Espn.com is reporting that coaches are backing a proposal to allow some athletes from professional teams to be recruited by colleges within the NCAA.

Michael Rogers, chair of the NCAA Division I Amateurism Cabinet, told ESPN that coaches associations have lined up behind his group’s recommendation to open college sports to prospects who come up through clubs that include professional athletes, but didn’t receive salaries.

This proposal has grown support because of the increasing arrival of foreign athletes to NCAA college athletic programs.  Current NCAA amateurism guidelines state that an athlete can jeopardize their eligibility by simply playing alongside a teammate who is given more than necessary expenses from that club.

The proposal, introduced in June, is under review by the NCAA constituency. Coaches associations are key stakeholders, and those with tennis, volleyball and football have either signaled support or formally registered no concern. So far, only hockey has balked at the proposal, which will be amended to exempt that sport, Rogers said.

“One athlete professionalizes all of his teammates,” said Rogers, a Baylor law school professor. “There’s a growing consensus that there is an unfair standard. It needs to be changed, and that’s what we’re trying to accomplish this year.”

Of the 490 incoming athletes penalized for amateurism violations last year, 434 were foreign students, according to the NCAA. Punishments range from being forced to sit out games to, more rarely, permanent ineligibility. In 2007, basketball players Lucca Staiger of Iowa State and Fabian Boeke of Washington State were sidelined for a year for playing on a German club with two teammates who received benefits in excess of NCAA limits.

International athletes have long helped NCAA programs chase national championships, from the University of Houston’s Hakeem Olajuwon in basketball in the 1980s to University of Arizona golfer Annika Sorenstam in the 1990s. But with the rise of the Internet as a recruiting tool, their numbers have exploded. There are now about 10,000 foreign athletes in Division I, three times as many as there were a decade ago. A few teams — such as the Baylor women’s tennis team — are made up entirely of foreigners.

The NCAA is also struggling to adequately investigate all foreign prospects. In volleyball, one of the most popular team sports for women globally, many coaches contend that the NCAA has failed to create a level playing field. Instead, they say that by allowing some recruits and rejecting others, despite similar situations, some teams get a leg up in chasing national championships.

“It’s an important issue because there are people that are playing in [NCAA sports] that have professionalized themselves,” said Terry Liskevych, head women’s volleyball coach at Oregon State. “There needs to be one good rule that everybody can live by and is very transparent.”

The impact of such a proposal may be the biggest change to hit the NCAA landscape in recent years.  As this case unfolds, it will be interesting to see how NCAA officials will respond.

–Brian Linklater

According to ESPN.com, there are eligibility issues concerning John Wall, Kentucky’s top recruit and Mississippi State’s key freshman Renardo Sidney.  Mississippi State’s compliance director Bracky Brett has stated that Sideny is not eligible to compete yet because of amateurism issues.  He is still able to practice with the team.

This is the first time questions concerning Kentucky’s John Wall have been publicly recognized.  ESPN.com states that Kentucky’s compliance department has been investigating Wall’s eligibility for months because his former AAU coach, Brian Clifton was a certified agent.

NCAA protocol states that any case involving pre-enrollment eligibility issues needs to be investigated by the NCAA Eligibility Center.  Both players are able to practice with their respective teams but will not be able to compete in NCAA sanctioned competition until the amateurism issues are resolved.  If this were an academic eligibility issue, the player would not be allowed to practice or compete according to NCAA guidelines.

“Those are amateur issues that arose prior to their coming to our schools,” SEC commissioner Mike Slive said of Sidney and Wall. “Those are strictly amateurism issues. As we told our people, somebody needs to determine if they are eligible. It’s not relative to you, it’s relative to them.”

Slive also stated that Wall and Sidney are the only two SEC freshman basketball players who have unresolved eligibility issues.  The SEC has a history of rule-breaking and is considered an “outlaw” conference when abiding by NCAA guidelines.

Brian Clifton, Wall’s AAU coach, was a certified agent with FIBA, basketball’s international governing body, for nearly a year. Under NCAA rule that equates to Wall accepting illegal benefits from an agent. Consequently Wall could have to repay any and all expenses Clifton footed during that period before he can play with Kentucky.

NCAA rule also stipulates that an athlete can be withheld from at least 10 percent of a team’s games as part of the punishment.

A source told ESPN.com that the Kentucky compliance department had been working feverishly to clarify Wall’s eligibility in recent weeks and had been going back to 2007 to see exactly how much money is owed. Wall made two unofficial visits to Kentucky that fall while Billy Gillispie was head coach — in September he attended a UK-Louisville football game and in October he returned for the Wildcats’ Big Blue Madness opening-night practice.

Under the guidelines set by the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement, agent violations can fall under two categories:

• If an individual accepts significant monetary benefits from an agent, his or her eligibility should not be reinstated.

• If an individual accepts benefits from an agent that are not significant enough to warrant permanent ineligibility, the student-athlete will be withheld for the violation and will be required to repay the value of the benefits.

The committee goes on to say that if a student-athlete accepts benefits from an agent greater than $101, the student-athlete will have to repay the money and be subject to a minimum 10 percent withholding condition — in other words, withheld from 10 percent of a team’s regular-season games.

“There can be mitigating circumstances, but the rule of thumb would be they’d have to pay back the money,” NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said, declining comment on Wall’s particular case. “And if it was a significant amount they could potentially be withheld from games. The line in the sand is if an agent or whatever they want to call themselves was marketing an individual student-athlete or prospective student-athlete based on their athletic abilities. If so, there are potential issues.”

Osburn also cited a rule that stipulates: “To maintain amateur status and NCAA eligibility, a student-athlete or their friends and family cannot have an agreement — oral or written — with an agent or accept benefits from an agent until his or her eligibility expires.”

–Brian Linklater

A fundamental precept of college athletics is amateurism. That is part of the charm of college sports, and the NCAA is committed to keeping it that way. However, in February, an Ohio court ruling declared that one rule aiming to preserve this quality goes too far.

The rule, NCAA bylaw 12.3.2.1, prohibits players from having advisors (lawyers or agents) present in negotiations or having advisors directly contact professional teams. Erie County Judge Tygh M. Tone’s decision resulted from pitcher Andrew Oliver’s suit against the NCAA. Oliver became ineligible under the rule because, before deciding to play at Oklahoma State, Oliver admittedly had his lawyer present in negotiations with the Minnesota Twins. (Professional baseball teams can draft players straight out of high school.) Judge Tone characterized the rule as illegal because it interferes with a student-athlete’s right to legal representation.

Now, shortly before a jury trial to determine Oliver’s damages, he and the NCAA have reached a settlement that seems to give both sides a little bit of what they wanted. Oliver, drafted by the Detroit Tigers, walks away with $750,000, and the NCAA gets the suit dismissed and the trial judge’s order vacated. In short, it gets to keep its rule–at least for now. What other courts will have to say if such a situation arises again is still to be seen. The NCAA is dedicated to upholding the integrity of amateurism standards and vigorously defends the rule, but Judge Tone’s decision has at least raised questions about how courts may view the guideline.

– Hannah Smith

Image Source

I’ve recently written a couple of blog post that are receive a bit of attention, the first was about the changing role of education and the second about Nurphy a new online service for conversations. I’ve decided to see if I can combine then by asking question about one on the other and seeing what happens. It’s a bit of an experiment really.

So, here goes. I’ve posted the following up as a conversation that anyone can join, once registered with Nurphy. Will people be willing to sign up for an untested service at this early stage? I’ll find out. The conversation starts here.

Whatever, I’d still like people’s opinions about the following.

Is the rise of the Professional Amateur Pro-Am, the increase in open educational resources (OER), personal learning environments (PLE), and greater significance of informal learning and research going to lead to a move away from an emphasis on institutional, formal learning?

As people are able to continually express their skills, abilities and achievements via social media, will formalized accreditation, with potentially out-dated assessment systems, be less relevant?

Or are formal learning and research institutions able to adapt quickly enough to the new requirements of society?

I recently wrote a post that touched upon openness of and elitism in education. I just wanted to express a few more quick thoughts on this, though it is something I intend to return to with a more in-depth look at open education and resources.

I feel the elitism of universities doesn’t lie with who is allowed to become a students, it is more related to the fact that resources are securely tied up within universities making those resources inaccessible to the majority. Resources in this context could be books or journals (hard copies or online with paid for institutional subscriptions), the academic discourse, the talents of faculty, the research equipment and facilities, past Ph.D. theses, etc. In addition, it relates to the subjects and specific topics that are deemed to be worthy of teaching or researching, or what the funders deem so.

Universities deal in the currency of degrees, a passport in society. Why in times of recession, such as at present, should it be that otherwise capable individuals are denied their chance of a degree passport because the government puts a squeeze on the number of places available in order to balance the books? A further point is the question of assessment, and is it really a useful measure, or is the ongoing presentation of someone’s work, either within a university or indeed outside it (informal learning), a better reflection of their capabilities and abilities? Indeed, evidence is beginning to accumulate indicating that those who present their work using social media place themselves in a more advantageous position for employment. And shouldn’t publicly funded research be in the public domain anyway? I’ve previously written about Open Notebook Science.

I can envisage how much of this could be opened up to greater access, but I was having a problem with scientific equipment and facilities and how that might be liberated.

There have been some interesting examples where institution based science projects have reached out to the public for assistance. There was SETI were you signed up and your computer were utilized while it was on (and you weren’t using it) to process data to search for extra-terrestrial life. Then I recall a project were public volunteers were called for to look for new astronomical bodies in tens of thousands of photographs of space; these were provided online and after doing a test to see how accurately you could assess the images you could process the live data. It was discovered that humans were much better at seeing differences in the data than if the processing was done electronically with image recognition.

Therefore, in a rather detached way people were participating in scientific research.

However, I then heard the repeat of the Friday 25 September Science in Action programme^* on BBC World Service at 4:32GMT on Sunday morning. (Sometimes I’m awake in the night or wake up early.) Listen to the programme. The significant part where this blog post is concerned is the DIYbio article. The article talked about people who are undertaking scientific research, bio-engineering in this case, in their own homes using inexpensive equipment, some bought secondhand on Ebay(R) for a fraction of its cost new to a research lab. They are able to design and create new biological parts, devices and systems. Integral to this approach is the support from online communities, DIYbio.org for example, sometimes with professionals voluntarily assisting these communities.

Clay Shirky has talked about the increase in mass amateurization, without being amateurish. This is the breaking down of the dichotomy between ‘experts’ and amateurs, with the creation of a new category – the Professional Amateurs or Pro-Ams. Charles Leadbeater in his book We-Think talks about how mass creativity has seen sites including Wikipedia and Youtube, and the Linux operating system rise in prominence and signal a shift in the way we and society can organise ourselves; participation becoming the key element.

All of this, for me raises the question, “Are universities, education systems and society more generally getting ready for the future of learning and research?”

^* This particular programme doesn’t seem to be archived, though you can usually listen to the previous two recent episodes, so I guess you’ve probably got a couple of week to hear it before the link is broken.

This morning, the blogosphere will no doubt be rife with discussion of the merits of Alesha Dixon as the new judge on Strictly Come Dancing (BBC1, 9pm). So much so that peoply hardly need my two cents. Suffice to say that I thought there was something intangibly creepy about the sight of one moderately clueless but beautiful and amiable young woman sandwiched between three middle-aged men thanks to an inexplicable decision on high by the BBC. I, like many, found Arlene Phillips irredeemably annoying, and would quite happily have accepted her replacement by someone with some comparable expertise. Yet the presence of Darcy Bussel in the audience, who Bruce favoured over Alesha when discussing movement and grace, only highlighted the gaping chasm in knowledge between Dixon and the other judges. Or why did they not go for the radiant and lovely Karen Hardy, tragically missing from the lineup of professional dancers this year? Surely a former world champion Latin dancer (as well as former winner of Strictly) could have more to offer by way of feedback and advice? More important than this, her criticism would be far more palatable to the professional dancers, who I saw straining time and again to be gracious in the face of a young woman for whom they were dialling down their own abilities to fit her lack of training only two years ago. I feel for Dixon, because she was a wonderful and deserving winner, but a winner of an amateur competition, and she remains an amateur. She is nowhere near ready to judge others’ efforts.

However, that is not what I really want to discuss. Before the broadcast of last night’s opening installment of Strictly my Mum, my sister and many that I know were having fits of excitement about its return, yet I remained curiously numb about the whole affair. Why was this? Because I love watching dancing. I love watching good dancing, and watching people who have never danced before stumbling around the floor before advancing slowly through the weeks to the point of glittering competence just doesn’t hold that much excitement for me any more.

After so many series, many people will, these days, be tuning in for their favourite professionals, and their emotional ups and downs as the series goes on has taken on more resonance as we have observed their hard work, victories and disappointments on the show over several years. But an obvious add-on to this fact is that they are simply much better dancers than the actual contestants. Watching the professional showcases is, for me, the most exhilarating part of any episode. Seeing Vincent and Flavia glide around the floor with their singularly self-contained passion never fails to send chills down my spine. Lilia cheekily eyeing the audience or Matthew throwing himself into every dance like a 1950s showrunner hold equal thrills.

*sizzle sizzle*

Which is why, year on year, I have expected the BBC to yield to the inevitable and start broadcasting professional dance championships. I cannot understand why they have not taken advantage of Britain’s reawakened joy for dance by showing us how it should really be done, by letting us see the cream of the crop really fight it out without burdening us with endless and irrelevant talk of the contestants’ “journeys”. Getting the support of the BBC would give these championships the benefit of new funding and sponsorship, driving them to new heights of glamour and excitement. Besides, if the BBC claims to be a public service broadcaster, I can’t help but see it as their duty to take the public’s enthusiasm for an entertainment show and take us on to its natural conclusion – a display of real professionalism.

On top of this, it was not exactly difficult to see what was wrong with the various amateurs’ performances last night. We knew what the judges were going to say about their shoulders, or their stompiness, or their lack of performance before it was said. We are outgrowing amateurism. It’s time that we see real competition, where the differences in skill are infinitesimal, where one tiny slip up in footwork can mean the difference between winning and losing, where commentary by Len and Craig could guide us through the intricacies of professional dance judging, giving us a deeper understanding of how it all works and what constitutes really great dance.

And what have we had so far? The Eurovision Dance Contest, which purported to show us the best of Europe, but simply constituted a showcase of popular contestants on the Strictlys around the continent. It was all entertaining enough, but I didn’t really see the point.

Certainly, the ratings for a tournament like this would be nowhere near that achieved by Strictly Come Dancing but the fact that everything to do with dance will not push BBC ratings into the stratosphere should never be a reason not to broadcast. Professional dance is something that will hold a tight sway over a significant portion of people and therefore deserves to be shown on a channel where it can be freely accessed. It strikes me as a perfect fit for BBC3, which is still struggling to find a foothold with its declared audience. So come on, BBC, do the right thing. Follow your remit, and give us real dance.

Read the debate intro and Sports Geek’s argument that college athletes should receive compensation while playing.

Lesson number one, pay the players.

There is no more sure-fire way to ruin the game of college football than to turn it into a simplified version of professional football.

The NCAA has one simple rule for its athletes – they cannot, “Use his or her athletics skill (directly or indirectly) for pay in any form in that sport.” Failure of an athlete to comply with that rule means that they are not eligible to participate in NCAA sanctioned events.

The instant that rule is lifted, all athletes within the NCAA become professionals, and what would follow is a series of events that would destroy college sports altogether.

Using football as the example…

In order to maximize their newfound professional status, the NFL’s eligibility rule of a minimum age requirement would be challenged, and most likely overturned. Since these are no longer amateur athletes we are discussing, the NFL would have no grounds to enforce their rule. The moment a “young” player under this proposed pay-for-play college format is denied access to the NFL, they can respond that they are already getting paid to play, and just want access to the greater funding provided by the NFL. How can the NFL justify that these players are too young to play professional football when they are ALREADY playing professional football? I’ve got news for you… they can’t!

The result would be to see the level of talent within the NCAA ranks substantially decline as players flood the NFL ranks. Don’t agree? Well answer this question – why would an athlete play football for the Miami Hurricanes and receive a $100 per day stipend (for example), when they can play football for the Miami Dolphins and potentially receive millions? The answer – they wouldn’t, and for the very select few who nobly state they would stay “for a college education,” those players would only serve to justify the reason NOT to compensate players.

The NCAA, no matter what the compensation structure looked like, would not be able to compete with the salaries offered by professional organizations. Therefore, the players that were NFL-caliber would immediately leave the NCAA, and only the sub-standard talent would be left behind. That would seriously weaken the NCAA talent pool, essentially transforming it into a “minor-league” or “semi-pro” format, where only the players who couldn’t cut it in the big-leagues were playing.

For those players left behind, the question of how they would be compensated then must be answered. While there are countless details that would have to be negotiated (and I have no interest in delving into that minutia), consider for simplicity’s sake that there are two primary theories on how to offer compensation and funding:

1. Provide equal funding to all schools and all athletes, regardless of performance, to ensure equity across the board.
2. Provide funding and compensation in direct correlation to performance, recognizing that some people/schools perform better than others.

Both of these options create issues, and both would have long-lasting, negative impact on the sport. Choosing the first option would essentially take recruiting power away from the “big schools,” thus affecting their ability to continue and generate the revenue they are accustomed to. The second option, however, would seriously cripple the “weaker schools” in their ability to provide any kind of real funding, creating even further separation between the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

As a final point, for the very large majority of college athletes, the compensation of receiving a college-level education complete with books, tuition, and room and board is more than enough. For the very small percentage of college athletes that actually go on to compete professionally, they eventually receive more equitable funding for their playing time on the field. The rest of the college athletes willingly (and happily) use their athletic ability as a means to fund their college education.

The average debt for a college student, as of 2007, was listed at $22,700, but when you factor in the implied advantages that a college education brings, which includes access to higher-paying jobs, the “real” value of a college education becomes MUCH greater. Some studies have shown that college graduates can expect to make as much as $1 million – $2 million more in salary over the course of their lifetime than a high school graduate. That sounds like some pretty fair compensation to me, all at the cost of playing a game for a few years while you study!

If you still disagree, and feel like the financial burden of attending college is not that big of a deal, then send me your address so I can happily forward my student loan bills to you every month, and you can pay them off for me!

David Reynolds, 51, from Swaythling in Southampton, has spent 15 years making the replica of the Brent Bravo oil rig.

He is hoping for a place in the record books and is waiting for confirmation his matchstick model is the biggest. The current record stands at three-and-a-half million matches.

Mr Reynolds said: “Most people watch about six or seven hours of television in the evening, you multiple that by seven, that’s 40 hours a week.

“Whereas at the end of 40 hours work on the model I have something to show for it.”

But he admitted: “Early this year I was thinking of breaking it up because it took up two bedrooms, the loft, two sheds and half my garage.”

However, the model, which is so big it had to be made in 14 separate parts, has found a temporary home at Bursledon Brickworks Museum.

Mr Reynolds’ long-suffering wife Julie said:

“I am absolutely sick to death at the sight of a matchstick but I think there is still more to come unfortunately.

“But at least I know where he is and what he’s doing, so I’d rather have him there than down the pub.”

In favor of amateurism. Nothing takes the fun out of something like doing it for a living.

My friend Hannah used the Counterpoint Tool from Synchronous Objects as a way of framing related ideas.  This process of examining a web of ideas first in terms of one relationship, then another, then maybe several relationships at once, brings a holistic, open-ended and non-linear knowledge of what those ideas are.  The process is useful to me right now as I try to integrate my ideas about my creative research and right livelihood, as well as the political ramifications of Rudolf Laban and his career.

I’m sitting with some plain white paper and a pencil and trying to sketch the contrapuntal play of these ideas on the paper, but having difficulty mapping the ideas out for myself visually.  I seem to need my model to move, to be able choreograph them and thereby see how they play with each other.  Presently I have a series of triangles with a word, representing a chunk of concepts at the corners of each triangle.  From one triangle to another one or two of the words may stay the same.  The terms in the triangles are these:

sustainability, ascona, anna halprin, my creative process, rudolf laban, wendell berry, somatics, and dance reconstruction

I’d like for this model to be able to show how the triangles interelate, and how varying relationships between concepts can show different facets of each concept.   Despite my training in Labanotation, I can’t think of a visual representation for this inherently relational way of being with ideas.

Now, I will try something like the facebook friend wheel.  I’m placing the ideas around a wheel with an open center.  Any idea can connect to any other idea along the wheel.   The important thing is not to only draw a connection but to use the visual connection between two or more words to better understand the words and their relationship.  I’ve added a few words to fill out my wheel now, including the following:

physical training, freedom, emerson, thoreau, amateurism, mothering ballet, tap, labanotation, jazz, theater of the oppressed, mark johnson, maria montessori, john holt, friere, critical pedagogy, movement choirs, gender, husbandry/housewifery, working with joshua

mmmmmm…..

from the temopary to to conpleatly customised

for more covered cars go to 3.bp.blogspot.com/…/Black-cab-art_car_10.jpg

With the news that Google has launched the UK version of its Street View service, which allows users to browse through literally thousands of streets in over 25 UK cities, it seems that never before have so many people had the opportunity to so easily explore their local community & architectural landscape.

 However, in this world of high-tech imagery & instant download, how much more do we actually know about the history of our town & it’s inhabitants?

 For the Arboretum opening in April, I propose to construct a ‘model village’ of Barking Town, complete with what I believe to be interesting buildings that I feel have been overshadowed by recent developments.  Local residents will also be encouraged to get involved, perhaps through workshops that will allow them to add their favourite places & buildings to the Village.

(Babacombe & Blackpool’s Model Villages)

 On opening, the model village will be accompanied by a map / brochure outlining the particular interest of the buildings as well as a brief overview of Barkings lesser-known architectural assets.

Eastbury House, Barking.

(Perhaps an example of very old & forgotten history?)

It is strange when you visit Eastbury Square, Barking today and find an Elizabethan manor house stuck bang in the middle of rows of terrace housing. I have heard less intelligent residents comment that it is odd that such a dwelling should be placed here.

If only they would stop and think of the folly of their statement, they would quickly realise that this dwelling has survived here since the 16th century– a relic of the Elizabethan age, being occupied by their gentry– and hence the name of the street which leads there, being designated as Tudor Road. The house today is a Grade 1 listed building, and was listed as such in 1954. It is usually described as “an important example of a medium-large sized Elizabethan manor house”.

There is much dispute over when it was built. Analysis of twelve of its timbers by dendrochronology from the roof, by the Ancient Monuments Laboratory in 1997, suggests that its construction date was not before 1566. The official date noted on a leaden spout rainwater head on the south side of the house is 1573; this is no longer visible. In all probability it took many years to complete and was built between these dates.

The evolution of Michael Jackson’s personal body work….

This Year’s Amateur Veggie art show…

Skull Birthday Cake…

Link: http://my.opera.com/Mathilda%20Tómasdóttir/albums/show.dml?id=157420

Michael Arndt is a man of matchsticks. Over the course of six years, using 956,000 matchsticks, 1686 tubes of glue, and at least three different varieties of mustache, he built a full-scale replica of a McLaren 4/14 F1 car, at a cost of around 6000 Euros. The giant model takes up Arndt’s entire kitchen and probably his social life. It can be broken down into 45 parts for easy transport to various matchstick-builders conventions.

Hallmark Farm hosts an annual amateur horse show…

Check out the horse’s name plaques!

I am particularly fond of ‘Hot Senorita’ – & by the looks of it not the only one…

‘Sweet Justice’

‘Cascabel’

‘Foxy Hot’

‘Hot Senorita’

‘Foxy Morning’

‘White Hot’

Link: http://www.hallmarkfarm.com.au/halloffame.html

Peasholm Park is a haven of tranquillity in our North Bay – unless the battle ships are taking pot shots at one another!

At times during the summer season, war breaks out on the Lake when 20ft replica boats recreate the tensions of a battle at sea.

For more than 80 years the “Battle of Peasholm” has been played out for 30 minutes three times every week during the summer season, delighting audiences who still find it hard to believe that these boats are mostly manpowered. Until 1929, all the boats were manpowered, but then electricity was introduced and now only the larger boats need to be steered by Council employees.

The British convoy steams round the island, led by the armed merchantmanJervis Bay and the Royal Mail SteamerAsturias converted to a troopship. The RMS Asturias sails on, regardless of one funnel being on fire. After a few minutes the flame did go out and smoke poured from the funnel again.

The HMS Achilles, with a powerful battery of fireworks mounted on her bows. Each of the ships is twenty or so feet long, powered by car batteries, and is piloted by a single park employee.

As soon as the battle is over, a large portion of the audience runs round to hire boats and pedalos to go out on the lake. The enemy battleship remains a hazard to shipping. It’s not often you see a battleship about to be rammed by a giant swan.

Link: http://www.houseoftheorangemonkey.co.uk/monkey/trips/trip941906.htm

Chronological Examples of Mock Tudor buildings…

Various examples & instructions for the ‘Contemporary use of Faux-Brick‘ in the home ?