tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-929716813275576875.post5154354029795988118..comments2023-03-24T02:39:00.269-07:00Comments on The Misanthropic Economist: Spurrier and other Smart GuysMatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13234110335004586832noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-929716813275576875.post-39583720654164804692007-08-10T20:04:00.000-07:002007-08-10T20:04:00.000-07:00Nice point eddy coop. I simplified the situation. ...Nice point eddy coop. I simplified the situation. However, someone in Spurrier's camp should have known that the university was considering raising admission standards above the NCAA level. Spurrier should have informed his recruits of this so they knew what could happen. Spurrier should also understand by this stage of his career how universities operate.<BR/><BR/>The situation may have been influenced by the admissions committee operating under what I call "university time." It works like this: "We need to make this decision by March 1, so let's set the next committee meeting for April 10." So instead of making a decision in a timely manner so Spurrier knows what he's dealing with, they screw around and change the rules on him after he's made decisions. I've had to deal with such things several times where I'm at.<BR/><BR/>So your right, it's unfortunate for the two kids. However, academically, they'd probably be better off at a lower level school for a year or two. The university also shouldn't change the rules in the middle of the game, but I don't expect that to change anytime soon. As for Spurrier, not the best situation, but my sympathy for him remains minimal. I think that So Carolina will placate him somehow.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for stopping by the blog and commenting! Now I know someone actually reads the darn thing.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13234110335004586832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-929716813275576875.post-47141679053197864662007-08-09T16:59:00.000-07:002007-08-09T16:59:00.000-07:00While I agree with the spirit of your point about ...While I agree with the spirit of your point about Spurrier, I think you're overlooking something important to the particular situation. My understanding from sports reports is that the athletes were qualified for admission under the NCAA standards which had been previously communicated to Spurrier. There were ongoing discussions at the university about the idea of raising their standards above the NCAA (which approved the kids through their screening process) requirements, but the new university standards had not yet been put in place. So, Spurrier recruits these two kids during the winter recruiting period in good faith, they commit to So. Caro. (and close the door on other offers, because each school has a scholarship limit which they fill) and then the school administration decided in the spring or summer to raise the standards and deny these kids admission. That's unfair to the athletes and to the coaches. <BR/><BR/>If they want to raise the standards for next year, I'm all for that. Require the athletes to meet exactly the same standards as any other student applying to the school. But, don't do it after the fact in such a way that you put your employees, the coaches, in a position of reneging on an important commitment and put the kids at a disadvantage by denying them the opportunity to go to their second choice school. Spurrier's right to threaten to resign under these circumstances and the school should back down in this case.eddy coophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01147592329791348505noreply@blogger.com