SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,780
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 20, 2004 16:53:16 GMT -5
If you think that Stanford doesn't get all that money anyway, and still win despite sticking pretty well to their academic guns, you're a "damn fool."
You haven't answered my point at all. And when did paying players get into this discussion?
Listen, I actually don't mind taking academic risks. It's a bad idea for us to take a bunch of them in the same year because the school has schown they will force them out/players will leave if they can't keep up academically. It happened under JT, it'll happen under his son. Michael Graham, Vic Page, Shenard Long -- these were all grades-related, right?
But for you to say a program can't compete without taking academic risks more than "here or there" or once in a while is a joke. Stanford has done it. Duke, until the last few years, has taken very few academic risks.
Trying to bring in big money, paid players, etc., is clouding the very simple points:
1) Gtown has and will force players off teams who don't do their schoolwork. Generally this happens after sophomore year. Exceptions have been made, but not on a widespread basis. Very good players have left for exactly this reason.
2) Taking academic risks increases the chances of #1 occurring. Transfers of significant players kill a team.
3) Teams have succeeded taking virtually no academic risks. Surely we can succeed taking some, but being careful to not take too many.
------
The way I see this class shaping up is with two to three players with no academic issues -- Spann, Thornton and possibly Aboya. Egerson is an immensely talented player who has had academic issues -- hopefully he'll clear those up at prep school, but he is a risk, by definition.
That's a four man class, with 1 being a "risk." Add in possibly a fifth in Goodridge (who would also be somewhat of a risk), and that's a good balance.
|
|
GUHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by GUHoya07 on Oct 20, 2004 17:29:39 GMT -5
SF, I agree that we shouldn't take entire classes of academic risk recruits, but taking some is almost necessary. Of course, its possible to find a class of top flight recruits that are also good students, but not that often. In order to get the very best players out there you are going to have to take some academic risks, so basically we agree on this issue but I felt like writing it out in my own words, haha.
The way I see it is that as long as they make an attempt to go to class, get their work done, and move towards a degree its fine to take such risks. However, I don't agree with "Carmelo" situations where the kid never attends class, doesn't do any work and isn't actually a student in any way other than living on a college campus.
As for the Nwankwo situation and him not being accepted by Stanford, I just don't buy that. They may have said that he wasn't accepted but I think that's just them trying to make themselves look all high and mighty. In reality I think they just decided they didn't want him and made up some admissions bs.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,780
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 20, 2004 17:40:28 GMT -5
SF, I agree that we shouldn't take entire classes of academic risk recruits, but taking some is almost necessary. Of course, its possible to find a class of top flight recruits that are also good students, but not that often. In order to get the very best players out there you are going to have to take some academic risks, so basically we agree on this issue but I felt like writing it out in my own words, haha. The way I see it is that as long as they make an attempt to go to class, get their work done, and move towards a degree its fine to take such risks. However, I don't agree with "Carmelo" situations where the kid never attends class, doesn't do any work and isn't actually a student in any way other than living on a college campus. As for the Nwankwo situation and him not being accepted by Stanford, I just don't buy that. They may have said that he wasn't accepted but I think that's just them trying to make themselves look all high and mighty. In reality I think they just decided they didn't want him and made up some admissions bs. I don't know if Stanford has ever made exceptions (I think they have), but I believe Nwankwo was rejected. I know too many people associated with the program that say the same thing: it's almost impossible to get a kid in with below an 1100 SAT there. Now I've also heard stories of favoritism, etc., and I'm not saying Stanford is perfectly clean. Heck, 1100 is low for Stanford. But they do seem to have a minimum requirement that other top academic schools do not. I wouldn't propose GU doing that, frankly. But I also think it is silly to delude ourselves that no one wins while maintaining academic requirements. More important to me is this: the school has and will continue to hold the vast majority of its players to the academic standard of attending class, working hard, etc. It will continue to suspend players at standards ABOVE NCAA standards. It will continue to force transfers for those players who choose not to try on schoolwork. So why recruit without that in mind? Marc Egerson, hopefully, will qualify and do well at GU. I'm hopeful. He's one player, though, and if he doesn't make it, it won't be disastrous. But if say, oh, three members of a four man class were gone by the end of sophomore, that could leave the team seriously weakened, and with no depth. See last year as to what happens when you have that many transfers.
|
|
GUHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by GUHoya07 on Oct 20, 2004 17:45:25 GMT -5
True, but if many more top academic schools started having similar minimum requirements I can guarantee you that there wouldn't be enough big time recruits for those schools to choose from. I mean seriously, how many kids in the average Top 100 of any recruiting class do you really think have an SAT score of at least 1100? I say very few, maybe 4 or 5 if you're really lucky, but I don't actually know, I guess it could be a few more.
|
|
aggypryd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,419
|
Post by aggypryd on Oct 20, 2004 18:57:31 GMT -5
If you think that Stanford doesn't get all that money anyway, and still win despite sticking pretty well to their academic guns, you're a "damn fool." When the hell did I say this? I don't care how many people you know at Stanford...you're not going to tell me that they've never cut corners to bring in someone whose grades are a bit 'shaky'... I don't care how much money the Greedy has, they always want more... When did I say anything about paying players? This is what I said, man... "Think about how much money the University of Michigan made from selling No. 4 jerseys...then Michigan had the nerve to get upset with Chris Webber for taking some money from a booster..." Although I think colleges SHOULD pay athletes, I never said that here... Stop extrapolating these mysterious statements from what I write...
|
|
aggypryd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,419
|
Post by aggypryd on Oct 20, 2004 19:09:38 GMT -5
True, but if many more top academic schools started having similar minimum requirements I can guarantee you that there wouldn't be enough big time recruits for those schools to choose from. I mean seriously, how many kids in the average Top 100 of any recruiting class do you really think have an SAT score of at least 1100? I say very few, maybe 4 or 5 if you're really lucky, but I don't actually know, I guess it could be a few more. A lot of kids that are in the Top 100 don't go to schools that have the resources that will help a kid prepare for the SAT or ACT...A lot of those kids view basketball as their shot out of their situation...So they're trying to get the minimum that will get them into their school of choice...for a lot of schools, that's between 700 and 900... Most parents whose kids make 1200+ on the SAT aren't trying to make sure their child excels in basketball and/or football...
|
|
GUHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by GUHoya07 on Oct 20, 2004 19:26:15 GMT -5
umm, yeah I know that that's generally the case
Whatever the exact number I'm sure its very rare for the top flight guys to have at least an 1100. Occasionally someone does, but not too often.
Not only do their high schools not prepare them for the test but they generally grow up in an environment that is very foreign to the SAT. They are not living in the kind of atmosphere that helps them to understand the vocabulary used on the test and they do generally go to inferior schools.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 20, 2004 20:07:45 GMT -5
The post earlier was edited. Avoid any unsubstantiated claims of any kind about players and potential NCAA eligibility issues, regardless of school.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Oct 20, 2004 22:07:40 GMT -5
I am quite familiar with Stanford recruiting and no, they do not take academic risks. Do they bend the rules a bit? By Stanford's standards yes. But that average SAT at Stanford is well over 1300, maybe 1400.
Will they take a basketball player at 1200 who has good grades too? maybe.
But they sure aren't taking any kids at 800-900-1000
And once at Stanford, they have to take the same courses as everyone else. The Stanford recruiting pool annually is VERY small... that is, something like 10 kids around the country. So, they have to be very successful within that small pool.
Name a a top level recruit they battled over who had was an academic risk. Stanford occasionally gets top rated kids -- Josh Childress, Casey Jacobsen, the Collins twins, but mostly they get lots of very good, very smart athletes and they play smart basketball. They aren't winning on athleticism.
As for Davis nwanko, if Stanford said he wasn't admitted, you can be sure he wasn't admitted. Why on earth would a World class university risk its integrity by lying about a kid they didn't want anyway and say they didn't take him because of academics? Actually, I doubt they would release that kind of info anyway. maybe Nwanko said it.
So yes, Stanford has very high standards. And GU should have high standards too. We won't be up there with Stanford, but the majority of our recruits should be prepared to come in and take GU courses and do GU level work. And we can still be successful.
|
|
GUHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by GUHoya07 on Oct 20, 2004 22:37:29 GMT -5
We still need to take some risks though. There are only a very limited number of those kids that Stanford recruits and if a bunch of schools had those same standards there just wouldn't be enough to go around.
I don't see anything wrong in taking some academic risks as long as they work hard once they arrive. We always talk about other special skills making up for lower SAT scores and GPA when regular students apply to schools, why shouldn't this apply to incredible athletic ability? Of course, their scores are still usually much lower than the lowest average student scores and GPAs but I think they deserve a chance.
Almost all of these recruits have been in an unfair situation their entire lives. They have been put at a distinct disadvantage just because of the situation they were born into. Don't some of them deserve a chance at a world class college education? As long as they committ to being students once they arrive at school I think so.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,780
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 21, 2004 11:06:33 GMT -5
When the hell did I say this? I don't care how many people you know at Stanford...you're not going to tell me that they've never cut corners to bring in someone whose grades are a bit 'shaky'... I don't care how much money the Greedy has, they always want more... When did I say anything about paying players? This is what I said, man... "Think about how much money the University of Michigan made from selling No. 4 jerseys...then Michigan had the nerve to get upset with Chris Webber for taking some money from a booster..." Although I think colleges SHOULD pay athletes, I never said that here... Stop extrapolating these mysterious statements from what I write... Your rant was completely off-topic. I had no idea what you were getting at. My original point, and continual point, is that Stanford is a successful program that maintains strong academic requirements it does not often bend -- none that I have specifically heard of or know of. You act as if it is impossible to compete in college basketball with players who can get by at a good academic school, and it is not. Stanford is proof. Should Gtown do this? No, I don't think so. I like JT's philosophy. But your assertion that you can't compete with academic standards is wrong.
|
|
GUHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by GUHoya07 on Oct 21, 2004 11:14:43 GMT -5
You can compete with academic standards, it just depends what those standards are. The higher your standards become the more unlikely it becomes that you'll ever win a national title.
I think some standards are good just so that you can assure that a recruit will attempt to be a student, but I don't think they should be even close to that of the general student body. At a school like Georgetown that is just unrealistic. Plus, as I've asked before, how many of these top flight athletes with SAT scores in the 1100's do you really think there are?
|
|
aggypryd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,419
|
Post by aggypryd on Oct 21, 2004 13:22:48 GMT -5
Your rant was completely off-topic. I had no idea what you were getting at. My original point, and continual point, is that Stanford is a successful program that maintains strong academic requirements it does not often bend -- none that I have specifically heard of or know of. You act as if it is impossible to compete in college basketball with players who can get by at a good academic school, and it is not. Stanford is proof. Should Gtown do this? No, I don't think so. I like JT's philosophy. But your assertion that you can't compete with academic standards is wrong. If the academic standards aren't high from the pool from which you're recruiting, how do you propose we change these student-athletes into Einsteins once they walk onto campus? The game has changed, man... G'Town can't do what Stanford or Duke does...you don't have the facilities and you've been out of the loop for far too long...The Georgetown name is not good enough anymore... You may get lucky every now and then...But like Notre Dame football, you have to realize that if you recruit only a student with XXXX SAT score and X.X GPA, then you've already decreased the size of the pool from which you can recruit...and too many schools have a 'leg-up' on the Hoyas for you guys to be cutting your legs out from under you... Please don't think that Duke is doing it by themselves...they get plenty of help from the officials and the selection committee...
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,780
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Oct 21, 2004 13:53:30 GMT -5
Let me try this tack -- do you want to hvae no academic requirements? I don't really know if we disagree.
This is my stance:
Athletes need to be student-athletes. I do not expect them to make the honor roll, although that would be nice. I would give them as much tutoring and help as they need. At the end of the day, though, they need to attend class and get passing grades at the same level as other student-athletes or non-athletes. I expect them to graduate if they stay four years. Georgetown is like a lot of elite schools -- harder to get into than graduate for most people.
Given that, my admissions requirement is simple. I'll admit someone if I think they will put forth the effort needed for them to accomplish the above goal.
Some players this is a judgement call. Players you are essentially unsure of. I think you can take chances on them, but I'd never want a complete recruiting class full of students like this. It is too risky from a basketball standpoint.
|
|