Plenty Of Blame To Go Around In Cook Case
posted by Scott Hood, Thursday, December 18, 2008
The answer: everyone.
The biggest culprit, though, is Cook himself. He was the one receiving the education. He was the one who was a grown man. He was the one that made the conscious decision to believe the outsiders chirping in his ear about how wealthy he’d become if only he turned pro and that he didn’t need college.
Frankly, considering the amount of resources available to Gamecock student-athletes, it takes an incredible amount of effort – or non-effort as this case shows – to become academically ineligible under NCAA rules.
Remember, all Cook was required to do to retain his eligibility for the bowl game was pass six credit hours. Hence, if he was taking five three-credit classes - a typical semester load - he had to pass just two courses. Explained another way, he could have flunked three of the five classes and still played in the bowl game.
So, the bar wasn’t exactly placed very high.
USC works very hard – and spends a lot of money – to keep athletes eligible. They have to because there is a lot at stake, including the reputation of the university and the financial coffers.
Ultimately, Cook bears the brunt of the burden because it appears he made a conscious decision to stop attending class. Did he become convinced he didn’t need college football anymore? It appears the answer is yes. Getting an education simply stopped being important to him.
The logical step is to ask this question: Was Cook an isolated case or is there a festering problem of academic apathy within the team. Right now, unless something crops up, I’m going with the former.
I’m reminded of the college coach who was asked how many of his players graduated, and he responded, “Everyone who wanted to.”
There is a lot of truth to that statement.
However, Spurrier and the USC coaching staff must share some of the blame as well. The head coach said Tuesday he didn’t learn of Cook’s academic predicament until “late” in the process. Why?
While checking up on every class for every player is unrealistic, Spurrier and his coaches had to know something was up. You mean not one of Cook’s professors informed the football office that Cook was repeatedly absent? Or that the coaches didn’t contact any of Cook’s instructors to find out what was going on?
To borrow a famous phrase from the biggest political scandal of all time, what did Spurrier and the USC coaching staff know and when did they know it? If they knew something was up a while ago, why wasn’t Cook suspended for part or all of one game to send a message?
Was there a breakdown in communications between the football office and the academic arm of the university? Sure sounds like it.
Having asked the question why, I agree with Spurrier that coaches can’t be babysitters all the time. Cook will turn 21 on Jan. 20.
Clearly, Cook’s early departure has Spurrier lamenting the shortage of Gamecock players loyal enough to USC to exhaust their eligibility before moving on to the NFL.
Tuesday, Spurrier talked about a conversation he had with Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford this past weekend in New York City during the Heisman Trophy ceremonies that struck a chord with the HBC. Here is what Spurrier said:
“What was interesting to me was Sam Bradford said he grew up always wanting to play for Oklahoma. He considered it an honor to play for the University of Oklahoma. I told our guys that I hope all you guys can say it was an honor to play for the University of South Carolina because it should be. They should look at it that way. Hopefully, our guys will really represent our school in a first class manner at this bowl game.”
After saying that, Spurrier was asked if USC had improved in that area since he took over as head coach four seasons ago. His response: “I hope so, but we’re not where we need to be in that regard. We’re not as good as we should be in guys loving their university. We’re working on it.”
Athletic director Eric Hyman should do everything within his power to find out why so many top USC players depart the school with eligibility remaining. Remember, both Sidney Rice and Ko Simpson left with two years of eligibility remaining.
Is there a lack of pride in the Gamecocks?
I guess only the players can truly answer that question properly. But their actions on the field speak volumes about their mindset.
Right now, coming off the Clemson loss, the meter is pointing in a negative direction.
But a solid performance in the Outback Bowl can switch things around.
Link to this entry - Discuss this entry - Return to Blog Home
We’re pretty skillful at playing the blame game, so who should be held accountable for the Emanuel Cook debacle that has likely cost the junior strong safety his eligibility?
The answer: everyone.
The biggest culprit, though, is Cook himself. He was the one receiving the education. He was the one who was a grown man. He was the one that made the conscious decision to believe the outsiders chirping in his ear about how wealthy he’d become if only he turned pro and that he didn’t need college.
Frankly, considering the amount of resources available to Gamecock student-athletes, it takes an incredible amount of effort – or non-effort as this case shows – to become academically ineligible under NCAA rules.
Remember, all Cook was required to do to retain his eligibility for the bowl game was pass six credit hours. Hence, if he was taking five three-credit classes - a typical semester load - he had to pass just two courses. Explained another way, he could have flunked three of the five classes and still played in the bowl game.
So, the bar wasn’t exactly placed very high.
USC works very hard – and spends a lot of money – to keep athletes eligible. They have to because there is a lot at stake, including the reputation of the university and the financial coffers.
Ultimately, Cook bears the brunt of the burden because it appears he made a conscious decision to stop attending class. Did he become convinced he didn’t need college football anymore? It appears the answer is yes. Getting an education simply stopped being important to him.
The logical step is to ask this question: Was Cook an isolated case or is there a festering problem of academic apathy within the team. Right now, unless something crops up, I’m going with the former.
I’m reminded of the college coach who was asked how many of his players graduated, and he responded, “Everyone who wanted to.”
There is a lot of truth to that statement.
However, Spurrier and the USC coaching staff must share some of the blame as well. The head coach said Tuesday he didn’t learn of Cook’s academic predicament until “late” in the process. Why?
While checking up on every class for every player is unrealistic, Spurrier and his coaches had to know something was up. You mean not one of Cook’s professors informed the football office that Cook was repeatedly absent? Or that the coaches didn’t contact any of Cook’s instructors to find out what was going on?
To borrow a famous phrase from the biggest political scandal of all time, what did Spurrier and the USC coaching staff know and when did they know it? If they knew something was up a while ago, why wasn’t Cook suspended for part or all of one game to send a message?
Was there a breakdown in communications between the football office and the academic arm of the university? Sure sounds like it.
Having asked the question why, I agree with Spurrier that coaches can’t be babysitters all the time. Cook will turn 21 on Jan. 20.
Clearly, Cook’s early departure has Spurrier lamenting the shortage of Gamecock players loyal enough to USC to exhaust their eligibility before moving on to the NFL.
Tuesday, Spurrier talked about a conversation he had with Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford this past weekend in New York City during the Heisman Trophy ceremonies that struck a chord with the HBC. Here is what Spurrier said:
“What was interesting to me was Sam Bradford said he grew up always wanting to play for Oklahoma. He considered it an honor to play for the University of Oklahoma. I told our guys that I hope all you guys can say it was an honor to play for the University of South Carolina because it should be. They should look at it that way. Hopefully, our guys will really represent our school in a first class manner at this bowl game.”
After saying that, Spurrier was asked if USC had improved in that area since he took over as head coach four seasons ago. His response: “I hope so, but we’re not where we need to be in that regard. We’re not as good as we should be in guys loving their university. We’re working on it.”
Athletic director Eric Hyman should do everything within his power to find out why so many top USC players depart the school with eligibility remaining. Remember, both Sidney Rice and Ko Simpson left with two years of eligibility remaining.
Is there a lack of pride in the Gamecocks?
I guess only the players can truly answer that question properly. But their actions on the field speak volumes about their mindset.
Right now, coming off the Clemson loss, the meter is pointing in a negative direction.
But a solid performance in the Outback Bowl can switch things around.
Link to this entry - Discuss this entry - Return to Blog Home
Previous Blog Entries
Scott Hood. Since February of 2005, Scott has covered the South Carolina football, men's basketball and baseball programs for GamecockCentral. He may be reached by email at scottblog(at)gamecockcentral.com. Replace (at) with @.