Bagel Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 What subject and level? Any personal political doctrine disagrreements? 141410[/snapback] Nope, everyone had a level playing field with me -- even Dolphin fans.
stuckincincy Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 Nope, everyone had a level playing field with me -- even Dolphin fans. 141419[/snapback] Good to hear. But still, what subject did you instruct, and what level?
KD in CA Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 Listening to Bob Davie talk about it since his tenure was ended, that's not the problem at all. They simply aren't allowed to recruit kids who don't meet the academic entry standards, unlike the Holtz era. The prime example is Tony Rice, who wouldn't be allowed in today but was the last QB to lead ND to the National Championship. Davie refused to name names, but he stated that he had commitments from numerous players who went on to prestigious college careers but they were denied entry. 141205[/snapback] Exactly right. My father is pretty tuned in to ND football (class of '53) and has heard a lot from other alum, boosters, etc. Apparently, one of the reasons Holtz left is because the admissions office started to encroach on his turf; he lost a few Tony Rices towards the latter years of his stay and that pissed him off big time and helped to end his coaching stay at ND. Admission standards at OSU or Miami? As for Ty, I never liked the fact that he came in with the preconceived idea for the 'west coast' offense, even though ND had never played or recruited for that style before. Why must coaches insist on trying to mold players to a system, rather than letting the system flow from the players talents? He is however, a standup guy and instilled some pride that was sorely missing under Davies. I wish him well.
BRH Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 Just so people are aware: The minimum standard for athletic recruits at Stanford is a 3.0 high school GPA and a 1000 SAT. This hamstrings Stanford somewhat, but it's not a terribly high hurdle. It's certainly well below the average GPA/SAT of Stanford's incoming freshmen, and nobody who isn't an athlete could get into Stanford with those numbers unless he or she had some very compelling personal story. My understanding about Notre Dame is that they flat out refuse to give any special dispensation to athletes in the admission office. In other words, athletic recruits have to have numbers in line with the general student population. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding. ND's minimum standards for the general population are no doubt below Stanford's, but I'm sure they're higher than 3.0/1000. Even the Ivy League cuts athletes a break. They use something called the Academic Index (AI) for each school, which is a combination of GPA, SAT, and SAT II scores. And maybe something else, though I'm not sure. Each school may admit athletes who fall no lower than one standard deviation below the school's mean AI. (Since Princeton's mean AI is higher than Penn's, this means, for example, that Penn can admit some athletes -- coughcoughbasketballplayerscoughcough -- that Princeton can't.) I believe that for a time Columbia was allowed to admit football players with even lower AIs in an effort to return the program to some semblance of competitiveness (hence Marcellus Wiley), but that's no longer the case.
R. Rich Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 As for Ty, I never liked the fact that he came in with the preconceived idea for the 'west coast' offense, even though ND had never played or recruited for that style before. Why must coaches insist on trying to mold players to a system, rather than letting the system flow from the players talents? He is however, a standup guy and instilled some pride that was sorely missing under Davies. I wish him well. 141426[/snapback] Well, they'll fix that in a jiffy if Urban Meyer opts out of his contract to go to South Bend. They have plenty of experience running a spread offense at Notre Dame, so it won't be an issue.
stuckincincy Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 Getting a 3.0 in high school or college these days, and a 1000 on a SAT after it was watered down several years ago doesn't imply sterling academic achievement. Woe to the school system that doesn't whitewash....
BRH Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 Getting a 3.0 in high school or college these days, and a 1000 on a SAT after it was watered down several years ago doesn't imply sterling academic achievement. 141461[/snapback] Exactly, which is why I laugh whenever people hold Stanford up as an example of athletic success in the face of strict admissions standards. For those of us in our 30s or older, a 1000 SAT today was about 900 in our time. I remember very well when Penn admitted Jerome Allen, the most sought-after hoopster in Philly that year (1989), with an SAT of 880. And there was the time when prized Dartmouth recruit Ian McGinnis received an acceptance letter from Harvard... even though he had never submitted an application. The Ivies have clamped down on such shenanigans of late, I think.
Bagel Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 Just so people are aware: The minimum standard for athletic recruits at Stanford is a 3.0 high school GPA and a 1000 SAT. This hamstrings Stanford somewhat, but it's not a terribly high hurdle. It's certainly well below the average GPA/SAT of Stanford's incoming freshmen, and nobody who isn't an athlete could get into Stanford with those numbers unless he or she had some very compelling personal story. My understanding about Notre Dame is that they flat out refuse to give any special dispensation to athletes in the admission office. In other words, athletic recruits have to have numbers in line with the general student population. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding. ND's minimum standards for the general population are no doubt below Stanford's, but I'm sure they're higher than 3.0/1000. Even the Ivy League cuts athletes a break. They use something called the Academic Index (AI) for each school, which is a combination of GPA, SAT, and SAT II scores. And maybe something else, though I'm not sure. Each school may admit athletes who fall no lower than one standard deviation below the school's mean AI. (Since Princeton's mean AI is higher than Penn's, this means, for example, that Penn can admit some athletes -- coughcoughbasketballplayerscoughcough -- that Princeton can't.) I believe that for a time Columbia was allowed to admit football players with even lower AIs in an effort to return the program to some semblance of competitiveness (hence Marcellus Wiley), but that's no longer the case. 141432[/snapback] Actually the rule of thumb at Stanford for an athlete's admittance is called the Rule of 2100. You take a candidate's gpa, multiply it by 300 and add his/her SAT score. If it's over 2100 then they have a chance to be admitted. For example, if you have a 3.5 gpa and a 1000 SAT score (3.5 x 300) + 1000 = 2050 (under 2100), then you don't have a chance to be admitted. But if you retake the SAT such that you have a 3.5 gpa and a 1100 SAT score (3.5 x 300) + 1100 = 2150 (over 2100) then you have a chance to be admitted. But I think that we're getting away from the point. Despite difficult admission standards Stanford has won the Directors Cup for the best overall athletic program in the country for the last 10 consecutive years. It can be done. Notre Dame is the most storied footall program in the country. It's also an amazing place with fantastic academics. Who wouldn't want to play football for Notre Dame? It should be a top 10 team year in and year out. Under Urban Meyer I think that will happen.
BRH Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 Actually the rule of thumb at Stanford for an athlete's admittance is called the Rule of 2100. You take a candidate's gpa, multiply it by 300 and add his/her SAT score. If it's over 2100 then they have a chance to be admitted. 141509[/snapback] So either things have changed since this article was written, or the reporter got his facts wrong? Potential athletes must meet minimum requirements for consideration, which are a 3.0 GPA and 1000 SAT score.
Bagel Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 So either things have changed since this article was written, or the reporter got his facts wrong? 141518[/snapback] No, not at all. The stated University policy is a minimum 3.0 gpa and 1000 SAT score to be considered. But in practice you need much higher scores to be seriously considered. As the same article continues, "At Stanford, though, the average [athlete's] SAT score tends to be considerably higher than 1000."
BRH Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 No, not at all. The stated University policy is a minimum 3.0 gpa and 1000 SAT score to be considered. But in practice you need much higher scores to be seriously considered. As the same article continues, "At Stanford, though, the average [athlete's] SAT score tends to be considerably higher than 1000." 141579[/snapback] Good point. But I wonder what the average ADMITTED athlete's SAT score is. You wonder if athletes who just barely squeak past the minimum standards harbor some justifiable doubts about their ability to handle a Stanford workload, and say thanks but no thanks, I'm going to Oregon State. Therefore. the average SAT score of the athletes who actually matriculate at Stanford probably doesn't reflect the Admission Office's policy as accurately as would the average SAT of all the athletes who are admitted.
stuckincincy Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 I'm beating my head against a wall. Today's 3.0 and 1000 SAT was yesterday's C student and 650 SAT. The result of a child-centric educational system as opposed to one where adults set the standards, one that can admit no failure on their part or more importantly, one that lets parents divorced parents, or quasi-parents "feel good". It's a shame that education has transmongrified from imparting knowledge to an entity that sells a product. Ugh.
R. Rich Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 I'm beating my head against a wall. Ugh. 141639[/snapback] The pain will go away eventually.
stuckincincy Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 The pain will go away eventually. 141679[/snapback] I hope. My clock is ticking louder these days.
KD in CA Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 My understanding about Notre Dame is that they flat out refuse to give any special dispensation to athletes in the admission office. In other words, athletic recruits have to have numbers in line with the general student population. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding. ND's minimum standards for the general population are no doubt below Stanford's, but I'm sure they're higher than 3.0/1000. That's my understanding too. A 3.0 and 1000 will absolutely NOT get you into ND unless you've given them a boatload of money or Dad was an All American.
bartshan-83 Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 That's my understanding too. A 3.0 and 1000 will absolutely NOT get you into ND unless you've given them a boatload of money or Dad was an All American. 141821[/snapback] There are some I know here on the team that no way in hell got a 1000 on the SAT. But then again there are some seriously smart football players. A guy a few years ago was a TA and tutor for Organic Chemsitry. I think in general the football players here are on a different academic level, but there are still a few that slip through. Unfortunately we let guys like Jerome Collins slip through instead of All-Americans
Recommended Posts