I would guess that the whole statement will be coming soon. Basically,"there is no issue here".
Statement from Coach Flood
- Thread starter HeavenUniv.
- Start date
Sounds like all Flood did was ask the Prof if there was a chance Barnwell could do extra work to get a better grade.
Yeah, we all know his job is of higher stature and standards than say the secretary of state.
The question no one seems to be answering is, "today is August 25, why hasn't he received his grades yet" ?
Something tells me this professor isn't a fan of the football team. Do we know who it is?
You would have to imagine he wouldn't be stupid enough to use an email, which will 100% be documented, if he was engaging in an even slightly questionable conversation. If he is, he deserves to be fired.
My guess is that he asked about a timeline and the professor over reacted and reached out to someone.
My guess is that he asked about a timeline and the professor over reacted and reached out to someone.
If he asked the prof "is there anything Nadir can do to earn a better grade?" he might indeed be fired. What an idiot.
???
Why? Students can get extra credit and raise their grade. What is wrong with that?
"Let me start by saying I'm disappointed at the tone of the article that (associate athletic director for media relations/football) Hasim (Phillips) showed me this morning," Flood said. "I've been the head coach now, this is going into my fourth season, and I've had a lot of interaction with the teachers on our campus. I think that that article not only insults my integrity, but insults the integrity of our faculty. I've come to realize that our faculty here at Rutgers is beyond reproach and I have a tremendous amount of respect for them."
"Our faculty are part of our program," Flood said. "Just as recently as the other day, we had two faculty members at our practice. Now, any correspondence that I had with a professor in regard to a student-athlete would really be of this nature: One, to be in support of whatever decision that faculty member made, and two, to inquire as to whether or not there would be an opportunity to earn a better grade. Now, this practice is not unusual at Rutgers. Many students all over campus receive what are called 'T grades' doing work outside of when the class ends that semester to earn a better grade."
"Our faculty are part of our program," Flood said. "Just as recently as the other day, we had two faculty members at our practice. Now, any correspondence that I had with a professor in regard to a student-athlete would really be of this nature: One, to be in support of whatever decision that faculty member made, and two, to inquire as to whether or not there would be an opportunity to earn a better grade. Now, this practice is not unusual at Rutgers. Many students all over campus receive what are called 'T grades' doing work outside of when the class ends that semester to earn a better grade."
If any Rutgers student is eligible to try to get a T-grade,then that should include all student-athletes.
That sounds a bit ridiculous. Asking someone to change a grade or for a certain grade is 100% wrong. Asking if they could do extra credit or something along those lines to improve thier grade isn't IMO.
Because that question coming from a fooball coach is really inappropriate. That's a discussion for the student and the professor to have. When a famous authority figure at the college sends that email it could be read as pressure/ dick swagger. I'd have to see the email but I'd imagine some discipline at a minimum will be imposed. Maybe 2 game suspension.
This seems to be the bottom line for me. There is nothing impermissible about a procedure available to all students.
Great to get out in front of this. Kudos to coach.
The only problem I have is this:
"Our faculty are part of our program," Flood said.
Have to be very careful with faculty and boosters. They (we) are NOT part of the program. We are part of the "community."
I have witnessed too much nonsense in other programs wherein the faculty and boosters considered themselves to be "part of the program." And wherein the coaching staff/s and athletic administration as well as the school administration and BOG took that approach. It is a dangerously slippery slope.
The only problem I have is this:
"Our faculty are part of our program," Flood said.
Have to be very careful with faculty and boosters. They (we) are NOT part of the program. We are part of the "community."
I have witnessed too much nonsense in other programs wherein the faculty and boosters considered themselves to be "part of the program." And wherein the coaching staff/s and athletic administration as well as the school administration and BOG took that approach. It is a dangerously slippery slope.
I think at this point Barnwell has probably already done additional work to raise his grade but hasn't done enough, which is why he is still in limbo and possibly ineligible. He had all summer to raise his grade and didn't get it done. If this is the case and Flood decided to email the professor to ask 'is there anything more he can do' then he very well may have a problem.
Not trying to be negative but this year's classes start next week, yet Flood is inquiring about a grade that Barnwell had a semester and a summer to raise...IMO, that doesn't look good.
Not trying to be negative but this year's classes start next week, yet Flood is inquiring about a grade that Barnwell had a semester and a summer to raise...IMO, that doesn't look good.
Huh? Barnwell wasn't spending this summer tying to "raise a grade." He was taking summer classes.
Really, so he did absolutely nothing to raise his grade after finding out he was ineligible and Flood waits until a week before a new school year starts and 2 weeks before the season to ask 'is there anything more he can do' lol.
Flood has been saying since the spring that Barnwell had work to do to be eligible this year, my guess is he had to spend some time doing that...otherwise being ineligible is a foregone conclusion.
Flood has been saying since the spring that Barnwell had work to do to be eligible this year, my guess is he had to spend some time doing that...otherwise being ineligible is a foregone conclusion.
The University of Georgia NCAA violation case mentioned in the "anti-Flood" article, had the coach proposing and the professor (a friend of the coach) conspiring on December 9th to create an independent study course for that fall semester, giving the athlete an incomplete grade, thus "allowing" the athlete to do the work in the spring. This would would permit the potentially ineligible athlete to compete during the spring semester. Seven days later the professor friend posted the grade for the independent study course, an "A." By the way, the athlete was waiting on a math grade which was in jeopardy, which turned out to be a passing grade so that the athlete would have been eligible anyway. And Georgia compliance officials beforehand essentially advised the coach that he could do nothing to keep the athlete eligible if the athlete flunked the math course. The coach unsuccessfully went with a "no harm-no foul" defense saying that the athlete would have been eligible if the coach never concocted the independent study course.
My suspicion is that our fact pattern is quite different that the University of Georgia violation although my sense is that the SL would hope otherwise. If something like this occurred at RU we would be in trouble, and deservedly so. On the other hand, if our coach simply asked if there was something the athlete could do to improve his grade, then I see a much lesser problem. I like the fact that what transpired was done in writing via email, rather than verbally so there should be no question as to what occurred factually. I don't like the it that someone in house thinks so little of the university and its reputation to run to the media giving the SL an opportunity to imply that something truly nefarious along the lines of the Georgia case has occurred. I expect we would self report violations to the NCAA and these would become public just as the Georgia violation is public. But the article and those behind it are agenda driven. If you truly care about RU you would not go to the media until and unless you thought a violation was not investigated or was otherwise being swept under the rug.
So is this a case where the coach would do whatever is ethically and legally acceptable to support the academic achievement of a student but rot within the university would undermine the program in a heartbeat?
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/UGA-Infractions DecisionPUBLIC.pdf
My suspicion is that our fact pattern is quite different that the University of Georgia violation although my sense is that the SL would hope otherwise. If something like this occurred at RU we would be in trouble, and deservedly so. On the other hand, if our coach simply asked if there was something the athlete could do to improve his grade, then I see a much lesser problem. I like the fact that what transpired was done in writing via email, rather than verbally so there should be no question as to what occurred factually. I don't like the it that someone in house thinks so little of the university and its reputation to run to the media giving the SL an opportunity to imply that something truly nefarious along the lines of the Georgia case has occurred. I expect we would self report violations to the NCAA and these would become public just as the Georgia violation is public. But the article and those behind it are agenda driven. If you truly care about RU you would not go to the media until and unless you thought a violation was not investigated or was otherwise being swept under the rug.
So is this a case where the coach would do whatever is ethically and legally acceptable to support the academic achievement of a student but rot within the university would undermine the program in a heartbeat?
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/UGA-Infractions DecisionPUBLIC.pdf
And since Nadir's eligibility is still up in the air, Flood asked if Barnwell had time to improve his academic status.
But made an honest mistake of contacting the Professor directly instead of through the usual channels .
Kyle might have felt he needed to get an answer ASAP and going through Scott Walker might wind up taking to long and hurting Nadir's chances to get extra credit work finished before it was to late to do so.
I understand that sending that e-mail was against the rules ( another thread had a poster say that was in the article about Flood contacting that Professor) and if so, Flood will be disciplined.
If not, Kyle was only trying to find out if Barnwell still had a chance to continue working on being eligible before decision was made , because the final determination on Nadir's academic eligibility hadn't been released , even though ( I believe) summer classes ended 8/12
Why? Couldn't the professor just say "Yes, the student can still do X" or Yes, and I will speak to the student about it" or "No, the grade is final." or "I will speak to the student directly."
Coach Flood is a "famous authority figure" at the school? I must have missed that part. You are implying that the professor may feel pressured by fact of the email to give the player an opportunity to improve his grade. Nothing in the email indicates such pressure being applied or suggests any improper motive, or that the professor could not say NO. Nothing in the history of RU administration suggests that the professor was not free to say NO or ignore the email without any repercussion whatsoever.
I'm getting really sick of the negative speculation by supposed fans of this program.
It sounds like what really happened is that Flood sent an email that was completely appropriate, and the professor got in a huff, because they felt like they were above having to contact a football coach. If anything, this shows the professor to be the one acting like a whiny child instead of like a member of a community. They ran to the media trying to cause problems for another school employee, rather than simply ignore it, or address it directly by responding or referring it to the superiors.
I am not sure what the rules are, but you have to wonder if KF did this before(or even Schiano), on behalf of another player, and it worked. Usually when some one is caught doing something they shouldn't be(not saying this is right or wrong) they have probably done it before.
Or maybe Barnwell already tried to do the work to raise the grade but fell short, then Flood emails the professor asking if there is anything more he could do. That's the only scenario I see, why would Flood be asking that question this late in the game? Not trying to be negative, just realistic.
Coaches contacting professors about players grades and eligibility, hmmm...what could that lead to.
If that is true then why doesn't the professor just say "no"? I really want to know who this professor is.
Latest posts
-
Olympic Sports Rutgers Softball Returns with Youth Movement This Season
- Latest: MarkInCapeMay
-
-
