement in this way is silly.
    Beyond belief.
    
    Word up: College athletics consitutes about, oh, 99% or so of the image
    of higher education in the minds of America's lower-class kids; and 
    college sets the educational ethos for any nation.  The image passed
    through to them is extremely negative.  The NCAA knows this, Congress
    knows this, but the millions of stupid lazya 15 year olds in Gougetown
    and Runnin' Rabble jackets don't have a clue, they think of these
    colleges as places where real stupid people cain, indeed do, become
    heros through emphasis of laziness and impudence at the direct expense
    of old fashioned values.
    
    Tark is the lowest of the low is all.  His negative symbolism is only
    distateful, but he's substantively in a harmful way in the sense that
    he continues to lower the acceptable floor for college sports.
    
    Tark is the Ultimate Hypocrite, painting himself as the victim of a 
    vendetta when in reality he's a simple scumbag who obtains competitive
    advantage by seeking to keep lowering the floor.  He uses up and casts
    aside real stupid widebodies and then sneers at all of us by claiming
    pure intentions where none exist.
    
    You don't know what in the hell you're talking about, Air Snide.  You
    seem to think that these real stupid lazy-ass teenagers understand
    the notion of higher education as apart from sports and all the PR that
    surrounds it.  Unlike you, I've been there.  They don't make that 
    separation, they don't have the motivation, background, or guidance
    necessary to pick it up, a problem worsened by the fack that sports
    media works very hard to maintain the false impression they have in 
    their minds.
    
    MrT

    >You
    >seem to think that these real stupid lazy-ass teenagers understand
    >the notion of higher education as apart from sports and all the PR that
    >surrounds it.  Unlike you, I've been there.  

    Were you once a "real stupid lazy-ass teenager"?  You're right; I
    wasn't.  Of course, I knew some where I grew up and in most cases, your
    sweeping generalizations are false.  Yours are the sort of condescending,
    above-it-all, false generalization that does tend to create resentment
    and put the focus in the wrong areas, as you have done.

    >Word up: College athletics consitutes about, oh, 99% or so of the image
    >of higher education in the minds of America's lower-class kids;

    College athletics constitutes *too much* of that image, yes, but the
    fault of that is not college athletics, but rather those who are
    supposed to teach what education means to these youngsters.

    And fixing this problem is not helped one iota by listing the
    fabrications and innuendo about Tarkanian as you have.  If you want to
    fool yourself into believing such tripe, which goes toward the argument
    that there aren't enough positive images/heroes for your inner-city
    youth, than the answer is to create other images.

    Of course your goals are set pretty low if a basketball coach is whom
    you think you have to tear down to help the image of education in this
    country.

    Dan

    I went to a_inner city high school of 5,700 students, 70% of them
    black, most of them LMC or just plain poor. our argument is the
    one that condesends, for it pretends that youngsters watching a_
    average of 6 hours of TV a night are different people from the ones
    posting the lowest average test scores amoeveloped nations.
    
    Covering this subject requires intelligent discourse and, so sorry
    Dan, but you don't quite measure up to that requirement.  Take your
    stupid lazy-assed Rush Limbaughesque technique of "creative mis-
    interpretation" of my statement about the scuzbag Tark to mean that
    he's responsible for the nation's educational crisis.  Such a rse
    shit lie puts me in the position of either denying the ridiculous or
    agreeing with it, or ignoring it (I'll take the last option).
    
    For those with some mental firepower in here, here's how it works:
    
    1) Nation's youth unmotivitated, horrible underachievers.
    2) They watch TV almost constantly.
    3) The bulk of that TV watching by boys is sports programming.
    4) Almost 100% of what these unmotivated underachieving boys hear
       about college is sports-related.
    5) The undertow of this exposure is that ignorance, stupidity, 
       cheating, and laziness pay off somely indeed.
    6) Contrary to Dan's stupid assertioncollege sports *are* indeed
       responsible for thtruism in #4 above cuz they are operated under
       the auspices of college presidents, who themselves are responsible
       for maintenance of the nation's educational ethos, perhaps the most
       important element to turning around America's education disaster 
       given that lack of motivation and standards is central to it.
    7) College sports bears two central messages: 1) standards should be
       lowered to accomodate stupid lazy-assed "victims" and 2) there's
       more reason, or at least as much reason, from the standpoint of 
       self-esteem, to hang out on the blacktop than in the library cuz
       it pays.  And cheating pays (how many kids out there think that 
       Larry Johnson is gonna declare his $500,000 retainer to the I?)
    8) Tark is the lowest of the low.  He's a total, unmitigad scumbag
       who won't even pay lip service to the idea of college education
       and has caused substantive harm to already awful situation by
       establishing for the first-time ever a scumbag coach as the victim
       and went on from there to drop even the pretenses and to threaten
       the NCAA's remaining few powers with his Maa lawyers.
    9) The central fallacy to the whole "these kids are being ripped off"
       myth is that they could generatmillions in revenues in the absence
       of the colleges for whom they play.  Not so.  Take IU's basketball
     team for example.  If they were dissociated entirely from my alma
       mater and were simply, say, the Bloomington Bombers, I and millions
       of other Hoosiers wouldn't give a rat's ass about them or their
       games. 
    
       The players profit by their association with the colleges, not the
       reverse.  Sure they should get a stipdend.But whoever gets the
       money there's no right to be poisoning a_already rotten situation.
      
    And a hypocritical, self-serving scuzzball cheat-ass liar of a creep
    like Tarkanian has no placon any college campus.  
    
    MrT

    >Covering this subject requires intelligent discourse and, so sorry
    >Dan, but you don't quite measure up to that requirement. 
    
    Hey, you're the one fingering a basketball coach for the faults of the
    educational system.  But since you get to define intelligent discourse
    so uniquely (whatever far out views that agree with your own), you can
    keep this up with yourself.
    
    Dan

    Thank you.  So long as you continue with the crapulous
    misrepresentations like "you're the one fingering a basketball
    coach for the faults of the edcucational system" your silence
    will be appreciated, Rush Limbaugh Jr.  I define intelligent 
    discussion as one free of misrepresentation that focuses on the
    key issues in a thoughtful manner.  From you, we instead get
    impassioned obfuscatory defenses of a scumbag like Tarkanian.
    In fack, you play the pseudo-victim as wail as he!
    
    MrT

    Dan,
    
    It's been reported (at least in my paper) that many of the Vegas
    players are driving ultra-expensive sports cars.  (Porshes seem to be
    the car of choice.)
    
    Do you have a problem with this?  Does it reflect (negatively) on
    Tarkanian?
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    
    Just one question, Dan: even with the knowledge that he's just another
    small fish working within the framework of a corrupt system, you 
    really saw nothing wrong with Tark providing an "opportunity" to a 
    crack dealer with no high school diploma?  To think that Tark would go
    that far, with nothing to gain for himself, just to help another human
    being...
    
    glenn
    
    

�    1) Nation's youth unmotivitated, horrible underachievers.

   This is untrue. There are youth in the nation who are unmotivated, and
   underachievers; but `the Nation's youth' do not fit this profile, and
   being an inner city youth is not a criteria for membership in this
   club. VERY bright kids are around, and they are everywhere. It is true
   that children from homes where education is not appreciated are going
   to have a rougher time, and could fall by the wayside.... and it is
   also true that you tend to find this situation most in broken homes,
   transient communities, and some inner city schools. That  is an
   admitted problem, but not a Sports problem.

   � 2) They watch TV almost constantly.
   
   Kids who are athletic, and interested in Sports, do not watch a lot of
   television. Kids who are dullards, unmotivated, underachievers, and
   watch TV incessantly are not going to college. Either on their own, or
   via Athletic scholarships. As before, a problem... but certainly not
   one which is Sports related.

   � 3) The bulk of that TV watching by boys is sports programming.
   
   The dullards watching TV are not watching Sports.

   � 4) Almost 100% of what these unmotivated underachieving boys hear
       about college is sports-related.
  
   If you change the above to `most boys hear about MAJOR colleges due to
   the Sports programs of those colleges', I'd agree this is probable. 

   �  5) The undertow of this exposure is that ignorance, stupidity, 
       cheating, and laziness pay off somely indeed.
   
   Not true. You are just trying to bolster a very shaky premise with a
   lot of emotional chaff and innuendo.

   � 6) Contrary to Dan's stupid assertioncollege sports *are* indeed
       responsible for thtruism in #4 above cuz they are operated under
       the auspices of college presidents, who themselves are responsible
       for maintenance of the nation's educational ethos, perhaps the most
       important element to turning around America's education disaster 
       given that lack of motivation and standards is central to it.
   
   Are you saying that college sports are responsible for the fact that
   most kids hear about colleges (major) because of those colleges' sports
   programs? How about adding the media, and their fathers?

   � 7) College sports bears two central messages: 1) standards should be
       lowered to accomodate stupid lazy-assed "victims" and 2) there's
       more reason, or at least as much reason, from the standpoint of 
       self-esteem, to hang out on the blacktop than in the library cuz
       it pays.  And cheating pays (how many kids out there think that 
       Larry Johnson is gonna declare his $500,000 retainer to the I?)
   
   Certain segments within the college sports scene (Stompshin, for
   instance) world would like standards to be lowered to accommodate the
   stupid but athletically gifted individual.  For a gifted athlete, it
   DOES make more sense to hone your skills on a blacktop than in a
   library. And most kids see over and over again that cheating DOESN'T
   pay. Colleges who cheat get in the news, and the penalties are common
   knowledge. ( It might pay sometimes, but the overall message to kids is
   that it doesn't ). If the gifted athlete is stupid, time in the library
   won't help. If the gifted athlete is bright, I'd say make your money
   while you can... 30 years old is OLD in the Sports world... You can
   always  get an education, and if you have a few million in the bank,
   you can educate yourself in areas that interest you,

   � 8) Tark is the lowest of the low.  He's a total, unmitigad scumbag
       who won't even pay lip service to the idea of college education
       and has caused substantive harm to already awful situation by
       establishing for the first-time ever a scumbag coach as the victim
       and went on from there to drop even the pretenses and to threaten
       the NCAA's remaining few powers with his Maa lawyers.

   This is silly. Ranting and Geekism at it's most foul. You should be
   ashamed of yourself.

   � 9) The central fallacy to the whole "these kids are being ripped off"
   myth is that they could generatmillions in revenues in the absence of
   the colleges for whom they play.  Not so.  Take IU's basketball team
   for example.  If they were dissociated entirely from my alma mater and
   were simply, say, the Bloomington Bombers, I and millions of other
   Hoosiers wouldn't give a rat's ass about them or their games.  The
   players profit by their association with the colleges, not the reverse. 
   Sure they should get a stipdend.But whoever gets the money there's no
   right to be poisoning a_already rotten situation.

   True.

�       And a hypocritical, self-serving scuzzball cheat-ass liar of a creep
       like Tarkanian has no placon any college campus.  

See answer to #8

   Mike JN

    >I define intelligent 
    >discussion as one free of misrepresentation that focuses on the
    >key issues in a thoughtful manner.
    
    But this excludes yourself as well?!  Misrepresentation is your forte,
    and saying hurtful things about others is hardly what I think of as "a
    thoughtful manner".
    
    From leading through your list, point by point, if that is what you
    truly believe, I'm afraid you've simplified these matter to being
    totally out of touch with the real issues and any solutions to them.
    
    Dan

    >Do you have a problem with this?  Does it reflect (negatively) on
    >Tarkanian?
    
    No and no.  If reports of players owning reports were proven true, and
    it was proven that they obtained them illegally, or as a blatant
    violation of a meaningful competitive rule, yes and yes.
    
    Dan

    >you 
    >really saw nothing wrong with Tark providing an "opportunity" to a 
    >crack dealer with no high school diploma?
    
    You're talking about Lloyd Daniels, I presume?  My knowledge is that
    Daniels was not a dealer, but a user of drugs during high school (or
    not during high school as was certainly the case, but at least before
    he went to UNLV).  He also has/had the potential to play in the NBA.
    
    Lloyd Daniels had little hope for a straight clean life.  I think,
    looking at what I know if his life, he either ends up dead at a young
    age, bottoms out completely and learns from it (which occasionally
    happens), bottoms out and doesn't learn from it leading to a miserable
    life if he can stay alive, or establishes a goal that makes life worth
    living.
    
    Tark gave that last one a chance.  It didn't work out.  I would hope
    that Tark was more than just a basketball coach in that respect,
    because Daniels certainly needed a lot more than that.  But I don't
    know if he was or wasn't.  If he acted responsibly, I don't have any
    problem with this, because even though he failed, if he didn't try
    Daniels loses anyway.
    
    Do you know any more of it than that, Glenn?
    
    Dan

    > Do you know any more of it than that, Glenn?
    
    No, not too much, but my interpretation is quite a bit different than
    yours.  I do know that it looks like UNLV is going down over Daniels' 
    recruitment, so I suspect that there was quite a bit more to Tark's
    actions than merely offering a chance to an otherwise decent kid with 
    a drug problem.  Suffice it to say that even if Tark was acting out 
    of compassion in circumventing the system (which I don't believe, but 
    for the sake of argument), I still feel that it was very wrong to use 
    the collegiate educational system, even in a relatively small way, to 
    allow a kid without even a high school diploma into college to play 
    basketball.  Judging from Tark's comments, he apparently does not feel 
    that this distinction is an important one... 
    
    Didn't Daniels end up in the CBA or one of those other minor leagues
    for a while?  What's wrong with that avenue?  Either way, the pros
    aren't going to touch him with his problems now, which I don't 
    feel Tark's unique approach was going to fix...
    
    glenn
    

 �   Tark gave that last one a chance.  It didn't work out.  I would hope
 �   that Tark was more than just a basketball coach in that respect,
 �   because Daniels certainly needed a lot more than that.  But I don't
 �   know if he was or wasn't.  If he acted responsibly, I don't have any
 �   problem with this, because even though he failed, if he didn't try
 �   Daniels loses anyway.
 
 Most of the accounts of the Daniels episode acknowledge that
 Tarkanian got him into some kind of an extremely easy two-year
 college in California somewhere.  Apparently, it was so easy that a
 high school diploma wasn't even required.   Daniels lasted less than
 a year and had a course load that was ridiculous.   Like "Theory Of
 Leisure" and "Intro To Frisbee" and a few others.  He did take 1
 history course and failed it miserably.
 
 Tarkanian also had one of his assistants in the program adopt Daniels
 and thus became his legal guardian.
 
 No one knows enough about all the facts in this episode to make any
 kind of conclusive judgement.  And I'm not going to do a Soup and
 make some sorta silly "If it looks like ..., smells like ..."
 statement but suffice to say that I'm *NOT* in your camp, Dan, where,
 after the Duke loss, you felt sympathetic and genuinely sorry for the
 "tough" year he's had.
 
 Sorry, there are just too many incriminating circumstances to cave in
 that sweetly to his side, Dan.  I'm willing to listen to evidence
 that he's really a saint in a sharkskin but there's precious little
 of it.  I'm all for his personal rights to fairness through due
 process against the NCAA machine but the more he claims to have had
 his rights injured, the more he looks guilty in doing so.
 
 We've rarely, if ever, heard him deny the allegations.    Doesn't
 that make you wonder ???
 
 Bob Hunt

    ) Tark gave (Daniels) that one last chance.  I t didn't work out.
    
    Tark gave himself, for the umpteenth time, yet another chance to
    recruit a stupid widebody that other schools couldn't or wouldn't -
    for competitive advantage.
    
    You persist at pretending that the important thing in these "human-
    tarian gestures" made by ambitious cheat-ass coaches is that the 
    player-"victim" was given a chance.  The player-victim's situation
    doesn't matter a rat's ass... unless you accept the unbelievable
    premise that our educational institutions shuold extend chances to
    stupid athletes but not to stupid non-athletes.
    
    The important thing is the message being broadcast.  The colleges
    from the beginning of the NCAA have recognized that sports stood as
    a_advertisement for participating institutions.  But somewhere along
    the line the system went outta control.  Now, instead of reinforcing
    the notion of standards and ethics, colleges - through the organization
    that reflects their wants in the NCAA - send the opposite message.
    
    Our universities aren't halfway houses for stupid geeks who cain play
    hoops.  Our universities are responsible as institutions for enhancing
    the entire public educational system and they're failing miserably by
    creating the notion that college is all about games, cheating, stupid
    successful people, and lawyerly cancers gnawing away at the last 
    vestiges of the system's original intent.  
    
    And the "press" (in quotations cuz there is no such thing as sports
    journalism, sports reporters are nothing more than public relations
    men who work for companies in partnership with sports businesses)
    won't report the huge negative effect of the scam cuz theyh're in on
    it.
    
    .... Unless, of course, you're like Dan and don't believe in the power
    of advertising.
    
    

    >Didn't Daniels end up in the CBA or one of those other minor leagues
    >for a while?  What's wrong with that avenue?
    
    Daniels was drafted by the Trailblazers and has bounced around the CBA
    awhile, and is still tangled up with drugs.  About a year ago he was
    shot in the stomach in another drug den.  I think he was suspended by
    his CBA team this year.
    
    Is there a record of high school kids going directly to the CBA and
    learning their trade so they have a prayer at sniffing an NBA jock?  I
    don't think so.  That's what's wrong with it.  College hoops is a
    virtual monopoly as the institution which teaches skills for NBA
    players.
    
    Dan

    >The player-victim's situation             
    >doesn't matter a rat's ass... unless you accept the unbelievable
    >premise that our educational institutions shuold extend chances to
    >stupid athletes but not to stupid non-athletes.
    
    The relationship you pose fails logically.  A more relavant premise is
    that the player's situation does matter, because college basketball is
    the de facto NBA minor league system of learning.  In that respect, it
    can do for the athlete what the class room does for the student.  By
    barring the athlete from the minor league system because he can't
    succeed academically, they are virtually barring the athlete from his
    chance at his career when they could be developing it.
    
    Given the flagrant hypocrisies of the current big time collegiate
    sports, I don't consider the above problem to be solved by not
    developing the athletes.
    
    There was a very interesting piece by Douglas Looney in last week's
    Sports Illustrated that told the tale of an NFL-prospect at tight end
    getting ready for the draft and how he coped (or doesn't cope, as is
    the case) with his studies.  It's fairly written and it is reality.  I
    get the feeling it's the rule and not the exception.
    
    >The important thing is the message being broadcast. 
    
    I can't think of many things less significant than the message you
    perceive.
    
    >.... Unless, of course, you're like Dan and don't believe in the power
    >of advertising.
    
    As I said, your forte is misrepresentation.
    
    Dan

    Let the record show that Dan and I agree on something.  Seeing Eric
    Swann make it to the NFL as a #1 draft choice without attending college
    really made me feel good.  If there was a viable minor league
    alternative to college to qualify a player for the NFL and NBA (as
    there is for the NHL and MLB) we would see many (not all but I think
    many) of the marginal academic cases playing college football and
    basketball not in colleges today.  It would be great for the individual
    athletes but not for the NFL, NBA or NCAA which is why we won't see it.
    
    John

            
    > There was a very interesting piece by Douglas Looney in last week's
    > Sports Illustrated that told the tale of an NFL-prospect at tight end
    > getting ready for the draft and how he coped (or doesn't cope, as is
    > the case) with his studies.  It's fairly written and it is reality.  I
    > get the feeling it's the rule and not the exception.
    
    By the way, in spite of the best efforts of his wannabe agents/
    sycophants, the kid didn't get drafted in the first four rounds
    yesterday as he expected.  Probably another in a long line burned by
    the system...
    
    I still fail to see where Tark's way comes anywhere close to offering a
    solution to a kid like Daniels' problems.  Tark admits that Daniels 
    would only be at UNLV to play basketball, freely suggesting that he 
    wouldn't have to crack a book all the time he's there.  But what is
    Tark's record in converting players, even starters at UNLV, into
    successful professionals?  As at anyplace else, the percentage is
    extremely low.  Then what?  I think on the whole the UNLV-style star 
    treatment does more damage than good.  Yes, I do think the CBA, its 
    stark realities and minor monetary compensation (as opposed to 
    supposed educational compensation which would be completely worthless 
    to Daniels) is more appropriate, and not much more restrictive to a 
    player like Daniels' development.  If the kid can play and stays 
    clean, the NBA would find him there... 
    
    glenn
    

    I keep looking at what's going on with the WLAF, and wondering if what
    we're seeing there is the development of a minor league for the NFL.  I
    certainly hope so, and the caliber of play is about what I'd expect in
    that situation.  Anyone know if there's a relationship between any of
    the NFL teams and the WLAF teams - either financial or coaching or
    administrative??
    
    A&W

    
    Yeah, effectively the NFL owns the WLAF.  At least for now, though, I
    believe that the WLAF is using primarily college players who weren't
    good enough for the NFL, or might just be on the taxi-squad fringes.
    So far, it's not for fresh-faced high school kids, but that might not
    be a bad idea down the line...
    
    glenn
    

    >But what is
    >Tark's record in converting players, even starters at UNLV, into
    >successful professionals?  As at anyplace else, the percentage is
    >extremely low.  Then what?  
    
    That's irrelavant in Daniels case, as his is top-flight NBA talent. 
    Even after all this trouble, Portland risked it's first round pick on
    him.
    
    What the kid needed was to stay clean, to learn basketball
    fundamentals, and to receive maybe the best guidance money can afford
    in his recidivist case.  I think a college program would be 100 times
    more successful at giving him these opportunities than the CBA.
    
    I have no idea what Daniels life was like at UNLV.  But my thinking on
    it will be open and not clouded by the anti-Tark PR that abounds.  If
    it eventually emerges that Tark didn't do anything to help and was just
    using him for basketball, then my opinion will change.
    
    And Bob, you seem to place a lot of value on the fact that you haven't
    heard Tark deny the allegations.  COncerning the 15 year old charges at
    Long Beach State, I have heard him deny the charges, although it's a
    much bigger issue that the NCAA was denying him his constitutional
    rights.  The only other serious charge on the ledgar is the recruiting
    of Daniels.  Everything else, from reports of players driving nice cars
    (of what type, the reports can't seem to decide) to a non-scholarship
    player making some good cash for himself legally and ethically selling
    t-shirts are frivolous.
    
    Dan

    Daniels crashed and burned with the Albany Patroons this year...

    re: .83
    
    Let's not forget horrendous graduation rates.  As my insider at Georgia
    Tech reported, Jerry has graduated ZERO (0) percent of his black
    athletes, and exactly ONE (1) total - his son.
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    What year was Daniels drafted, I don't see him on any draft list over
    the last several years.
    
    Isn't this who the Blazers drafted????
    
    86' Sabonis from USSR
    87' Walter Berry
    88' Mark Bryant
    89' Bryron Irvin
    
    I don't think he was ever drafted by an NBA team?  Does anyone know for
    sure???
    

    Chris,
    
    The USA TOday grad rates would not seem to back up your buddy from
    Georgia Tech's rates.  Granted, they werent' great, but they weren't
    zero either.
    
    And don't forget, stats can be made to back up anything.  In that USA
    Today survey, his highness Dean's grad rate was 50% - so it can work
    anyway you want it.
    
    Also, many of the grad rates are based on incoming frosh recruits. 
    Most of Tarks recruits are from the JUCO ranks, therefore they are not
    counted as recruits, nor do they reflect grad rates.  In one survey,
    Tark's rate was zero.  One recruit - didn't graduate.  IN another
    survey, a school was 100% - one recruit, one graduate.  The wording
    around grad rates is very, very trickey, and can easily be manipulated.
    
    Personally, I still think the coach can't be help accountable for
    graduation rates.  It's one of the stupidest measurements ever. 
    Coaches do not have the responsibility, and they shouldn't have the
    responsibility, for the educational growth of recruits.  That's the
    realm of the student and the faculty, and of the school's
    administration.
    
    Digger Phelps didn't graduate 100% of his players.  The students, and
    the faculty at Notre Dame graduated them.  Digger gave them nice warm
    ups and perhaps a father figure and a place to spend cold evenings.
    
    That's it.
    
    JD

    
    It's about the only thing the NHL does right, but their rules
    on draft eligibility are the right ones.
    
    MHO,
    Charlie
    

    I don't know what USA Today you saw JD but the one I looked at
    confirmed my Georgia Tech insider's info.  Namely, a 0% graduation rate
    at UNLV.  (The survey sample was very small though - only a couple of
    players.)  In any case it's a widely accepted fact that Tarkanian has
    a horrible record in terms of graduation rates, even if it's not the 0%
    I've heard. 
    
    Which brings us to academic performance.  If what you say is true then
    there should be little difference between the graduation rates of, say,
    Dean, BobKnight, or Digger Phelps than, say, Tark, Billy Tubbs, or
    Eddie Sutton, correct?  
    
    A coach has a *HUGE* amount of say in a players academic performance. 
    First and foremost, he recruits these players and therefore should know
    if they can cut it academically.  Second, he can impose rules that
    require a certain standard (way above the NCAA's) of academic
    performance.  (Namely, that a player is progressing towards a degree,
    not just staying eligible.  BIG difference between the two.)  If you
    don't maintain the coaches standards, you don't play, even if you're
    eligible by NCAA standards.  Third, you give academics *FIRST*
    priority, ahead of basketball.  You bring books on road trips.  You
    miss practice if it conflicts with a class.  Etc, etc.  I heard the
    coach from Richmond say during the NCAA Tournament he doesn't even
    allow books on road trips during the tournament.  "Too distracting." he
    says.  BAH! I say.  
    
    There are other things that can be done too.  The bottom line is a
    coach, IMO, has a moral obligation to do everything he can to help a
    player get his degree.  Anything less and he's using the player for his
    basketball and spitting him out when his eligibility is up.  Many of
    these players (the majority, perhaps) come from poor backgrounds. 
    99.9% of them will not make a dime playing basketball after college. 
    The coach CAN make the difference to allow these kids to break out of
    the cycle of poverty they're stuck in, and if he doesn't do everything
    he can he's, well, certainly not performing at standards established by
    a great coach who I won't name who coaches in Chapel Hill, NC.  (Or
    even one in Bloomington, IN.)
    
    
    - ACC Chris

I suspect that nobody has more influence on an NCAA sport recruit than his coach.
for that reason alone, a coach has the potential and ability to have influence 
on that kid getting his/her degree.  Never having been involved in a sports 
program, I only suspect that certain coaches place higher value on kids going 
to class and studying.  The graduation rate, albiet a misleading stat, is an 
indicator or this.  If, in fact, coaches had no influence, we souldn't see
certain coaches consistently have more players graduate.  I admit that this 
is in combination with the faculty, advisors, tutors, etc., but if the coaches'
attitude is indifferent, I find it hard to believe that the players' attitude 
would be different.

IMHO

=Bob=

    Chris,
    
    You make some valid points - but the ability to get through school
    still rests in the head and heart of the student.  I was around
    collegiate sports enough to know that the coach does NOT graduate the
    players.   Just like the REST of the student body, the student and the
    faculty have to interact and WORK at passing.
    
    One of the BIGGEST things *WRONG* with collegiate sports is that
    coaches try to act like Coach,Father,Career Counselor,Best Friend, etc
    to these kids.  That's absolute bullsh*t.  The coach can enforce rules
    - but the student part of the student-athlete has to rely on the
    infrastructure that colleges have in place for *ALL* students.
    
    A coach should only be allowed to see the student athlete during
    practice and competition (and in special cases if the kid wants to have
    talks with him...that can't hurt).  Too often student-athletes are
    athlete-students.  They hang around the gym all day.  They go for the
    coach for everything.   They rely too much on the coach.  College is a
    time for growing up.  Many sports programs are set up to provide the
    athlete with a warm-n-fuzzy feeling - escape from growing up.
    
    Treat student athletes more like STUDENTS, and some of the problems
    will go away.  Make them fight for student aid or work study.  Tie
    athletic scholarship money directly to academics.  You get a 3.0 or
    better, you get the full scholarship.  You get a 2.0, you get 60%.
    You get a 1.0 - you get nothing.  
    
    Keep the coach out of the classroom.  Keep the coach out of the
    classroom.  More harm is done than good.
    
    JD

    JD, the coaches should no longer be held responsible for graduation
    rates and/or academic performance the day that their players no longer
    receive special consideration as far as admission.  We'll be ice
    skating on a pond in Hell when *that* day comes.  
    
    I disagree that graduation rates is the "stupidest measurement ever."
    Perhaps the way it's implemented by the NCAA, but they did a_intentionally
    dumb implementation in order to assure its failure and get back to biz
    as usual.  The formula should be simple: % of players who graduate within
    five years, not including out-transfers, hardship NBA/NFL draftees, but
    including in-transfers based on remaining number of the original 5 years.
    
    By the NCAA's stupid measurement, McAffery's departure from Duke represents
    a_academic failure.  Of course, the opposite is true in McAffery's case,
    and it wouldn't take a Cray supercomputer to account for the fack that he
    left for hoops, and no academic, reasons.
    
    Big10 Tom
    

    T -
    
    The way the NCAA implements the grad rates is the stupidest measurement
    I've ever seen.  
    
    The Duke kid example is a perfect reason why it is stupid.  
    
    Your first point is the reason why there are problems with
    'student-athletes' - they receive special admission (in some cases -
    not all, BTW).
    
    I just think coaches are being made too big for their britches.  You
    don't have engineering professors making sure Joe Stud lifts his
    weights and does his sprints.  And Mr. Engg. Professor isn't held
    accountable if Mr. Height shoots 4-20 in the big game.  Mr. Coach
    shouldn't be sticking his haid in Mr. Engineering business, and
    vice-versa.  
    
    JD

    I don't like the 5-year stipulation.  For example, should someone like
    Michael Jordan be considered an academic failure, even though he did
    the smart thing to go to the NBA and then later went back and got his
    degree?  It took him more than 5 years, but so what?
    
    The NCAA no doubt likes the 5-year metric cause it penalyzes cases like
    this.  They don't like hardship cause it takes the highly marketable
    kids out of the system too early.
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    >>The player-victim's situation             
    >>doesn't matter a rat's ass... unless you accept the unbelievable
    >>premise that our educational institutions shuold extend chances to
    >>stupid athletes but not to stupid non-athletes.
    
    >The relationship you pose fails logically.  A more relavant premise is
    >that the player's situation does matter, because college basketball is
    >the de facto NBA minor league system of learning.  In that respect, it
    >can do for the athlete what the class room does for the student.  By
    >barring the athlete from the minor league system because he can't
    >succeed academically, they are virtually barring the athlete from his
    >chance at his career when they could be developing it.
    
This is pure unmitigated bull.  First, you talk as if these students and
athletes are different people, and in the cases of the student-athletes that's
just not the case.  Second, the universities accept no money from the NBA, and
hold no effective monopoly over player-development.  You implied that the CBA
wasn't a viable option cuz a the paucity of NBA signees from there.  This leaves
stupidly unaccounted for the fact that if colleges threw out the widebodies that
they'd be getting signed by the dozen out a the CBA.  Third, and worst, the poor
NBA prospects whom you hold the nation's universities responsible for account
for only about 1% of the total number a hoops players.

    >Given the flagrant hypocrisies of the current big time collegiate
    >sports, 

The only flagrant hypocrisy of current big time collegiate sports is admitting
and passing stupid people in a_academic environment where standards are key.

    >I don't consider the above problem to be solved by not
    >developing the athletes.
    
Nobody's suggested anything a the sort.  Just that stupid people, and cheating
coaches, be eased out.  They cain go to the CBA and Continental Footbal League
and garner the hundreds of millions they claim they're worth to the colleges.

    >>The important thing is the message being broadcast. 
    
    >I can't think of many things less significant than the message you
    >perceive.
    
If you have a wealthy developed nation whose children are falling through the
floor academically in comparison to competitor nations, and the colleges are
making fools a themselves by lowering standards, making highly publicized
exceptions to rules, and breaking rules, then, in a_environment where 99% of
what kids see of colleges is this scenario, you'll have a problem motivating
them to turn around their horrible performance.

    >>.... Unless, of course, you're like Dan and don't believe in the power
    >>of advertising.
    
    >As I said, your forte is misrepresentation.
    
No, you're the liar who claimed that I was holding Tarkanian responsible for
the nation's educational woes.

    >That's irrelavant in Daniels case, as his is top-flight NBA talent. 
    >Even after all this trouble, Portland risked it's first round pick on
    >him.
    
A racist implicit assumption here that the poor stud negro's mind should be
left for lost.

    >What the kid needed was to stay clean, to learn basketball
    >fundamentals, and to receive maybe the best guidance money can afford
    >in his recidivist case.  I think a college program would be 100 times
    >more successful at giving him these opportunities than the CBA.
    
No, what he needed was a basic education and the discipline that goes with
it.  The colleges cain deliver that, but only on their terms and their 
standards at their level.  What Lloyd needed was to reenroll in junior high
and learn how to read and write and do long division.

    >COncerning the 15 year old charges at
    >Long Beach State, I have heard him deny the charges, although it's a
    >much bigger issue that the NCAA was denying him his constitutional
    >rights.  The only other serious charge on the ledgar is the recruiting
    >of Daniels.  Everything else, from reports of players driving nice cars
    >(of what type, the reports can't seem to decide) to a non-scholarship
    >player making some good cash for himself legally and ethically selling
    >t-shirts are frivolous.
    
The "ethically selling" involved hundreds of thousands of income miraculously
brought in by that non-scholarship player by way of relatinships with well-to-
do boosters.  What's legal per the law and what's legal per NCAA regulations
are quite different.  Anthony being given big money on the side isn't frivolous,
it's competitive advantage.  Ditto for the fleet of $50,000 driven by the 
Runnin' Rabble pro-athletes.  

Tarkanian has always cheated for competitive advantage.  He sells himself as
a do-gooder out to help poor black youth, and it's only coincidental that the
ones he chooses are star hoopsters.  Then there's Tark-the-victim, the poor
fellow who defines equable application of the rules to him as amounting to a
vendetta, and uses lawyers to further hamstring the NCAA.

UNLV shold be evicted from the NCAA for good.  UNLV's prez knows that this is
the risk they're running, and knows that a scum laude sleazebag like Tark is
costing more in scuzzy bad public image than the dough or the good PR he brings
in.

MrT

    re: .-1
    
    I like the point about the NBA minor leagues (CBA) being strengthened
    by the NCAA enforcing admission standards.  Sounds like a win-win
    scenario to me.  Implicit in this, however, is the removal of the likes
    of Tubbs/Tarkanian/Sutton from the NCAA's ...
    
    One thing UNLV *should* be congratulated for is their poetic handling
    of the Anthony incident.  Here's a school that very well may never have
    graduated a black hoop player,  whose players are, for the most part
    driving Porsches, and they paint themselves as being picked on cause
    the NCAA won't let poor Anthony run his T-shirt business!
    
    Talk about great spin control.  Sheesh ...
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    >Talk about great spin control, sheesh...
    
    That's why Dan is above all a fervent Runnin' Rabble fan.  Form over
    substance, spin over fact.  But, most of all, Machiavelli over Plato.
    
    MrT

>No, you're the liar who claimed that I was holding Tarkanian responsible for
>the nation's educational woes.

    It's such a shame that you call me a liar and didn't delete the note
    where you wrote this:

    >...You cain fault Tark for three things:

    >2) Diluting what remains of our nation's educational ethos by sending
    >into the inner cities the message that laziness, incompetence, and
    >subliteracy aren't problems cuz the system cain be beat... if you
    >only spend tens of thousands of hours hanging out at the court
    >instead of, maybe, studying.

    Dan

>This is pure unmitigated bull.                               
    
    This works well as a preface for your note, considering most of your
    "points" are just that.  Thank you for preparing us so well.
    
>First, you talk as if these students and
>athletes are different people, and in the cases of the student-athletes that's
>just not the case.  
    
    I don't know what new definitions you've invented for "students",
    "athletes", and "student-athletes", but the reality of the situation is
    that a very large percentage of pro-potential college athletes are not
    participating in acedemics as they theoretically are supposed to.
    
>Second, the universities accept no money from the NBA, and
>hold no effective monopoly over player-development.  You implied that the CBA
>wasn't a viable option cuz a the paucity of NBA signees from there.  This leaves
>stupidly unaccounted for the fact that if colleges threw out the widebodies that
>they'd be getting signed by the dozen out a the CBA.  
    
    It's "stupidly unaccounted" for because you just made it up.  As we
    know, there are large numbers of high school age and up basketball
    players who don't make into any college system (despite the shady
    goings on), who don't even make it through high school.  The truth is
    that the CBA ain't interested in them either.  CBA is trying the stay
    financially afloat with the most developed players it can find, because
    they need the gate.  Players with NBA potential get visibility in the
    CBA.  They don't have the resources to develop high schoolers into NBA
    players.  The rare exceptional player who might not need this
    development doesn't need the CBA either as history shows.
    
    You're second point is completely false.                 
    
>Third, and worst, the poor
>NBA prospects whom you hold the nation's universities responsible for account
>for only about 1% of the total number a hoops players.
    
    Irrelavant.  Nor is it true.  Their are loads of careers that can be
    developed with basketball talent.  Literally thousands of players we've
    never heard of are making it in pro leagues overseas.
    
>The only flagrant hypocrisy of current big time collegiate sports is admitting
>and passing stupid people in a_academic environment where standards are key.
    
    Only?  No, that's not the only.  It's a biggie, for sure.
    
>Just that stupid people, and cheating
>coaches, be eased out.  They cain go to the CBA and Continental Footbal League
>and garner the hundreds of millions they claim they're worth to the colleges.
    
    If there was some sort of cooperation (big $$$'s) in developing some
    sort of minor league system, along the lines of baseball, this might
    work in the end.  But college sports has assumed that role and profited
    from it.  It would take a lot to change this system, and as long as the
    money's rolling in, no one sees fit to.
    
    Personally, I like Telander's proposal better, that colleges can opt to
    have student-athletes, or they can just sponsor a team and have
    athletes.  Basically, play it with two divisions.  Development goes on,
    the money keeps rolling in, but someone has to watch the athletes, and
    the student-athletes must be real students.
    
>...in a_environment where 99% of
>what kids see of colleges is this scenario, you'll have a problem motivating
>them to turn around their horrible performance. 
    
    I just love it when your entire house of cards rests on made-up points
    like this one.  As I've said this is way, way, way down on the list of
    problems that needs to be fixed if the subject is education in America. 
    Way, way down.
    
> ...hundreds of thousands of income miraculously
>brought in by that non-scholarship player by way of relatinships with well-to-
>do boosters...  Anthony being given big money on the side isn't frivolous,
>it's competitive advantage.  Ditto for the fleet of $50,000 driven by the 
>Runnin' Rabble pro-athletes.     
    
    I'd ask for proof of this stuff, but your track record for supporting
    your allegations is extremely poor.
    
>A racist implicit assumption here that the poor stud negro's mind should be
>left for lost.
    
    Misrepresention is your forte.  You prove it again.

    This after listening to you pontificate about your perceptions and how
    black kids are effected by them?  Ha!
    
    There is nothing racist about citing the fact that one way to reform an
    addict is to give him a realistic goal to work toward that requires
    him being free of drugs.  So while sending Daniels back to Junior High,
    your allegedly non-racist suggestion, is what his education needs, it
    would be a very sorry mistake to make.  You wanna bet that he wouldn't
    show for 3 classes before he gives up and buys some crack?  You offer
    no solution at all, and call a valid, even if it failed, solution
    racist.
    
    Dan

>>>No, you're the liar who claimed that I was holding Tarkanian responsible for
>>>the nation's educational woes.

 >>It's such a shame that you call me a liar and didn't delete the note
 >>where you wrote this:

    >...You cain fault Tark for three things:

    >2) Diluting what remains of our nation's educational ethos by sending
    >into the inner cities the message that laziness, incompetence, and
    >subliteracy aren't problems cuz the system cain be beat... if you
    >only spend tens of thousands of hours hanging out at the court
    >instead of, maybe, studying.

Lemme get this straight: "Diluting" certainly doesn't imply any singular
effect on the scumbag Tarkanian's behalf; "... what remains" clearly implies
that a set of factors that have already caused great harm to the educational
system's efficacy; "by sending the message" establishes that I faulted Tark
for the negative example his actions send to the nation's youth already 
made susceptible cuz a this larger set a factors.  

And, then, you lie your ace off by misrepresenting that I held Tark responsible
for our educational crisis, I call your lie the lie it is, and then *you* come
back, make my point by quoting me, acting as if it did otherwise!

Pathological, maybe?

MrT

    re: .100
    
    Your spin control doesn't hold a candle to my direct quotes of your
    note.  I have been proven a truth-teller.  You have been proven a nasty
    mistrepresentation artist.
    
    Dan

    Chris,
    SOrry, but the Jordan thang don't wash.  I don't care if he got his
    degree later - he still didn't get his degree in the period that his
    incoming freshman class had to get theirs.  A non-sports student who
    dropped out after 2 years, and then later on went and got his degree is
    *still* a drop out for the incoming class he was on.  There should not
    be special rules so that coaches can be made to look good if their
    'students' take 10 years to get an underagraduate degree....
    
    JD

    There's no question Jordan shows up as a "dropout" based on the way the
    NCAA currently evaluates the data.
    
    What I'm saying is that this is clearly WRONG.  Dean altruistically
    pushed Jordan to the pros and then gets punished for this by bad
    numbers returned by the NCAA's, even though he went on to get his
    degree quite expediately.
    
    This is wrong.
    
    
    - ACC Chris

   >>    1) Nation's youth unmotivitated, horrible underachievers.

>   This is untrue. There are youth in the nation who are unmotivated, and
>   underachievers; but `the Nation's youth' do not fit this profile, and
>   being an inner city youth is not a criteria for membership in this
>   club. VERY bright kids are around, and they are everywhere. It is true
>   that children from homes where education is not appreciated are going
>   to have a rougher time, and could fall by the wayside.... 

No, it's not untrue.  Sweeping generalizations work so long as they're
necessary and correct.  Mine is both.  The objective test data prove that
American kids are lagging their counterparts, and badly.  To point out that
some kids are doing ok is irrelevant to the issue at hand.  

>   and it is
>   also true that you tend to find this situation most in broken homes,
>   transient communities, and some inner city schools. 

All the more reason I'm right, given that the most affected group is inner
city youth (the prime source of stupid athletes). 

>   That is an admitted problem, but not a Sports problem.

Certainly the collapse of the American educational system is not primarily
a sports problem.  No one would ever argue that (but a Danist might lie and
say that someone had).  

But to the extent that sports exacerbate the problem it's a sports problem;
and sports has exacerbated the problem mightily.  The colleges have presented
higher education as a function of athletic success by lowered standards,
needless exceptions, and cheating.

>  Kids who are athletic, and interested in Sports, do not watch a lot of
   television. 

I'd like to see your data.  There are strong data that say otherwise, that
say that stupid athletes are more likely to stare at the boob tube when not
practicing than motivated students, who are either studying or are, gasp!,
actually reading books.

>Kids who are dullards, unmotivated, underachievers, and  watch TV incessantly 
>are not going to college. 

That's the problem.  They need to be made otherwise, and that means clearing
the table of negative PR of the sort the NCAA profits from.  And, in the 
reverse, it IS a problem that a dull, unmotivated stupid athlete does go to
college on a_athletic scholarship.

>The dullards watching TV are not watching Sports.

You're kidding, right?  This is a joke?

>>5) The undertow of this exposure is that ignorance, stupidity, 
>>cheating, and laziness pay off somely indeed.
   
>Not true. You are just trying to bolster a very shaky premise with a
>lot of emotional chaff and innuendo.

Not true my ass.  If you have a stupid kid, and he sees people like him,
highly successful adulated stupid athletes, getting over in a_environment
of highly publicized illegal payments, fixed admissions, tampered grades,
surrogate students, and all the rest of it, then it stands to common sense
that point 5 above is plain fact.  

Whaddya think the message received is, that they better start studying 8
hours a day tomorrow cuz that's the only way to succeed in college?

>Are you saying that college sports are responsible for the fact that
>most kids hear about colleges (major) because of those colleges' sports
>programs? How about adding the media, and their fathers?

The media are partners, the distrubtion and PR arm, in the college sports 
industry, where the colleges themselves are the production arm.  So the
two cain't be separated at all, and if they are separated one observes that
a) the media carry the colleges' message and, b) they, as self-interested
partners, abrogate their duty as "journalists" [sic!] to point out the 
problem in that message. 

>For a gifted athlete, it
>DOES make more sense to hone your skills on a blacktop than in a
>library. 

>And most kids see over and over again that cheating DOESN'T
>pay. Colleges who cheat get in the news, and the penalties are common
>knowledge. ( It might pay sometimes, but the overall message to kids is
>that it doesn't ). If the gifted athlete is stupid, time in the library
>won't help. 

So what.  Irrelevant.  Colleges exist to enhance the nation's overall
educational system and to educate in the arts and sciences.  The gifted
athlete you describe who shouldn't study cain do quite well in the CBA
or the Cont'l Football League.  You're covering up the fack that you'd
rather see the collapsing educational system pimped for your television
viewing pleasure.

>>Tark is the lowest of the low.  He's a total, unmitigad scumbag
>>who won't even pay lip service to the idea of college education
>>and has caused substantive harm to already awful situation by
>>establishing for the first-time ever a scumbag coach as the victim
>>and went on from there to drop even the pretenses and to threaten
>>the NCAA's remaining few powers with his Maa lawyers.

>This is silly. Ranting and Geekism at it's most foul. You should be
>ashamed of yourself.

I've never felt more proud a myself, and deservedly so.

Big10 Tom

    Chris,
    
    See, Dean shouldn't be in a position to be praised or criticized for
    someone like Jordan.   I applaud Jordan getting his degree, and clearly
    his not getting the degree in the required time frame isn't because
    Dean was a bad guy.  
    
    In that end, should the coach be responsible for the player for the res
    of his life?  SHould Dean be responsible for Walter Davis' drug use???
    
    Like most stats, simple grad rates don't tell the story behind the
    numbers.  
    
    JD

    I agree that the stats put out by the NCAA are marginally useful 
    in their present form, although this information is clearly better
    than nothing, which is what used to be available.  
    
    I'd like to see a breakdown that included the following for each class:
    
    o Total number of scholarship signings
    o Number who graduated in 5 years at the signing institution
    o Number who graduated at the signing institution
    o Number who transferred
    
    All of this data combined would, IMO, provide a nice suite of
    information to help a high school kid make an intelligent college
    choice.
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    Chris,
    
    I like the breakdown.  That would be useful.
    
    JD

    I also like the breakdown.  It would also be interesting to compare the
    athletes against the rest of the student body.  As some noters have
    mentioned, the gratuation rate between different schools can be very
    large.  
    
    This is strictly from memory but, I remember someone claiming that only
    1/4 of the incoming freshman class of the Univerisity of Michigan
    graduates in 4 yrs.  Another 1/3 graduate within the next year.  I
    can't remember the exact numbers, but it really supprised me at the
    time.
    
    Scott

    A coach has the obligation to make sure the support services are there
    for his/her athletes because, regardless of how well qualified
    academically an athlete is, playing a major college sport takes a great
    deal of time and energy and even the best students are going to need a
    little help.
    
    A coach should not recruit players who s/he knows coming in aren't
    academically qualified.  Lloyd Daniels should have never been allowed
    anywhere near a college campus since he flat out was not qualified to
    be there.  Spending a year in college for humanitarian reasons (as Tark
    said) is pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.
    
    A coach on a college level can and should be more than just a coach. 
    For that reason, I salute men such as Woody Hayes (RIP), Bob Knight and
    Dean Smith for demonstrating loyalty to their players long after these
    players have concluded their playing careers.  There are too many
    coaches whose loyalty to their players ends after eligibility is over
    and that's flat out wrong.
    
    I was blessed by seeing 4 great examples of that in college - Dick
    Garber, the lacrosse coach, who was in his job for 35 years.  Dick
    Bergquist, the baseball coach, who was in his job for 21 years (and his
    predecessor, Earl Lorden, was there for 20 years).  Jack Leaman,
    basketball coach, who was there for 12-15 years.  And of course, Dick
    Mac Pherson, who I worked with most closely.  All of these guys have
    the undying loyalty of the players who once played for them.
    
    Mac did it the right way.  When one of us needed help, he gave us the
    opportunity and left it up to us.  He never held a gun to anyone's head
    and forced us to study, yet he was always checking up with a sincere
    interest (and not just for his own purposes) about how we were doing in
    school, what was going on with our families, how our personal lives
    were going and so forth.
    
    To give you an example, one of my best friends from among the players
    was from Marblehead (so we grew up in more-or-less adjoining towns) and
    was a 4th year junior when I was a freshman.  During that year, his dad
    died and he went a bit while.  He was stopped for drunk driving twice
    in a week.  The first time, Mac bailed him out.  The second time, Mac
    kicked him off the team.  Mac took him back in that next spring and put
    him on 4th/5th string.  That fall, he came back (after Mac told him he
    didn't want him back on the team) and was again, 5th string.  In fact,
    Mac left him home the first two road trips and had him play against
    Framingham State in a JV scrimmage.  This guy worked his way back up
    and was starting by the end of the season.  More importantly, he had
    direction, his grades improved and he stayed out of trouble.  He then
    got into graduate school, was a graduate assistant coach and today is a
    successful businessman with a beautiful wife, 3 great kids and 3 homes.
    He's still one of my best friends and he credits Mac with being a
    substitute father at a time when he really needed one, and is convinced
    he'd be dead now if it weren't for Mac.
    
    Paternalism is OK when it's sincere but a coach also has to be careful
    to not go too far, otherwise the player doesn't grow and develop.
    
    John

    John,
    
    Your last paragraph is how I feel about coaches.  I have very strong
    feelings toward my High School track coach - still keep in touch with
    him - my family and his are good friends.  He was a mentor, a guide,
    and an inspiration.  However, he wasn't a crutch.  
    
    One of the major things college should do for young adults is to
    prepare them for the world outside.  The world where mommy and daddy
    and coachey aren't there to wipe thier butt and clean their snot and
    get them cushy jobs or whatever.  Too many coaches become a crutch on
    the athlete, that the athlete can't think for themselves.  That the
    coach panders in front of alums to give players jobs - let the frigging
    players go out and get their own jobs - just like the rest of the
    student body.
    
    As I said - if a coach is going to be praised and idolized for the
    successes of players that 'he/she' graduated -then let them be stoned
    and vilified for those players that fail in life.  (I'm talking
    post-graduation.)
    
    I think something has to be done about road trips and tourney trips by
    schools while athletes are supposed to be taking classes.  I know I
    never had a good feeling about missing a class to travel to a meet -
    because I understood (being a young adult) that college was about
    getting and education and not being a jock.   
    
    That's what cracks me up.  The non-revenue generating sports have
    twice-a-day practices, competitions, scholarship student-athletes - yet
    they manage to remain virtually scandal-free.  The student-athletes
    generally have very high grad rates, and high point averages.  
    
    So, WHY is it that the revenue producing sports have problems?  Is any
    one going to tell me that football and hoop players are just naturally
    dumber or less academically motivated than other sports players???
    
    I say that's bull!   These kids are coddled and idolized and too many
    times the coachey gets too close.  Make the damn kids stand on their
    own two feet.   'Student-athletes' in the scandal sports must take much
    of the blame for any failures they have.  Coaches have to take the
    blame also.  
    
    JD

    To clairify one point.
    
    Why is it that for the most part, non-football and hoop student
    athletes are able to cope with the academics.  The excuse about the
    extra work required to compete is just that, an excuse.
    
    I'll use an example.  Take the NU Crew team.  Every day, up before
    dawn, down to the Charles River (or to the indoor tank in the winter),
    and do an intense morning workout.  Shower, change.  Breakfast.  To
    class all day.  Afternoon workout.  Down to the Charles or to the tank. 
    A little running, a little weights and stretching.  Shower.  Change. To
    the late athletic dinner.  Eat.  Back to dorm.  Study.  Sleep.  Repeat
    all over again.
    
    They worked out longer per day than either the hoopsters or the
    footballers.   They traveled for meets.  They had TWO seasons (Fall and
    Spring) and competed/traind year round.  High grad rate, self-motivated
    folks, high cumulative point average.  And these weren't prep school
    kids (not at Northeastern they weren't).  
    
    I remember managing the athlete's meal as a work study job - the crew,
    swimming, track teams (men/women) would come in.  Well mannered for the
    most part.  Respectful of the workers.   The hoopsters and the
    footballers would come in with an attitude.  Why?   That's what I'd
    like to know.
    
    Why can a 19 year old swimmer who works out twice a day, takes a real
    major, and has a work study job succeed, while a 19 year old hoopster
    can't without a strong support service network?
    
    JD

I agree that big time college coaches often have too much influence on an 
athlete's life.  With many coaches their sole motivation is to win games and
make $$$ for the university.

This beign a given, I see the coach as having the opportunity to get his/her
athletes to value education, by placing value on it his/her self.  No, coaches 
are not responisble for a kid to go to class, etc., but it's shameful for a 
coach to have the opportunity to instill this value in a young person and not
doing it.  I'm not saying that I expect a bunch of Rhodes Scholars from the 
NCAA, but at least the coaches could care.

=Bob=

JD --

After thinking about it some, here's what I've come up with, in terms of
the differences between the examples you gave.

	Swimming/Crew:  Low potential for $$$ later in life
		        Element of individuality in sport
	Football/hoops: High potential for $$$ later in life
		        Not much individuality

Perhaps the swimmers and crew realize that performing in their sports is
rounding them as individuals, and is not a means to an end.  They realize
that the education that they are getting is what will put them through
life, not their athletic talent.

Also, crew and swimming has an element of the individual competitor.  While
a crew person (rower?) can compete in Eights, he could just as easily 
compete in single sculls.  So, the attitude of developing yourself is there too.

The football players and hoopsters are part of a team, involved in sports
which can be lucrative and a means to a end...the sole earning power of
someone's life.  They don't have to excel as individuals...  A left tackle
is nothing without the rest of the offensive line.  You don't see a game 
with just two tackles going against each other, one-on-one.  They are 
concentrating on improving their athletic ability to further their
earning power....

I may be way off the mark, but those are the differences between the
sports you mentioned....

'Saw

    Saw,
    
    One flaw - the $$$ potential for football/hoops is for such a
    tiny,teeney, itsy-bitsy percentage of those performing that its a joke.  
    Look at the recent draft.  334 players got drafted.  Out of how many
    thousands playing collegiate ball??  Of those 334, how many make the
    pros?? Less than a 1/3???
    
    Sports like crew/swimming/track/etc.  have a very,very high rate of
    team comradship and bonding.  You'd be surprised.   They are team
    sports.   Just like in hoops - you can have a stud on the team, but the
    team cain still lose a ton of games.  The stud cain win awards, but the
    team goes no where.  IN those sports, you cain have a stud swimmer, the
    team won't win any meets.  The stud swimmer might win events and get
    medals/accolades, but the team goes no where.
    
    The potential money earning is one of the biggest problems with hoops
    and footaball.  Just think how many high school recruits actually make
    it to the pros and make money.  SOme for hoops.  Such a small
    percentage....
    
    JD

>    Why can a 19 year old swimmer who works out twice a day, takes a real
>    major, and has a work study job succeed, while a 19 year old hoopster
>    can't without a strong support service network?
    
    Because swimmers are smarter. ;-)
    
    That's almost too true to be funny, however.  For instance:
    
    1982, Ohio University Athletic Dinner and Press Conference.  Each team
    chose a freshman and an upperclassman to attend...usually it was the
    team star and the freshman with the highest GPA.  I was the latter for
    the men's swim team.
    
    Every athlete, after dinner, was asked to go up to the microphone and
    answer the press's questions.  All the non-revenue sports (swimming,
    track, golf, etc.) reps got up and gave little blurbs on their majors,
    their life plans, how they like or dislike their sports.  All were very
    articulate and thoughtful.
    
    Then John Devoreaux, star OU hoopster, walks up to the microphone and
    just stands there.  Finally, one of the reporters asked, "John, how are
    you?"
    
    "Good."
    
    "So, John, what's your major?"
    
    Silence.  Then... "Basketball I guess."  That's when Danny Nee jumps in
    and says, "He's undecided at this point."
    
    John was a junior at that time.  He goes on to make close to a million
    a year in Italy and here I am at DEC struggling by on my salary.  Where
    is the justice?
    
    	--nuf

I've actually seen both sides of the sword at Umass.

I've seen players on sports that have low earning potential (soccer) think that
they were going to get out of school and get put on an MISL team and earn a 
living. (fat chance) Consequently almost all of them ended up flunking out. 

I've also seen players on the same team realize that there was no future earning
potential in their sport (soccer) so they busted their humps and got degrees and
are doing relatively fine now.

The worst thing I've seen is a few coaches perpetuating the myth that players 
they know had no earnings potential for a sport after college, could not study
and make good money after college because of a sport they played. I feel sorry
for these players that are being led on by a coach who just tosses them aside
after their eligibility is up. 

I think that a coach owes it to his players to sit down and discuss their 
potential for making a career in the sport they have chosen. The coach should be
honest to the player. After that it is up to the player to decide what he/she 
wants to do.

In any case I favor the same academic admittance standards for atheletes and 
non atheletes.


Metz

    >That's what cracks me up.  The non-revenue generating sports have
    >twice-a-day practices, competitions, scholarship student-athletes - yet
    >they manage to remain virtually scandal-free.  The student-athletes
    >generally have very high grad rates, and high point averages.  
    
    Is it your opinion that *year round* your average runner, or  lacrosse
    player or whatever, has as much time required of him as the big time
    football or basketball schools require of those athletes?
    
    Dan

    >Spending a year in college for humanitarian reasons (as Tark
    >said) is pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.
    
    You're wrong, John.  If Tark was admitting Daniels to college, stating
    it is for the hope that the goal of an NBA career straightens him out,
    but *in fact* only caring about his ability to help UNLV win and not
    helping with any of the other concerns, that is hypocrisy.  The mere
    fact that he admitted him is not hypocrisy.  It is against the rules
    though.
    
    No one in here seems to know what Tark did to help or use Daniels.  His
    motives could have been quite sincere.
    
    Dan

    A long distance runner does.  A gymnast does.  For most other athletes,
    it depends on how much time s/he wants to put in and how much the coach
    is demanding.
    
    I think the real thing with football and basketball is the amount of
    control the coach wants (or feels s/he needs) over the athletes. 
    Because these sports make most of the money at our major universities,
    I feel there is more pressure to win on the coaches.  Because of that,
    they want to have the athletes available for more time during the day,
    to control what they do and when they do it and so forth.  These
    coaches are likely to see academics as a "distraction."
    
    Being a good student and participating in any sport, even football and
    basketball, can be done, but it requires a great amount of maturity and
    discipline on the part of the athlete and it does require a sacrifice
    of a large portion of one's social life and means the athlete has
    little to no time to participate in other campus activities.
    
    John

    re: .118
    
    Dan, that's what I meant to say and you said it better than I could.
    
    John

>    Is it your opinion that *year round* your average runner, or  lacrosse
>    player or whatever, has as much time required of him as the big time
>    football or basketball schools require of those athletes?
    
    Probably more so, Dan.  If you want me to elaborate on this I will.
    
    	--dan'l
    

    If I believe that a similar amount of time is *required* of and/or
    consumed by the athlete in a revenue-producing sport compared with the
    rest of them, than can I'm left with these three options:
    
    o Revenue-producing athletes have similar GPAs to non-revenue-producing
      athletes, but the latter doesn't receive the attention for it.
    
    o RPA's are just not as academically skilled because of the competition
      in recruiting them.
    
    o RPA's through societal and peer pressures don't have the same high
      regard for their studies relative to the non-RPA's.
    
    I really don't believe the proposition above, nor do I believe the
    first option.  For instance, Dan'l, I'm sure you have a very good grasp
    on the time you put into swimming practice and drills, etc. and saw
    what the football team did, but I doubt you have a good grasp on what
    your average behemoth USC lineman has to go through, as far as spring
    practice, playbook study, weight training, team meetings, listening to
    potential agents, preparing for scouting combines, etc.
    
    Do you think (and I realize you probably don't know) that the OU
    football team were worse or similar in acedemic performance on the
    whole?  Were swimmers recruited?  Offered scholarships?  Football
    players?
    
    Dan

    Dan,
    
    I can talk about >Northeastern - the Hoops and Football players were
    sorse academically than the other sports.  And NU football was horrible
    when I was there (though a few pro players were around - Dan Ross and
    Keith Willis).  The hoop team had a few prospects, went to the NCAA,
    but still weren't UNC.  
    
    On a whole, HOW many players from a big school have to worry about
    scouting combines?  Even Miami, ND, OU, etc have at most 10 players
    being considered for the draft (and that's high given *most* draftees
    are seniors) - so why the pressure on everyone?  Is it because all 100
    members of the footaball team really think they will have a shot at the
    pros??  C'mon that's unreal.
    
    I think they use it as a crutch.  There isn't any reason why a
    student-athlete can't be both.  I've known Olympians who were able to
    do it, despite have world-class athletic rankings.  
    
    Perhaps it is peer pressure and the BMOC syndrome.  Perhaps it just
    isn't cool to be a footaball or a hoop player who studies hard and
    balances sports/social/academic life...
    
    JD

Oh, I realize swimming and crew have team spirit and all, but if you're
a swimmer or a rower, you can go to the Olympics and compete as an
individual, for example.

I still think that people who are involved in sports which are amateur
are more likely to be level headed etc about getting degrees....

'Saw

    Btw, the NCAA has acknowledged that pursuant to the latest set a
    charges against UNLV the Runnin' Rabble could be stripped of their
    one (ill-gotten) Title.
    
    Big10 Tom

    >Is it because all 100
    >members of the footaball team really think they will have a shot at the
    >pros??  C'mon that's unreal.                     
    
    It's unreal, but I'll bet at least 90 of them walked on campus as a
    freshman with that very thought in their head.
    
    >There isn't any reason why a student-athlete can't be both.
    
    I think there are lots of reasons.  But what you're saying is that most
    if not all wouldn't turn your head.  I think it's hard to say unless
    you've been there.  A lot of players who want to make it into the pros
    for that 6 figure minimum salary have to scratch every ounce of
    potential out of their bodies, give it their absolute best shot, and
    they've still got a lousy shot at making it.  If they spend 4 hours in
    the weight room every day, and practice, and do all the rest of the
    stuff necessary to make it if you aren't one of the handful of peak
    talents that doesn't need to work at it (and doesn't), I can see the
    temptation for blowing off the studies.  That's a lot on the mind of a
    kid 18-22 years old.
    
    Dan

    Dan, I'm not sure I follow your logic in .121, but to answer your
    questions...
    
>    Do you think (and I realize you probably don't know) that the OU
>    football team were worse or similar in acedemic performance on the
>    whole?  
    
    Really don't know, but from being around them and witnessing how they
    spent their time outside of their sport I would guess it would be
    worse...and they still sucked at football.
    
>Were swimmers recruited?  
    
    Yes, and heavily.  I was recruited by hundreds of schools during my
    last few months of high school.
    
> Offered scholarships?  Football players?
     
    Yes, of course, as are all division I school sports.
    
>  For instance, Dan'l, I'm sure you have a very good grasp
>     on the time you put into swimming practice and drills, etc. and saw
>    what the football team did, but I doubt you have a good grasp on what
>    your average behemoth USC lineman has to go through, as far as spring
>    practice, playbook study, weight training, team meetings, listening to
>    potential agents, preparing for scouting combines, etc.
    
    Let's compare apples to apples then.  While the behemoth USC lineman is
    studying his playbook, the stud swimmer from Texas, Florida, Stanford,
    etc. is watching video and taking notes of his technique...that deals
    with every movement from stepping on the block to touching the timing
    pad at the end...try doing that for a 200 yard (8 length) event.
    
    While the USC lineman is in the weight room, the swimmer is...gosh...in
    the weight room.
    
    While the USC lineman is in the team meeting, the swimmer is
    in a team meeting.
    
    While the USC lineman is listening to potential agents, the swimmer is
    listening to his newly assigned coach drill him relentlessly on how to
    improve his time.
    
    While the USC lineman is preparing for scouting combines, the swimmer
    is preparing for National Qualifiying Meets which lead to Nationals
    which lead to either the Pan Am games or the Olympics depending on the
    year.
    
    	--dan'l

>   It's unreal, but I'll bet at least 90 of them walked on campus as a
>    freshman with that very thought in their head.

I'd hazard a guess and say this much is true. That's why I say that the coach 
owes it to the players to help them evaluate thier pro potential instead of
filling them with a lot of wild dreams.

I have another rhetorical question...


Do the best atheletes in the world play the revenue sports? What I mean is do 
you think that Michael Jordan Had he decided not to play hoops and took up X-C
running instead..would he be a world class runner? 

We've seen pro football players jump into bobsledding and perform better than
the amateurs that have spent long hours training for it. Would your pro-bowl 
offensive lineman be one of the top shot putters? Would your fleet centerfielder
be an olympic volleyball champion ?

Perhaps, across all humanity an increased atheletic ability is compensated with
by a decreased mental capacity......


Just food for thought.........



Metz
  

    Dan'l, I have a hard time believing that the average swimmer is putting
    as much time into the weights as the average football player.  Ditto, a
    lot of those other items.
    
    Metz, what you say is true to an extent.  Consider three guys hanging out
    on the street corner: one's 6'8" and has the potential to be a pro
    basketball player, another is 265 pounds and has the potential to be an
    NFL lineman, the third has no outstanding physical attributes, but has
    the potential to pole vault 20 feet.  High school coaches are
    definitely going to find those first two guys.  The third guy might be
    found, but only as a product of his environment.  
    
    If we believe that talent and brains are distributed equally on a bell
    curve, the money in the pro sports and revenue-producing college sports
    makes greater competition to find the best athletes.  There's far fewer
    football players on that curve on the far right end, say the top �%,
    who won't get found and tried out.  But in your other sports, I'd say
    there's a lot who *don't* get found.  Now these pools of athletes have
    IQs or SATs or what have you also distributed on a bell curve, but the
    sheer numbers of Major sports athletes will mean a lot more in every
    area, including those below average.
    
    Another factor to consider is the environment.  In the inner cities,
    there probably isn't a lot of opportunity to join the swim team, or the
    tennis team, etc.  And there's a lot of class room underachievement and
    a lack of development of intellect.  Many of your potential "minor" sport
    athletes won't burden the numbers with their GPA's.
    
    Dan

    That's fine, Dan.  Don't believe it.  Remain ignorant.
    
    	--dan'l

>Don't believe it.  Remain ignorant.
    
    I'm glad those aren't my only two choices.
    
    Dan

    Metz,
    
    Interesting questions.  About bobsledding.  IN the US, which had lagged
    behind the rest of the world, there was one bobsled run, and the
    bobsledders tended to be ordinary guys who hoisted a few brews and
    lived near the bobsled run.  This is true.
    
    While the rest of the world went to recruiting track athletes and
    others trained in non-bobsled sports to try bobsledding, the USA
    didn't.
    
    In the 80's, the US started to finally emulate the rest of the world -
    including getting some modern equipment.  The US team, with Edwin
    Moses, Gault et al, has made some nice strides, but still isn't the
    best in the world (The US at one time was the best in the world...)
    
    Dan, most of the pole vaulters I knew who were good would have been
    noticed - many played at least H.S. football - the Pole Vault required
    a lot of upper body strength.
    
    As for time spent - Dan - I'd bet that figure skaters spend more time
    practicing and learning technique than football or hoop players do.
    
    JD

    Coaches don't dissuade their players from the pro dream because it's in
    their best interests to not do so.  One guaranteed way to get a player
    to spend so much time in film study, weight lifting, practice and
    off-season conditioning is to nurture the dream of playing pro ball. 
    Very few kids can see the writing on the wall.  The major colleges that
    play football have the pro scouts in for a day in the Spring where
    every senior, regardless of potential, is weighed, measured and
    evaluated by whatever pro scouts want to show up.  The pro teams do
    evaluate everyone at every school at least once just to be sure they
    aren't missing anybody.  Most of the time it's a waste of time, but it
    is done.
    
    An ethical coach will be honest with his players but an unethical one
    will tell a player whatever that player wants to hear in order to get
    the kid to the school, maximize performance, whatever.
    
    I'm reminded of a guy named Charley Wysocki who played football for the
    University of Maryland a few years ago.  Great story.  Black kid
    adopted by a white family, adopted brothers played football together in
    high school, both accepted scholarships to Maryland where Charley
    turned out to be the far better player.  Coaches and scouts built up
    his hopes so much that he was *CONVINCED* he would be a number one
    draft choice by the NFL.  He put together a big draft day party at his
    parents' house.  Didn't get drafted until the 12th round and had a
    nervous breakdown as part of it.
    
    Finally, regarding time put into sports.  I agree that a swimmer on
    scholarship can put in as much time as a football player but the big
    difference with football is that a football player is receiving the
    physical contact that a swimmer doesn't.  Linemen live on aspirin
    during the season since their haids take such a pounding that not even
    a helmet can prevent.  As far as the physical conditioning, weights,
    study, meetings and so forth, same thing.
    
    John
            

    I think the answer has a lot more to do with the breakdown by social
    background than by time put in practicing each sport.  Like dan'l, I
    have little doubt that your top-notch college swimmer or gymnast is
    putting in every bit as much time, if not more, than your basketball or
    football player.  There sure as hell was a lot of screaming from
    athletes in those sports when the NCAA imposed across-the-board
    practice-time limitations last year...
    
    Metz, I'd agree with your statement about an inverse relationship
    between athleticism and intelligence only insofar as we've allowed it 
    to be, that is, as a product of the environment we've created.  The 
    argument all along has been that the likes of Tark and his ilk
    perpetuate that environment, if they're not fully responsible for it.
    Like most problems, the answer lies in local and direct attention, not
    via the wave of some national politician's imaginary magic wand.  On 
    the count of managing his own ship, Tark fails miserably... 
    
    glenn
    

    re: non-income sports.
    
    I am in total agreement with dan'l.
    
    I spent a year of college in cross country/track before I wised up to
    the fact that I wasn't even close to cutting it on a college level.  In
    spite of that, I spent 3 hr. a day in workouts and activities related
    to workouts.  On top of that, I would get out of workouts nearly
    cross-eyed from exhaustion, and wouldn't be able to think straight for
    and half-to-an-hour after that.  Physical endurence sports have their
    own set of pains/problems that last long after workouts.
    
    The college I went to was a minor college that has placed one (1) player
    in pro sports.  On the other hand, the track and CC teams were 
    perennially in the hunt for the NAIA national title.  The combined GPA
    for the track/CC teams always around mid 2s.  One semister in
    particular I remember the GPA of the basketball team was 0.5  The Bball
    team had a losing record and noone had chance of going anywhere.
    
    On a small campus every one knew each other.  Big attitude difference
    between the teams.  More than a few Fball and Bball guys were simply
    there to party until the money (eligibility) ran out.
    
    Scott

    A couple weeks ago, folks were talking/questioning about Lloyd 
    Daniels in here.  Thought this would be the appropriate place
    to include the following article which provides an update on
    Lloyd's latest attempts to make a living out of b-ball.  FWIW,
    Lloyd declared himself eligible for the 1988 NBA draft, but was
    not selected by Portland or anyone else.  That summer, he joined 
    a team in the L.A. Summer League, hoping to catch the eye of some
    NBA scout or GM.  He apparently held his own, but he also frequently
    showed up to games drunk and/or high.  No NBA team would even
    invite him to try out as a free agent.  Why all the interest in
    such a proven loser?  Maybe because on the rare occasions when
    he has been sober, he has been described as a Magic Johnson with
    Larry Bird's jump shot.  Of course, the reference to Bird was
    made when Larry still had a jump shot worth talking about. 
    
    Laker_Ken



	MIAMI (UPI) -- Troubled Lloyd Daniels missed a news conference called
Monday to announce he was getting one last chance at organized
basketball, but the team said it was not his fault.
	The Miami Tropics of the U.S. Basketball League said Daniels' flight
from the West Coast was delayed in Dallas. He arrived in Miami three
hours late and another news conference was arranged for Tuesday.
	The eight-team USBL is a summer league for professional players who
are not under contract with the NBA. Salaries range from $200 a week to
more than $700 and the schedule calls for 20 games.
	Kevin Koffman, the Tropics' operations director, said he and Daniels'
agent, Tom Rome of New York, had agreed to terms and Daniels was to sign
a contract when he arrived.
	``This is his last stop and he knows it,'' Koffman said. ``We are
looking to give him every opportunity to succeed.''
	Daniels, a 6-foot-8 guard once called the future Magic Johnson, was
the center of a recruiting scandal at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas
while he was a schoolboy star in New York City.
	The NCAA is investigating allegations that an assistant coach gave
Daniels a car and a motorcycle, and a booster posted bail for Daniels
after he was arrested at a crack house.
	He has failed out of four high schools in three states, was shot and
wounded over an $8 drug debt, was cut by a Continental Basketball
Association team for skipping a drug rehabilitation program and released
from a New Zealand basketball team for drinking. His coach said he drank
a case of beer a day.
	Daniels, 22, hasn't played organized basketball since 1988 when he
was cut by the Topeka Sizzlers of the CBA, but has been working out in
Albany, N.Y.
	Koffman said he had been on the telephone with Daniels almost daily
for the last month. Daniels is said to be down to 215-220 pounds from an
overweight 245.
	``He's clean as far as drugs are concerned,'' Koffman said. ``It's
been eight months. ... He said he appreciates the opportunity. A lot of
people have trouble with drugs and then go on with their lives.''
	Koffman said the Tropics had signed six of their draft picks plus
free agent 7-2 Tom Greis of Villanova. The draft choices signed
including Oliver Taylor of Seton Hall, the Most Valuable Player in the
Big East Tournament. Eric Dennis, a former scout with the Minnesota
Timberwolves and the Orlando Magic, is the coach.
	The USBL season opens June 5 and ends July 17, before NBA summer
camps open.
                                                              

    Thanks for posting the article, UNC/Laker_Ken.  (Hope ya don't mind my
    indulgence, but after all we supplied 2/5 of yer starters.)
    
    > ``This is his last stop and he knows it,'' Koffman said.
    
    I wonder how many times Lloyd has heard this.  Certainly with UNLV.
    Certainly with the LA Summer League.  Certainly with the CBA.
    
    The thing is when you're a star-studded hoopster in the USA you play by
    a different set of rules, which is to say their really are no rules (or
    at least they're very hard to pin down).  Folks have undoubtedly been
    telling Lloyd for years-and-years that 'This is your last chance.', and
    yet more chances keep coming him way.  Even Pavlov's dog could learn
    from this conditioning.  (i.e. Don't worry Lloyd, you'll get another 
    chance.)
    
    Sad, really.
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    UNLV indeed turned out to be something far short a The Best Ever,
    but they're posting a strong effort to go down in the record books
    as The Skankiest Ever.
    
    Players at Perry-the-Fixer's home for parties.  Players busted using
    drugs in parking lots.  "Adoption" of a prospect by an asst. coach but
    he subsequently gets busted at a crack house.  Questions about what's
    being done with 2,500 complimentary tickets for home games.  Guard
    dropping scholarship so that he could "miraculously" become a heavy
    hitter in both the commercial real estate and sportswear merchandising
    industries.  Film on CBS Sunday Morning of players showing up for 
    practice in Cadillacs, BMWs, Mercedes, and Porsches.
    
    Class operation, I'd say.  And *that's* just part a the story !!
    
    Way to go, Turk, you're one classy dude.
    
    MrT

    
    Yeah, T, but you know damn well that all that stuff is just the
    creation of a overzealous media and that Tark is a really good guy just
    trying to help out wherever and whenever he can.  Like Dan said in
    between Tarkanian's heart-rending sobs on national television, we 
    should feel sorry for him...
    
    glenn
    

    >Like Dan said in
    >between Tarkanian's heart-rending sobs on national television, we 
    >should feel sorry for him...                      
    
    Misrepresentation is T's bag, not yours Glenn.  I felt sorry for him. 
    I don't give a damn what the rest of you feel.
    
    Dan

    Shaddap, Air.  *You* are the one who gits caught lying by calling
    somebody a liar (a habit for you not only with me but many people)
    and then ends up you agree with what was said.
    
    No misrepresentation needed with the Runnin' Rabble.  They represent
    themselves and they represent the lowest form a scum known to college
    sports and Tark, it looks like as of today, is out as of next year,
    removed by an embarrassed college president and Board of Trustees.
    
    They agree with us.  Although, I'm sure they appreciate with support
    from deluded people like you, with the racism implied in treating
    blacks in a "special" manner, rather like circus animals.  You should
    be ashamed of yourself and the Nazi politics you preach, Dan.
    
    MrT

 >  Misrepresentation is T's bag, not yours Glenn.  I felt sorry for him. 
 >  I don't give a damn what the rest of you feel.
 
    I apologize for the slight shift in meaning, Dan.  I gathered from your
    note that you felt Tarkanian was sincere, and that your response to his
    statements was indeed appropriate and the "right" way to feel.
    
    glenn
    

    >They agree with us. 
    
    I doubt they agree with you, since I've never heard mention in the
    general media or out of UNLV 1of all the fantastic allegations that
    you've concocted.  Where's you come up with this assortment of
    fantasies?  Did an old college buddy read them and tell 'em to you? 
    Perhaps an officemate saw them on TV?  Or did you read them in a
    magazine article which was never written?
    
    I never pretended for an instant that Tark was invulnerable or that he
    hadn't done anything wrong to cross the NCAA.  But I do say that if his
    intentions were what he said, it didn't bother me.  And I'll stand by
    that.
    
    >You should
    >be ashamed of yourself and the Nazi politics you preach, Dan.
    
    I know you're trying to be hurtful and nasty, but I think you should
    stop now with any more of this nonsense.
    
    Dan
         

    >I doubt they agree with you, since I've
    >never heard mention in the general media of all the fantastic
    >allegations you've concoted... Where's you come up with [sic] this 
    >assortment of fantasies?
    
    Per usual, the zookeeper renders all discomfiting reality to be mere
    fantasies concoted by his correspondent.
    
    The drug bust happened night before last in a Vegas parking lot.  It
    was carried by the wires.  The wires also carried a story in this
    morning's paper quoting inside UNLV sources saying Tark was out after
    the end of his contract (i.e., the end of next season).  CBS Sunday
    Morning smirkingly ran the film of the $50,000. iron being driven by
    the Runnin' Rabble's "scholar-athletes" the morning of the regular
    season UNLV vs. Arkansas  game (if you wanna call me call CBS
    News and axe them first).  Tark, his player, and UNLV officials were
    stupid enough to brag about Anthony's million dollar deals as a
    "genius" businessmain, not me.  The NCAA also publicly expressed
    reservations about the arrangements.  Lloyd's "adoption" by a_assistant
    coach is a matter a public record under investigation currently by the
    NCAA.  The "adoptn" is not being argued by the school or Tark.  Nor
    are the photographs of several key UNLV players taken on several
    different occassions partying hearty with Perry-the-Fixer, who helped
    one Boston University player to a very long federal prison sentence.
    
    Tark.  What a class guy.  And Dan supports him, what he does, and what
    such manipulation means to African-America (total loss of self-respect?)
    
    But you're true to form, Dan.  "Let the facts be damned!"
    
    Is that how it goes?
    
    MrT

    
    Dan, Bob Ryan has a very good column on Tarkanian in this morning's
    Globe.  It goes briefly into some of the allegations against Tarkanian 
    (although not the more fantastic ones like Anthony's business dealings)
    including the fun with fixer Perry, the recruitment of Daniels, the
    recruitment of Clifford Allen (now serving time in Florida for murder)
    from a California detention center, etc.
    
    While Ryan gives grudging credit to Tarkanian for supplying UNLV with 
    what it originally bargained for, a winner at any cost, he says that
    if Tarkanian is really as concerned for the kids and the school (and
    not himself) as he says he is, now is the time to go.  Considering all
    that has gone on there in the last five years or so, I can't argue with
    that opinion.
    
    glenn
    

	Maybe it's just me but since some of the Runnin' Rabble hung out 
with a "game fixer" couldn't they have been playing with the point spread 
in the final game and let it get away from them?

				/Don

� 	Maybe it's just me but since some of the Runnin' Rabble hung out 
� with a "game fixer" couldn't they have been playing with the point spread 
� in the final game and let it get away from them?
 
 Ain't no doubt about it.   That's exactly what *COULD* have been
 happening.  It's also conceivable that they *COULD* have been playing
 to lose it outright to Duke.
 
 Your players hang out with known game fixers, you leave yourself wide
 open for all kinds of speculation.
 
 Bob Hunt

    The "fantastic allegations" about Anthony's business dealings are 
    no such thing.  UNLV's SID originally brought them to light as a
    way of touting what a genius this sociology major was (at commercial
    real estate and clothing retail).  The NCAA and others have pointed
    to his dropping of the scholarship in order to evade the rules against
    outside work as the most egregious example yet of subversion of well-
    intended rules and possible back door payoffs.  
    
    Who knows.  Maybe Anthony is really such a genius at business that he
    cain walk into large real estate and retailing deals without any capital,
    experience, or contacts while oh-by-the-way going to school full-time
    and playing basketball.  
    
    Yeah, *right*.  
    
    Tark is scum and should be banned for life.
    
    MrT

    
    I believe Anthony was also an officer in one of these Young Republican
    clubs (if nothing else maybe this will turn Dan around) and worked
    summers for a Congressman in Washington.  I figured he had exceptional
    contacts even outside of whatever might be going on at UNLV.
    
    In any case, this is the only one of MrT's allegations that I haven't
    seen plastered all over the papers concerning UNLV's assorted misdeeds.
    
    glenn
    
    

    Glenn,
    
    Anthoney was president of the Nevada chapter of Young Republicans.
    
    Be what it may, from what I've heard, the guy is smart.  Not saying
    he's done things the right way, but he's smart.
    
    JD

    I'm not being cynical.  The NCAA is of necessity.  It's called
    regulatory cynicism.  Used to be they just had to worry about no-
    show summer job scams for competitive advantage (to wit: UCLA).
    
    But now that big-time college athletics have hit the Strip we have
    "blossoming" Young Republican businessmen who miraculously end up
    doing biz deals that much better educated, trained, and experienced
    40 year olds would love to do!
    
    The NCAA's point of control is the scholarship.  Based on this latest
    outrage at UNLV they're talking about forcing the athlete to stay on
    scholarship and adhere to the attendant rules.  Fair enough.  If Eric
    is, apart from his hoops connection, such a miracle at business then
    he'd be better off quitting hoops and performing his capitalist magic
    anyway.
    
    MrT