SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

posse
Low Tide
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:59 pm
Status: Offline

SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby posse » Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:19 am

Looks like Tulane really hasn't changed their JC admission standards, as we were led to believe. They limit our coaches to recruiting JC players who were academically qualified coming out of high school.....but if they were qualified out of high school they would have signed with colleges at that time. Most JC players are not qualified out of high school and thats the reason most go to JC to become qualified. Tulane continues to shoot itself in the foot, and forces our coaches to try and compete with the big boys with one hand tied behind their back. Am I miss reading this?

COACH FRITZ STATED: 'His staff is recruiting junior college prospects who were academic qualifiers coming out of high school and have transferrable credits.
“Generally speaking, there are not many of those type of guys out there, but there are some,” Fritz said. “We're not going to take a guy just to take a guy. We want to take guys if they are bona fide Division I players. We have to do a great job of recruiting and finding guys that can compete at this level.”



User avatar
tpstulane
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 16486
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:56 pm
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby tpstulane » Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:31 am

posse wrote:Looks like Tulane really hasn't changed their JC admission standards, as we were led to believe. They limit our coaches to recruiting JC players who were academically qualified coming out of high school.....but if they were qualified out of high school they would have signed with colleges at that time. Most JC players are not qualified out of high school and thats the reason most go to JC to become qualified. Tulane continues to shoot itself in the foot, and forces our coaches to try and compete with the big boys with one hand tied behind their back. Am I miss reading this?

COACH FRITZ STATED: 'His staff is recruiting junior college prospects who were academic qualifiers coming out of high school and have transferrable credits.
“Generally speaking, there are not many of those type of guys out there, but there are some,” Fritz said. “We're not going to take a guy just to take a guy. We want to take guys if they are bona fide Division I players. We have to do a great job of recruiting and finding guys that can compete at this level.”

We can't sign the sign guys Houston, Memphis, UCF and others can and "it is what it is". That's always why coaches here are starting at a disadvantage and many potential coaches don't want that difficult challenge. It's a policy for athletic failure. Tulane is a difficult place to win at and most coaches in the business know this and Fritz is now finding out first hand. Like I said before in another thread I'm not holding my breath until I see the number of JC's we sign. Like you have nicely stated, it's nothing new here.


Stadiums get old, winning never does.
Tulane Class of 1981

mbawavefan12
Tsunami
Posts: 5095
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:17 pm
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby mbawavefan12 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:43 am

tpstulane wrote:
posse wrote:Looks like Tulane really hasn't changed their JC admission standards, as we were led to believe. They limit our coaches to recruiting JC players who were academically qualified coming out of high school.....but if they were qualified out of high school they would have signed with colleges at that time. Most JC players are not qualified out of high school and thats the reason most go to JC to become qualified. Tulane continues to shoot itself in the foot, and forces our coaches to try and compete with the big boys with one hand tied behind their back. Am I miss reading this?

COACH FRITZ STATED: 'His staff is recruiting junior college prospects who were academic qualifiers coming out of high school and have transferrable credits.
“Generally speaking, there are not many of those type of guys out there, but there are some,” Fritz said. “We're not going to take a guy just to take a guy. We want to take guys if they are bona fide Division I players. We have to do a great job of recruiting and finding guys that can compete at this level.”

We can't sign the sign guys Houston, Memphis, UCF and others can and "it is what it is". That's always why coaches here are starting at a disadvantage and many potential coaches don't want that difficult challenge. It's a policy for athletic failure. Tulane is a difficult place to win at and most coaches in the business know this and Fritz is now finding out first hand. Like I said before in another thread I'm not holding my breath until I see the number of JC's we sign. Like you have nicely stated, it's nothing new here.


I'd really like to know how Tulsa and SMU handle their entrance requirements. I mean Tulsa has less than half the undergrad population as Tulane but actually competes in the two majors.



User avatar
OUG
Riptide
Posts: 2609
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:59 am
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby OUG » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:43 pm

posse wrote:Looks like Tulane really hasn't changed their JC admission standards, as we were led to believe. They limit our coaches to recruiting JC players who were academically qualified coming out of high school.....but if they were qualified out of high school they would have signed with colleges at that time. Most JC players are not qualified out of high school and thats the reason most go to JC to become qualified. Tulane continues to shoot itself in the foot, and forces our coaches to try and compete with the big boys with one hand tied behind their back. Am I miss reading this?

COACH FRITZ STATED: 'His staff is recruiting junior college prospects who were academic qualifiers coming out of high school and have transferrable credits.
“Generally speaking, there are not many of those type of guys out there, but there are some,” Fritz said. “We're not going to take a guy just to take a guy. We want to take guys if they are bona fide Division I players. We have to do a great job of recruiting and finding guys that can compete at this level.”


You know, you'll never get players of that profile to be able to transfer credits because the welding (or whatever) classes they took don't have equivalents at Tulane. They're also not prepared for a degree program at Tulane, and would be ineligible after one semester of coursework.

Tulane is NOT the only school that has this issue. Pretty much none of our academic peers take these kids, and pretty much all of them are good at football. We've covered this in other threads.



User avatar
tpstulane
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 16486
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:56 pm
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby tpstulane » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:48 pm

OUG wrote:
posse wrote:Looks like Tulane really hasn't changed their JC admission standards, as we were led to believe. They limit our coaches to recruiting JC players who were academically qualified coming out of high school.....but if they were qualified out of high school they would have signed with colleges at that time. Most JC players are not qualified out of high school and thats the reason most go to JC to become qualified. Tulane continues to shoot itself in the foot, and forces our coaches to try and compete with the big boys with one hand tied behind their back. Am I miss reading this?

COACH FRITZ STATED: 'His staff is recruiting junior college prospects who were academic qualifiers coming out of high school and have transferrable credits.
“Generally speaking, there are not many of those type of guys out there, but there are some,” Fritz said. “We're not going to take a guy just to take a guy. We want to take guys if they are bona fide Division I players. We have to do a great job of recruiting and finding guys that can compete at this level.”


You know, you'll never get players of that profile to be able to transfer credits because the welding (or whatever) classes they took don't have equivalents at Tulane. They're also not prepared for a degree program at Tulane, and would be ineligible after one semester of coursework.

Tulane is NOT the only school that has this issue. Pretty much none of our academic peers take these kids, and pretty much all of them are good at football. We've covered this in other threads.

Not sure I agree with all of that. But I am sure that our policies put out coaches at a disadvantage compared to those we need to compete with in the AAC.


Stadiums get old, winning never does.
Tulane Class of 1981

mbawavefan12
Tsunami
Posts: 5095
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:17 pm
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby mbawavefan12 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:51 pm

OUG wrote:
posse wrote:Looks like Tulane really hasn't changed their JC admission standards, as we were led to believe. They limit our coaches to recruiting JC players who were academically qualified coming out of high school.....but if they were qualified out of high school they would have signed with colleges at that time. Most JC players are not qualified out of high school and thats the reason most go to JC to become qualified. Tulane continues to shoot itself in the foot, and forces our coaches to try and compete with the big boys with one hand tied behind their back. Am I miss reading this?

COACH FRITZ STATED: 'His staff is recruiting junior college prospects who were academic qualifiers coming out of high school and have transferrable credits.
“Generally speaking, there are not many of those type of guys out there, but there are some,” Fritz said. “We're not going to take a guy just to take a guy. We want to take guys if they are bona fide Division I players. We have to do a great job of recruiting and finding guys that can compete at this level.”


You know, you'll never get players of that profile to be able to transfer credits because the welding (or whatever) classes they took don't have equivalents at Tulane. They're also not prepared for a degree program at Tulane, and would be ineligible after one semester of coursework.

Tulane is NOT the only school that has this issue. Pretty much none of our academic peers take these kids, and pretty much all of them are good at football. We've covered this in other threads.


I would just like some confirmation that all other academic peers do the same.

Generally I find the policy hurtful to Tu and borderline immoral.



User avatar
OUG
Riptide
Posts: 2609
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:59 am
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby OUG » Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:04 pm

Schools don't issue statements on these policies you can easily link to, but feel free to look at their rosters. Look into the JC guys on those rosters and their backgrounds. Talk to their fans.

By the way, immoral? Immoral not to give a scholarship to a kid who couldn't qualify out of HS academically, and doesn't have transfer credits for equivalent courses at Tulane? We are supposed to... what? Take him as a transfer and insert him in year three of a degree track when he doesn't have the pre-reqs for year one? Then what happens when he plays one semester of spring football and we have to send him packing? you can cut immoral a lot of different ways. This has nothing to do with morality.

I'm all for junior college transfers who meet NCAA minimum requirements and have taken college level courses at their JCs. We have and are continuing to do that. I'd much rather focus our attention on how we keep our HS recruits academically eligible in four year degree programs, which is difficult enough.



mbawavefan12
Tsunami
Posts: 5095
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:17 pm
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby mbawavefan12 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:13 pm

OUG wrote:Schools don't issue statements on these policies you can easily link to, but feel free to look at their rosters. Look into the JC guys on those rosters and their backgrounds. Talk to their fans.

By the way, immoral? Immoral not to give a scholarship to a kid who couldn't qualify out of HS academically, and doesn't have transfer credits for equivalent courses at Tulane? We are supposed to... what? Take him as a transfer and insert him in year three of a degree track when he doesn't have the pre-reqs for year one? Then what happens when he plays one semester of spring football and we have to send him packing? you can cut immoral a lot of different ways. This has nothing to do with morality.

I'm all for junior college transfers who meet NCAA minimum requirements and have taken college level courses at their JCs. We have and are continuing to do that. I'd much rather focus our attention on how we keep our HS recruits academically eligible in four year degree programs, which is difficult enough.


Many of these students suffer because they were academically ruined by inferior schools, politicians and teachers. Some (and I by no means mean all) go to JUCO and flourish. To not look at the players academic growth is insane, to not look at each case individually and just have this blanket policy is archaic. Many JUCO students come out equally or even more prepared than other 1st or 2nd year college students.

If they flunk out, then fine as many students leave due to academic failure, athlete or not. What if they graduate and use the opportunity to change their own life and the lives of their family moving forward? Should that be considered in the equation.

Nevermind the fact that we had a previous school president who constantly railed about the inequities in our inner city/rural schools (even started his own institute), yet held a policy where his own university couldn't help change the lives of those who work to overcome said inequities, those instances may not be immoral but it is certainly hypocritical. Our current admin makes sure to discuss TU's community involvement, well nothing changes a community faster than having citizens who contribute to society after earning a degree.



User avatar
OUG
Riptide
Posts: 2609
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:59 am
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby OUG » Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:01 pm

mbawavefan12 wrote:
OUG wrote:Schools don't issue statements on these policies you can easily link to, but feel free to look at their rosters. Look into the JC guys on those rosters and their backgrounds. Talk to their fans.

By the way, immoral? Immoral not to give a scholarship to a kid who couldn't qualify out of HS academically, and doesn't have transfer credits for equivalent courses at Tulane? We are supposed to... what? Take him as a transfer and insert him in year three of a degree track when he doesn't have the pre-reqs for year one? Then what happens when he plays one semester of spring football and we have to send him packing? you can cut immoral a lot of different ways. This has nothing to do with morality.

I'm all for junior college transfers who meet NCAA minimum requirements and have taken college level courses at their JCs. We have and are continuing to do that. I'd much rather focus our attention on how we keep our HS recruits academically eligible in four year degree programs, which is difficult enough.


Many of these students suffer because they were academically ruined by inferior schools, politicians and teachers. Some (and I by no means mean all) go to JUCO and flourish. To not look at the players academic growth is insane, to not look at each case individually and just have this blanket policy is archaic. Many JUCO students come out equally or even more prepared than other 1st or 2nd year college students.

If they flunk out, then fine as many students leave due to academic failure, athlete or not. What if they graduate and use the opportunity to change their own life and the lives of their family moving forward? Should that be considered in the equation.

Nevermind the fact that we had a previous school president who constantly railed about the inequities in our inner city/rural schools (even started his own institute), yet held a policy where his own university couldn't help change the lives of those who work to overcome said inequities, those instances may not be immoral but it is certainly hypocritical. Our current admin makes sure to discuss TU's community involvement, well nothing changes a community faster than having citizens who contribute to society after earning a degree.


I think we should expand educational opportunities to people at every level of the academic pyramid.

But that does not mean you take a transfer into the junior class at Tulane of someone who has never gotten a qualifying test score, whose math coursework consists of remedial alegebra, and you just pretend he took college-level calculus so he can play football. You're clouding the issue here. Tulane already has a roster full of football players meeting minimum NCAA requirements that have been given a chance to get a great education that they wouldn't have without football. The snobbery argument does not apply here.



mbawavefan12
Tsunami
Posts: 5095
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:17 pm
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby mbawavefan12 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:07 pm

OUG wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:
OUG wrote:Schools don't issue statements on these policies you can easily link to, but feel free to look at their rosters. Look into the JC guys on those rosters and their backgrounds. Talk to their fans.

By the way, immoral? Immoral not to give a scholarship to a kid who couldn't qualify out of HS academically, and doesn't have transfer credits for equivalent courses at Tulane? We are supposed to... what? Take him as a transfer and insert him in year three of a degree track when he doesn't have the pre-reqs for year one? Then what happens when he plays one semester of spring football and we have to send him packing? you can cut immoral a lot of different ways. This has nothing to do with morality.

I'm all for junior college transfers who meet NCAA minimum requirements and have taken college level courses at their JCs. We have and are continuing to do that. I'd much rather focus our attention on how we keep our HS recruits academically eligible in four year degree programs, which is difficult enough.


Many of these students suffer because they were academically ruined by inferior schools, politicians and teachers. Some (and I by no means mean all) go to JUCO and flourish. To not look at the players academic growth is insane, to not look at each case individually and just have this blanket policy is archaic. Many JUCO students come out equally or even more prepared than other 1st or 2nd year college students.

If they flunk out, then fine as many students leave due to academic failure, athlete or not. What if they graduate and use the opportunity to change their own life and the lives of their family moving forward? Should that be considered in the equation.

Nevermind the fact that we had a previous school president who constantly railed about the inequities in our inner city/rural schools (even started his own institute), yet held a policy where his own university couldn't help change the lives of those who work to overcome said inequities, those instances may not be immoral but it is certainly hypocritical. Our current admin makes sure to discuss TU's community involvement, well nothing changes a community faster than having citizens who contribute to society after earning a degree.


I think we should expand educational opportunities to people at every level of the academic pyramid.

But that does not mean you take a transfer into the junior class at Tulane of someone who has never gotten a qualifying test score, whose math coursework consists of remedial alegebra, and you just pretend he took college-level calculus so he can play football. You're clouding the issue here. Tulane already has a roster full of football players meeting minimum NCAA requirements that have been given a chance to get a great education that they wouldn't have without football. The snobbery argument does not apply here.


So there are zero JUCO FBall and/or Bball players who, after 1 to 2 years at their JUCO school, have improved their academics to a point where they now are qualified to attend a university? I mean the whole freaking point of a JUCO is to focus more on academics to improve as a student. Said student should be judged on where they are currently not where they were two years ago.

I mean hell, many students go to lesser universities because they didn't focus in high school and then they turn over a new leaf and end up graduating from amazing schools. Same thing applies to JUCOs IMHO. Setting a blanket policy that no JUCO student (who did not qualify as a 17-18 year old out of high school) can be accepted to the great Tulane University, is just flat out lazy.



posse
Low Tide
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:59 pm
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby posse » Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:14 pm

mbawavefan12 wrote:
OUG wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:
OUG wrote:Schools don't issue statements on these policies you can easily link to, but feel free to look at their rosters. Look into the JC guys on those rosters and their backgrounds. Talk to their fans.

By the way, immoral? Immoral not to give a scholarship to a kid who couldn't qualify out of HS academically, and doesn't have transfer credits for equivalent courses at Tulane? We are supposed to... what? Take him as a transfer and insert him in year three of a degree track when he doesn't have the pre-reqs for year one? Then what happens when he plays one semester of spring football and we have to send him packing? you can cut immoral a lot of different ways. This has nothing to do with morality.

I'm all for junior college transfers who meet NCAA minimum requirements and have taken college level courses at their JCs. We have and are continuing to do that. I'd much rather focus our attention on how we keep our HS recruits academically eligible in four year degree programs, which is difficult enough.


Many of these students suffer because they were academically ruined by inferior schools, politicians and teachers. Some (and I by no means mean all) go to JUCO and flourish. To not look at the players academic growth is insane, to not look at each case individually and just have this blanket policy is archaic. Many JUCO students come out equally or even more prepared than other 1st or 2nd year college students.

If they flunk out, then fine as many students leave due to academic failure, athlete or not. What if they graduate and use the opportunity to change their own life and the lives of their family moving forward? Should that be considered in the equation.

Nevermind the fact that we had a previous school president who constantly railed about the inequities in our inner city/rural schools (even started his own institute), yet held a policy where his own university couldn't help change the lives of those who work to overcome said inequities, those instances may not be immoral but it is certainly hypocritical. Our current admin makes sure to discuss TU's community involvement, well nothing changes a community faster than having citizens who contribute to society after earning a degree.


I think we should expand educational opportunities to people at every level of the academic pyramid.

But that does not mean you take a transfer into the junior class at Tulane of someone who has never gotten a qualifying test score, whose math coursework consists of remedial alegebra, and you just pretend he took college-level calculus so he can play football. You're clouding the issue here. Tulane already has a roster full of football players meeting minimum NCAA requirements that have been given a chance to get a great education that they wouldn't have without football. The snobbery argument does not apply here.


So there are zero JUCO FBall and/or Bball players who, after 1 to 2 years at their JUCO school, have improved their academics to a point where they now are qualified to attend a university? I mean the whole freaking point of a JUCO is to focus more on academics to improve as a student. Said student should be judged on where they are currently not where they were two years ago.

I mean hell, many students go to lesser universities because they didn't focus in high school and then they turn over a new leaf and end up graduating from amazing schools. Same thing applies to JUCOs IMHO. Setting a blanket policy that no JUCO student (who did not qualify as a 17-18 year old out of high school) can be accepted to the great Tulane University, is just flat out lazy.


+1 I could not have said it any better.......My question on JUCO requirement is WHY? WHY DO WE SELF IMPOSE THIS ON OURSELVES when we are trying to
become relevant again? It makes no sense to me...



Pepper
High Tide
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:38 pm
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby Pepper » Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:17 pm

mbawavefan12 wrote:
OUG wrote:
mbawavefan12 wrote:
OUG wrote:Schools don't issue statements on these policies you can easily link to, but feel free to look at their rosters. Look into the JC guys on those rosters and their backgrounds. Talk to their fans.

By the way, immoral? Immoral not to give a scholarship to a kid who couldn't qualify out of HS academically, and doesn't have transfer credits for equivalent courses at Tulane? We are supposed to... what? Take him as a transfer and insert him in year three of a degree track when he doesn't have the pre-reqs for year one? Then what happens when he plays one semester of spring football and we have to send him packing? you can cut immoral a lot of different ways. This has nothing to do with morality.

I'm all for junior college transfers who meet NCAA minimum requirements and have taken college level courses at their JCs. We have and are continuing to do that. I'd much rather focus our attention on how we keep our HS recruits academically eligible in four year degree programs, which is difficult enough.


Many of these students suffer because they were academically ruined by inferior schools, politicians and teachers. Some (and I by no means mean all) go to JUCO and flourish. To not look at the players academic growth is insane, to not look at each case individually and just have this blanket policy is archaic. Many JUCO students come out equally or even more prepared than other 1st or 2nd year college students.

If they flunk out, then fine as many students leave due to academic failure, athlete or not. What if they graduate and use the opportunity to change their own life and the lives of their family moving forward? Should that be considered in the equation.

Nevermind the fact that we had a previous school president who constantly railed about the inequities in our inner city/rural schools (even started his own institute), yet held a policy where his own university couldn't help change the lives of those who work to overcome said inequities, those instances may not be immoral but it is certainly hypocritical. Our current admin makes sure to discuss TU's community involvement, well nothing changes a community faster than having citizens who contribute to society after earning a degree.


I think we should expand educational opportunities to people at every level of the academic pyramid.

But that does not mean you take a transfer into the junior class at Tulane of someone who has never gotten a qualifying test score, whose math coursework consists of remedial alegebra, and you just pretend he took college-level calculus so he can play football. You're clouding the issue here. Tulane already has a roster full of football players meeting minimum NCAA requirements that have been given a chance to get a great education that they wouldn't have without football. The snobbery argument does not apply here.


So there are zero JUCO FBall and/or Bball players who, after 1 to 2 years at their JUCO school, have improved their academics to a point where they now are qualified to attend a university? I mean the whole freaking point of a JUCO is to focus more on academics to improve as a student. Said student should be judged on where they are currently not where they were two years ago.

I mean hell, many students go to lesser universities because they didn't focus in high school and then they turn over a new leaf and end up graduating from amazing schools. Same thing applies to JUCOs IMHO. Setting a blanket policy that no JUCO student (who did not qualify as a 17-18 year old out of high school) can be accepted to the great Tulane University, is just flat out lazy.



Truer words have never been spoken!


"Purple & Gold? You look ridiculous!"-Johnny Be Good.

DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 5205
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Online

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby DfromCT » Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:45 pm

Years back Tricky Rick Dickson said we were joined at the hip with TCU. Then everything the Administration did proved we were not.

I think there's a great example of how to lift ourselves out of the Athletics Wasteland with our conference mate, Temple. Temple had a football team with a recent history as bad as ours. It's a private school in a big (NFL) city. When they hired Rhule, we hired CJ, and while we were building a boutique stadium, they were trying to move on campus (and fighting their own NIMBY wars.) While they're still trying to get an OCS, they gave Rhule what he needed to succeed. They have a (smaller, but functional) IPF, great football practice and administrative facilities that recently had a $10 million expansion/renovation, and committed to winning. Look what they've done since that time. And it was NOT a one or two year turn around.

Let's eliminate all roadblocks to success. Give Coach Fritz and Dunleavy the ability to recruit to NCAA standards, assuming the athlete has an interest in a degree program that he's capable of completing.

Tulane's Mission Statement:
Tulane's purpose is to create, communicate and conserve knowledge in order to enrich the capacity of individuals, organizations and communities to think, to learn and to act and lead with integrity and wisdom.

Tulane pursues this mission by cultivating an environment that focuses on learning and the generation of new knowledge; by expecting and rewarding teaching and research of extraordinarily high quality and impact; and by fostering community-building initiatives as well as scientific, cultural and social understanding that integrate with and strengthen learning and research. This mission is pursued in the context of the unique qualities of our location in New Orleans and our continual aspiration to be a truly distinctive international university.


I think the Administration would be well served by focusing on ways to allow more than the privileged few that can score a certain score on the ACT or SAT to gain entrance. There are many ways, discussed in other threads and forums, to affect young men and women of limited means and substandard academic credentials. Give them teaching and leadership skills and you're now affecting a community. This, in my humble opinion, would have greater lasting effects on the New Orleans and National communities than any number of student-generated community service hours.

This doesn't mean that we should recruit any Johnny Athlete that has a hard time putting his name on the paper. It means if we find those that only meet minimum NCAA standards, but have an interest in degree programs we offer, we sell them on the value of the degree as part of the academic buy-in process. It will work if the athlete buys into the student half of the student/athlete equation. Those that have no interest are not going to make it, and have a negative affect on the program and the University on multiple levels. When the student/athlete arrives, he (or she) should enjoy facilities that are on par with the top programs in our conference. The commitment to winning needs to come from our President, and not only infect the Athletics Department, but the entire University.

Until that happens, it will be the same old same ole.

And one final observation: It seems that Barbara Burke leaving has lowered the bar for the "fan experience". This needs to be fixed immediately or our marketing efforts will be in vain.


" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your ongoing support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia

winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 10545
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby winwave » Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:32 pm

That is a long rehash of what many here have posted in various threads over the years. As I have always said Tulane wants to brag about the graduation rate of it's student-athletes but if you are only taking in good students that's nothing to brag about. Take in lesser qualified ones and teach them up and help them graduate then you'll really have something to brag about.

BTW, Temple is a public university.
Last edited by winwave on Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.


It's the facilities stupid!

User avatar
wave97
Swell
Posts: 1175
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:08 pm
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby wave97 » Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:54 pm

DfromCT wrote:Years back Tricky Rick Dickson said we were joined at the hip with TCU. Then everything the Administration did proved we were not.

I think there's a great example of how to lift ourselves out of the Athletics Wasteland with our conference mate, Temple. Temple had a football team with a recent history as bad as ours. It's a private school in a big (NFL) city. When they hired Rhule, we hired CJ, and while we were building a boutique stadium, they were trying to move on campus (and fighting their own NIMBY wars.) While they're still trying to get an OCS, they gave Rhule what he needed to succeed. They have a (smaller, but functional) IPF, great football practice and administrative facilities that recently had a $10 million expansion/renovation, and committed to winning. Look what they've done since that time. And it was NOT a one or two year turn around.

Let's eliminate all roadblocks to success. Give Coach Fritz and Dunleavy the ability to recruit to NCAA standards, assuming the athlete has an interest in a degree program that he's capable of completing.

Tulane's Mission Statement:
Tulane's purpose is to create, communicate and conserve knowledge in order to enrich the capacity of individuals, organizations and communities to think, to learn and to act and lead with integrity and wisdom.

Tulane pursues this mission by cultivating an environment that focuses on learning and the generation of new knowledge; by expecting and rewarding teaching and research of extraordinarily high quality and impact; and by fostering community-building initiatives as well as scientific, cultural and social understanding that integrate with and strengthen learning and research. This mission is pursued in the context of the unique qualities of our location in New Orleans and our continual aspiration to be a truly distinctive international university.


I think the Administration would be well served by focusing on ways to allow more than the privileged few that can score a certain score on the ACT or SAT to gain entrance. There are many ways, discussed in other threads and forums, to affect young men and women of limited means and substandard academic credentials. Give them teaching and leadership skills and you're now affecting a community. This, in my humble opinion, would have greater lasting effects on the New Orleans and National communities than any number of student-generated community service hours.

This doesn't mean that we should recruit any Johnny Athlete that has a hard time putting his name on the paper. It means if we find those that only meet minimum NCAA standards, but have an interest in degree programs we offer, we sell them on the value of the degree as part of the academic buy-in process. It will work if the athlete buys into the student half of the student/athlete equation. Those that have no interest are not going to make it, and have a negative affect on the program and the University on multiple levels. When the student/athlete arrives, he (or she) should enjoy facilities that are on par with the top programs in our conference. The commitment to winning needs to come from our President, and not only infect the Athletics Department, but the entire University.

Until that happens, it will be the same old same ole.

And one final observation: It seems that Barbara Burke leaving has lowered the bar for the "fan experience". This needs to be fixed immediately or our marketing efforts will be in vain.


"Pay" Football & Basketball players with tuition vouchers that can be redeemed or transferred at the players discretion. The only requirement for academic attendance should be remedial coursework where necessary so that each entering player is brought up to a sufficient competence level. We can recruit semi-literates and in five years turn out a bright shiny high school graduate. The decision to attend the school where they played, or not, can be made after their playing days are over. Vandy, Stanford, Northwestern, Tulane & Duke would have marvelously entertaining football & basketball while providing true opportunity for economic or academic gain.



DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 5205
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Online

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby DfromCT » Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:41 pm

wave97 wrote:"Pay" Football & Basketball players with tuition vouchers that can be redeemed or transferred at the players discretion. The only requirement for academic attendance should be remedial coursework where necessary so that each entering player is brought up to a sufficient competence level. We can recruit semi-literates and in five years turn out a bright shiny high school graduate. The decision to attend the school where they played, or not, can be made after their playing days are over. Vandy, Stanford, Northwestern, Tulane & Duke would have marvelously entertaining football & basketball while providing true opportunity for economic or academic gain.


The problem is that the NC2A requires these "student/athletes" to be working towards a degree. To be in a program that grants a certificate of attendance, or a HS GED doesn't cut it in the almighty eyes of the NCAA.


" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your ongoing support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia

golfnut69
Tsunami
Posts: 7010
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:38 am
Status: Online

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby golfnut69 » Fri Dec 16, 2016 6:39 am

DfromCT wrote:Years back Tricky Rick Dickson said we were joined at the hip with TCU. Then everything the Administration did proved we were not.

I think there's a great example of how to lift ourselves out of the Athletics Wasteland with our conference mate, Temple. Temple had a football team with a recent history as bad as ours. It's a private school in a big (NFL) city. When they hired Rhule, we hired CJ, and while we were building a boutique stadium, they were trying to move on campus (and fighting their own NIMBY wars.) While they're still trying to get an OCS, they gave Rhule what he needed to succeed. They have a (smaller, but functional) IPF, great football practice and administrative facilities that recently had a $10 million expansion/renovation, and committed to winning. Look what they've done since that time. And it was NOT a one or two year turn around.

Let's eliminate all roadblocks to success. Give Coach Fritz and Dunleavy the ability to recruit to NCAA standards, assuming the athlete has an interest in a degree program that he's capable of completing.

Tulane's Mission Statement:
Tulane's purpose is to create, communicate and conserve knowledge in order to enrich the capacity of individuals, organizations and communities to think, to learn and to act and lead with integrity and wisdom.

Tulane pursues this mission by cultivating an environment that focuses on learning and the generation of new knowledge; by expecting and rewarding teaching and research of extraordinarily high quality and impact; and by fostering community-building initiatives as well as scientific, cultural and social understanding that integrate with and strengthen learning and research. This mission is pursued in the context of the unique qualities of our location in New Orleans and our continual aspiration to be a truly distinctive international university.


I think the Administration would be well served by focusing on ways to allow more than the privileged few that can score a certain score on the ACT or SAT to gain entrance. There are many ways, discussed in other threads and forums, to affect young men and women of limited means and substandard academic credentials. Give them teaching and leadership skills and you're now affecting a community. This, in my humble opinion, would have greater lasting effects on the New Orleans and National communities than any number of student-generated community service hours.

This doesn't mean that we should recruit any Johnny Athlete that has a hard time putting his name on the paper. It means if we find those that only meet minimum NCAA standards, but have an interest in degree programs we offer, we sell them on the value of the degree as part of the academic buy-in process. It will work if the athlete buys into the student half of the student/athlete equation. Those that have no interest are not going to make it, and have a negative affect on the program and the University on multiple levels. When the student/athlete arrives, he (or she) should enjoy facilities that are on par with the top programs in our conference. The commitment to winning needs to come from our President, and not only infect the Athletics Department, but the entire University.

Until that happens, it will be the same old same ole.

And one final observation: It seems that Barbara Burke leaving has lowered the bar for the "fan experience". This needs to be fixed immediately or our marketing efforts will be in vain.


Temple is not a private school...it is a State funded University and has been for several years


Be a Hero Today.... Adopt a Shelter Pet... The Beatles once sang "Can't Buy Me Love"... I disagree, unconditional Love can be bought, for the nominal adoption fee at your local Pet Shelter !

DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 5205
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Online

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby DfromCT » Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:13 am

golfnut69 wrote:
DfromCT wrote:Years back Tricky Rick Dickson said we were joined at the hip with TCU. Then everything the Administration did proved we were not.

I think there's a great example of how to lift ourselves out of the Athletics Wasteland with our conference mate, Temple. Temple had a football team with a recent history as bad as ours. It's a private school in a big (NFL) city. When they hired Rhule, we hired CJ, and while we were building a boutique stadium, they were trying to move on campus (and fighting their own NIMBY wars.) While they're still trying to get an OCS, they gave Rhule what he needed to succeed. They have a (smaller, but functional) IPF, great football practice and administrative facilities that recently had a $10 million expansion/renovation, and committed to winning. Look what they've done since that time. And it was NOT a one or two year turn around.

Let's eliminate all roadblocks to success. Give Coach Fritz and Dunleavy the ability to recruit to NCAA standards, assuming the athlete has an interest in a degree program that he's capable of completing.

Tulane's Mission Statement:
Tulane's purpose is to create, communicate and conserve knowledge in order to enrich the capacity of individuals, organizations and communities to think, to learn and to act and lead with integrity and wisdom.

Tulane pursues this mission by cultivating an environment that focuses on learning and the generation of new knowledge; by expecting and rewarding teaching and research of extraordinarily high quality and impact; and by fostering community-building initiatives as well as scientific, cultural and social understanding that integrate with and strengthen learning and research. This mission is pursued in the context of the unique qualities of our location in New Orleans and our continual aspiration to be a truly distinctive international university.


I think the Administration would be well served by focusing on ways to allow more than the privileged few that can score a certain score on the ACT or SAT to gain entrance. There are many ways, discussed in other threads and forums, to affect young men and women of limited means and substandard academic credentials. Give them teaching and leadership skills and you're now affecting a community. This, in my humble opinion, would have greater lasting effects on the New Orleans and National communities than any number of student-generated community service hours.

This doesn't mean that we should recruit any Johnny Athlete that has a hard time putting his name on the paper. It means if we find those that only meet minimum NCAA standards, but have an interest in degree programs we offer, we sell them on the value of the degree as part of the academic buy-in process. It will work if the athlete buys into the student half of the student/athlete equation. Those that have no interest are not going to make it, and have a negative affect on the program and the University on multiple levels. When the student/athlete arrives, he (or she) should enjoy facilities that are on par with the top programs in our conference. The commitment to winning needs to come from our President, and not only infect the Athletics Department, but the entire University.

Until that happens, it will be the same old same ole.

And one final observation: It seems that Barbara Burke leaving has lowered the bar for the "fan experience". This needs to be fixed immediately or our marketing efforts will be in vain.


Temple is not a private school...it is a State funded University and has been for several years


My bad. You learn something new here on GoTula.net every day! Thanks, Woody!


" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your ongoing support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia

Aberzombie1892
Swell
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby Aberzombie1892 » Sat Dec 17, 2016 7:12 am

For further clarification on Temple - Temple is given funding from the state in exchange for tuition discounts for instate students but it is run privately, and, because of that, it is neither a public university nor a private university in the traditional sense. However, since it is run privately under its own charter, governed by its own board of trustees with a minority representation from the state, and has it's own assets under its own control, it is legally a private entity. D is correct in the legal sense.

(this is also true of Pitt and Penn State)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwea ... ion#Temple



golfnut69
Tsunami
Posts: 7010
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:38 am
Status: Online

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby golfnut69 » Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:20 am

Aberzombie1892 wrote:For further clarification on Temple - Temple is given funding from the state in exchange for tuition discounts for instate students but it is run privately, and, because of that, it is neither a public university nor a private university in the traditional sense. However, since it is run privately under its own charter, governed by its own board of trustees with a minority representation from the state, and has it's own assets under its own control, it is legally a private entity. D is correct in the legal sense.

(this is also true of Pitt and Penn State)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwea ... ion#Temple


I am not sure the last time wikipedia was update...but on the Temple website it clearly states PUBLIC-State Related University
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 3G4n1AF60Q


Be a Hero Today.... Adopt a Shelter Pet... The Beatles once sang "Can't Buy Me Love"... I disagree, unconditional Love can be bought, for the nominal adoption fee at your local Pet Shelter !

Aberzombie1892
Swell
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 8:16 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby Aberzombie1892 » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:09 am

golfnut69 wrote:
Aberzombie1892 wrote:For further clarification on Temple - Temple is given funding from the state in exchange for tuition discounts for instate students but it is run privately, and, because of that, it is neither a public university nor a private university in the traditional sense. However, since it is run privately under its own charter, governed by its own board of trustees with a minority representation from the state, and has it's own assets under its own control, it is legally a private entity. D is correct in the legal sense.

(this is also true of Pitt and Penn State)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwea ... ion#Temple


I am not sure the last time wikipedia was update...but on the Temple website it clearly states PUBLIC-State Related University
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 3G4n1AF60Q


Both are correct. The official designation is "State-Related", but it's legally a private entity even if it is described as a public university by third parties. It's certainly odd, but it allows the state do not have to build up its own elite public schools by supporting good private schools in exchange for those private schools giving tuition discounts to in-state students. If Louisiana actually cared about high education, this would be a neat model for Tulane to have in regard to the instate students since it could charge instate students less in tuition in exchange for more money from the state.



DfromCT
Tsunami
Posts: 5205
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Location: Stamford, CT
Status: Online

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby DfromCT » Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:15 pm

Getting back on Tulane (topic) let's address another point: Fans "gameday experience" has gone down since Barbara Burke left. We need Troy Dannen to address this immediately. A good start would be to hire someone with serious ambitions to take over Burke's roll. If he/she gets hired away for doing a good job, great. If Dannen gets hired away, that person has an opportunity to interview for the AD job. It needs to be someone capable of running day-to-day operations (and fix problems with the fan experience) as Burke did.


" For every alum, no matter where they are...I want a football coach that's going to make Saturday something you anticipate and look forward to." Troy Dannen

Thank you all for your ongoing support as my son Zach continues to beat leukemia

winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 10545
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby winwave » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:36 pm

DfromCT wrote:Getting back on Tulane (topic) let's address another point: Fans "gameday experience" has gone down since Barbara Burke left. We need Troy Dannen to address this immediately. A good start would be to hire someone with serious ambitions to take over Burke's roll. If he/she gets hired away for doing a good job, great. If Dannen gets hired away, that person has an opportunity to interview for the AD job. It needs to be someone capable of running day-to-day operations (and fix problems with the fan experience) as Burke did.


That person has been hired and her name is Monica Lebron.


It's the facilities stupid!

User avatar
Show Me
Riptide
Posts: 2505
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:24 pm
Location: Saint Bernard
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby Show Me » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:50 pm

winwave wrote:
DfromCT wrote:Getting back on Tulane (topic) let's address another point: Fans "gameday experience" has gone down since Barbara Burke left. We need Troy Dannen to address this immediately. A good start would be to hire someone with serious ambitions to take over Burke's roll. If he/she gets hired away for doing a good job, great. If Dannen gets hired away, that person has an opportunity to interview for the AD job. It needs to be someone capable of running day-to-day operations (and fix problems with the fan experience) as Burke did.


That person has been hired and her name is Monica Lebron.

Except she's fundraising. Not sure who's doing day to day operations.



winwave
Wild Pelican
Posts: 10545
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:34 am
Status: Offline

Re: SAME OLD SAME OLD TULANE?

Postby winwave » Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:54 pm

She has multiple roles and one includes gameday operations. She was very interested in the feedback on the problems in that area.


It's the facilities stupid!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 6 guests