2018-2019 B1G Basketball Thread

[medinabuckeye1]

As we saw with UNC, higher education may not be on the syllabus for some "student"-athletes.

The sad reality is that the main difference between UNC and everybody else is simply that UNC got caught.
If you compare the average incoming SAT scores of football/basketball players to those of real students it becomes patently obvious that the football/basketball players could not possibly keep up academically.

[medinabuckeye1]

The sad reality is that the main difference between UNC and everybody else is simply that UNC got caught.
If you compare the average incoming SAT scores of football/basketball players to those of real students it becomes patently obvious that the football/basketball players could not possibly keep up academically.

I wanted to flesh out this argument a little bit.  Here is an article from USNR.  According to the article Football players average 220 points lower on the SAT than their classmates while men's basketball players average 227 points lower.  
@OrangeAfroMan may be interested to know that Florida has the biggest gap between student body and football players at 346 points.  
Georgia Tech had the highest SAT score for football players, 1028.  Despite that accomplishment, GaTech's football players still had scores more than 300 points below those of their classmates.  
The article also lists the top-10 highest SAT scores for football players:

• 1028, GaTech
• 997, OrSU
• 997, Michigan
• 993, UVA
• 974, PU
• 973, IU
• 968, Hawaii
• 967, Cal
• 966, Colo
• 964, Iowa

Then they listed the bottom 10:

• 878, OkSU
• 878, Louisville
• 890, Memphis
• 890, UF
• 901, TxTech
• 910, Ark
• 911, aTm
• 911, MissSt
• 916, WSU
• 917, MSU

Note that the top to bottom gap between the highest SAT scores for football players (GaTech at 1028) and the lowest SAT scores for football players (OkSU at 878) is only 150.  Ie, the football vs overall gap at Florida (and many other schools) is larger than the overall gap between the highest and lowest scoring football players.  

Similarly, the gap between the highest scoring football players in the B1G (Michigan at 997) and the lowest scoring football players in the B1G (MSU at 917) is a mere 80 points.  I would wager that the gap between Michigan and Michigan State's football players is smaller than the gap between football and non-football at every single B1G school.  

To illustrate that last point, Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, and Iowa look good while MSU looks bad on that "football player average" list but now compare that to the average incoming freshman at those schools:

• Michigan:  Per Prep Scholar* the average incoming freshman has a 1450 SAT.  This is 453 points higher than Michigan's average football player.
• Purdue:  Per Prep Scholar the average incoming freshman has a 1300 SAT.  This is 326 points higher than Purdue's average football player.  
• Indiana:  Per Prep Scholar the average incoming freshman has a 1240 SAT.  This is 267 points higher than Indiana's average football player.  
• Iowa:  Per Prep Scholar the average incoming freshman has a 1220 SAT.  This is 256 points higher than Iowa's average football player.  
• Michigan State:  Per Prep Scholar the average incoming freshman has a 1190 SAT.  This is 273 points higher than Michigan State's average football player.  

Note, as I assumed above, that the football vs average gaps of 256-453 dwarf the 80 point gap between Michigan's and MSU's football players.    

I'll also add something that I noticed a long time ago.  Note that when the USNR article mentions athletes it uses the term "football players" as opposed to "scholarship football players".  I am fairly certain that the gap is actually worse and that it is partially masked by the existence of non-scholarship "practice squad" walk-ons at all of the schools.  It stands to reason that the walk-ons probably have scores at least close to the student body average because all (or at least most) of them got in legitimately based on their academics.  Thus, if you eliminated them from the "football average" the football average would be even worse.  The bottom line is that even Michigan's relatively higher achieving football players, on average, couldn't get in to Michigan State based on academics.  

There is a lot of cheating and chicanery going on because it simply isn't possible for guys with 917-997 SAT scores to keep up academically in classes with classmates whose scores are substantially better.  I do not like it, but I also strongly oppose the NCAA's incessant focus on graduation rates as the cure.  Focusing on graduation rates effectively encourages the schools disregard the academic shortcomings of their athletes and pass their athletes through to graduation.  I do not believe that the situation is helped by handing out free diploma's to athletes at the end of their four years regardless of their actual academic merit.  

*I used Prep Scholar for the average for incoming freshman because it was the first credible looking site that popped up.  That said, there is obviously something wrong because the UNNR article stated that Florida had the largest football vs average gap at 346 points but comparing Michigan's average per Prep Scholar to Michigan's football average per the article yields an even larger, 453 point gap.  

[HailHailMSP]

Maybe I’m not a realist but I don’t believe cheating is as pervasive at most schools like it was (or still is) at North Carolina.

The difference between UNC getting caught and others is they had brand power in hoops that the NCAA couldn’t and wouldn’t damage. The NCAA took it to Ohio State for tattoos and Michigan for some extra stretching at offseason practice. They sure as heck could have with UNC for completely fake classes. They used the whole student body having access to the classes as an excuse.

Everyone has some degree of compliance issues, but I struggle to believe they have completely made up classes. UNC is on another level and I will struggle to ever take the school seriously.

[bayareabadger]

There is a lot of cheating and chicanery going on because it simply isn't possible for guys with 917-997 SAT scores to keep up academically in classes with classmates whose scores are substantially better.  I do not like it, but I also strongly oppose the NCAA's incessant focus on graduation rates as the cure.  Focusing on graduation rates effectively encourages the schools disregard the academic shortcomings of their athletes and pass their athletes through to graduation.  I do not believe that the situation is helped by handing out free diploma's to athletes at the end of their four years regardless of their actual academic merit.  

I always find that question interesting. 
The subject of who can keep up academically always seems like a squishy one to me. I'm sure in the aggregate says people who do well on those standardized tests do well, reflecting a wide range of factors. But beyond the broad picture, it seems like there are so many shades of gray. What kids are good test takers? what're their situations? What are they trying to study? Major is such an enormous element. 
I guess I'm writing this because I look back at my college years and what classes were more difficult or less was so random from school to school. People want to say, school A or B is more rigorous, but I'm struck that a school is such a massive ecosystem, I have trouble making such sharp distinctions. 

[medinabuckeye1]

Maybe I’m not a realist but I don’t believe cheating is as pervasive at most schools like it was (or still is) at North Carolina.

The difference between UNC getting caught and others is they had brand power in hoops that the NCAA couldn’t and wouldn’t damage. The NCAA took it to Ohio State for tattoos and Michigan for some extra stretching at offseason practice. They sure as heck could have with UNC for completely fake classes. They used the whole student body having access to the classes as an excuse.

Everyone has some degree of compliance issues, but I struggle to believe they have completely made up classes. UNC is on another level and I will struggle to ever take the school seriously.

The UNC case points out one of the fundamental problems that the NCAA has to deal with.  Everyone likes to criticize the NCAA and I understand that but they do have a difficult situation.  They only regulate the athletic side of things and what is impermissible is anything not available to the general student population.  That is, as you referenced, the essence of UNC's defense.  They simply argued that the classes in question were available to all students.  The irony here is that they were effectively arguing that their own academics were weak.  
I remember when the story broke that I told @847badgerfan that it would never amount to anything.  You have to understand the NCAA.  This is an organization that takes political correctness to the nth degree.  If you looked at their actions over the past several decades you might conclude that the single biggest issue in collegiate athletics over that period was having mascots named after Native Americans.  Oddly, having mascots named after Irishmen (Notre Dame) or Scandinavians (Cleveland State among others) is apparently not problematic but having mascots named after Native Americans is the single biggest issue in sports.  
There was never any chance that an organization as institutionally politically correct as the NCAA was going to criticize a Black Studies Department.  It just wasn't going to happen.  
FWIW:  I do not believe that outright cheating (as at UNC) is the norm, but I do believe that cutting corners pretty much is.  Not to pick on Michigan, but you are a Michigan guy so I will, there is a reason that Michigan's athletes gravitate toward "General Studies" and "Kinesiology".  Per the first of the linked articles athletes at Michigan comprise 3% of the student body and 49% of those enrolled in general studies.  The benefit of general studies is primarily that the course options are numerous which enables a "student" athlete to choose cupcake courses.  You can't do that in most majors because there are actual things that you actually need to learn.  
I honestly don't mean to pick on Michigan.  In the second of the 0linked article the "whistleblower", Professor Jay Basten was asked point blank if it would be possible for Michigan to offer its "student" athletes an academic experience similar to that of a typical student and still compete at the highest levels athletically.  He didn't hesitate before answering, "No."
I believe that Professor Basten is correct.  It simply is not possible because there are not enough high-end athletes with 1,400+ SAT scores available.  

[medinabuckeye1]

I always find that question interesting.
The subject of who can keep up academically always seems like a squishy one to me. I'm sure in the aggregate says people who do well on those standardized tests do well, reflecting a wide range of factors. But beyond the broad picture, it seems like there are so many shades of gray. What kids are good test takers? what're their situations? What are they trying to study? Major is such an enormous element.
I guess I'm writing this because I look back at my college years and what classes were more difficult or less was so random from school to school. People want to say, school A or B is more rigorous, but I'm struck that a school is such a massive ecosystem, I have trouble making such sharp distinctions.

Of course there is variation in the level of difficulty of classes at an institution and even within Departments.  That said, the range and average difficulty are higher at a school with an average incoming SAT of 1450 than they are at a school with an average incoming SAT of 997.  
Personally, I believe that the "good test taker" issue is wildly overblown.  Most good test takers are good at taking tests because they are pretty smart.  Most bad test takers are bad at taking tests because they aren't.  

• If you are having the books of a company that you are considering investing in audited do you want them audited by someone who passed the CPA exam or by someone who couldn't because they were a "bad test taker"?
• If you are standing under a bridge do you want it to have been designed by someone who passed their engineering classes and the PE exam or by someone who couldn't because they were a "bad test taker"?  
• If you ticker isn't ticking right and you are going under the knife for heart surgery do you want it performed by someone who passed their Med School classes or by someone who couldn't because they were a "bad test taker"?

[HailHailMSP]

No doubt Medina. Michigan has the easier majors with the General College. The current Head Football coach even ridiculed it at one point in time when he was at Stanford. But I believe that is true in all colleges at all levels. I did my undergrad at a mid-size non athletic scholarship division III insititution and a number of my teammates went with the CO-JO major that the athletes loved. And this was in D3. Communications and Journalism was seen as the path of least resistance. 

It’s too bad that when we see a Craig Krenzel or Michigan’s Noah Furbush with a tough major and high GPA they are rare exceptions and not the majority.

I would be curious what some of the private school delta’s are for SAT’s between athletes and general student body. I am assuming it is not publicly reported. They tout the high levels of their athletes but this is a really novel way to look at it. What’s the degree of latitude given by the institution For it’s athletes? That’s the question being answered with this data. Good work Medina!

[OrangeAfroMan]

With Florida having the largest gap, doesn't that just say that UF is very confident in its ability to get those players the grades they need (hopefully ethically and legally)???

[betarhoalphadelta]

Personally, I believe that the "good test taker" issue is wildly overblown.  Most good test takers are good at taking tests because they are pretty smart.  Most bad test takers are bad at taking tests because they aren't.  

I agree. I suspect there may be outliers (i.e. people who have a natural anxiety when faced with a test, etc), but I think this relationship probably is spot on.
Of course, I'm a good test taker, so it's in my interest to advocate as such...

[bayareabadger]

I agree. I suspect there may be outliers (i.e. people who have a natural anxiety when faced with a test, etc), but I think this relationship probably is spot on.
Of course, I'm a good test taker, so it's in my interest to advocate as such...

As a good test taker, I always felt like it overstated my skill. I never felt THAT good at things. Granted when I say "good test taker" I meant a sort of aptitude with the filling out bubbles, multiple choice kind of thing.
I just thought those were such a different beast than applied problem solving or crafting an argument. 

[bayareabadger]

Personally, I believe that the "good test taker" issue is wildly overblown.  Most good test takers are good at taking tests because they are pretty smart.  Most bad test takers are bad at taking tests because they aren't.  

• If you are having the books of a company that you are considering investing in audited do you want them audited by someone who passed the CPA exam or by someone who couldn't because they were a "bad test taker"?
• If you are standing under a bridge do you want it to have been designed by someone who passed their engineering classes and the PE exam or by someone who couldn't because they were a "bad test taker"?  
• If you ticker isn't ticking right and you are going under the knife for heart surgery do you want it performed by someone who passed their Med School classes or by someone who couldn't because they were a "bad test taker"?

Interesting, I got smarter when I sat down with a free tutor who coached me on how to take the SAT. 
Also, let's do a quick SAT style problem
A. CPA exam:Practicing accounting
B. Engineering licence exam/multiple years of engineering school:Practicing engineering
C. Three years of medical school:Practicing medicine
D. SAT:College
Which of these isn't like the others?
Three are testing practical skills that are going to be applied. One is not. Three are taken by adults with college degrees or more under their belt. One is taken by high school kids. 
Now, on average, I won't deny that kids with better scores have better outcomes (even factoring out the causality in that, I'd bet on it). But I imagine there's enough grey. It's sort of the same way teams that recruit better tend to be good, but Brady Hoke still existed at Michigan. 
What I originally was thinking about was more that the quality of SAT scores might not translate to the rigor of classes per say. I suppose if you're building in that big a gap, sure. (I'll also agree, the vast majority of athletes are not ready for college classes for a variety of reasons. That some do as well as they do frankly amazes me sometimes)

[847badgerfan]

Interesting, I got smarter when I sat down with a free tutor who coached me on how to take the SAT.
Also, let's do a quick SAT style problem
A. CPA exam:Practicing accounting
B. Engineering licence exam/multiple years of engineering school:Practicing engineering
C. Three years of medical school:Practicing medicine
D. SAT:College
Which of these isn't like the others?
Three are testing practical skills that are going to be applied. One is not. Three are taken by adults with college degrees or more under their belt. One is taken by high school kids.
Now, on average, I won't deny that kids with better scores have better outcomes (even factoring out the causality in that, I'd bet on it). But I imagine there's enough grey. It's sort of the same way teams that recruit better tend to be good, but Brady Hoke still existed at Michigan.
What I originally was thinking about was more that the quality of SAT scores might not translate to the rigor of classes per say. I suppose if you're building in that big a gap, sure. (I'll also agree, the vast majority of athletes are not ready for college classes for a variety of reasons. That some do as well as they do frankly amazes me sometimes)

You do start with (at least) 4 years of engineering school (my degree, for example, required 142 credit hours).

Then comes the 8 hour fundamentals exam, then (at least) 4 years of practice under a PE, then the 8 hour principals of practice exam, then practice engineering. It's (at least) an 8 year process to become licensed as a professional engineer.

Good test taker or not, that fundamentals exam is a bitch. I don't care who you are - it's a comprehensive exam on you're entire undergraduate education (and then some) in one day.

I came out of that thing and my brain had swelled so much, I couldn't get in my car. I think I did permanent damage.

[ELA]

I think "good test taker" is often oversimplified.  There are lots of different kinds of tests.  I think there are people who react better or worse in test taking type situations.  But I also think we frequently refer to the big high school tests and similarly styled tests when we say that.  There are strategies to do well, but there's also something to being able to quickly eliminate wrong answers, guess well among limited possible answers when you don't know, and eliminate irrelevant information quickly.

I agree in a lot of ways the smartest kids score the best, but there is variation.  I do standardize test well.  I was never a great high school/college/law exam test taker.  You can learn strategies for ACT/SAT/LSAT, whatever, prep, but you can't stufy the material.  I'm not good at studying.  I'm not great at memorizing things on short notice.  I did far better on written finals than "answer" finals.  I got a 1420 on my SAT, didn't really matter.  I went to Indiana.  There were kids much smarter than me.  There were kids that didn't belong in college there.  I did well on my LSATs, and there it did help.  I hadn't planned on getting into Wisconsin or Pitt for law school, but I did, solely based on one standardized test.  I was probably in a little over my head among my fellow students there.

That brings me to the other point.  The differences between schools is not really so much curriculum.  A lot of that is fairly universal.  You cover a lot of the same material in comparable courses no matter how good a school you go to is.  The difference is the caliber of students you are being compared to.  If it's a strict curve, you are being directly compared.  If it's not, every professor is going to trend toward a natural bell curve anyway.  So the better schools, the same work product is probably not going to be viewed as favorably by comparison.  But at any school, you can make it as tough or as easy as you want.  I had a buddy, real smart, no interest in school.  Got into UM without trying a lick, just to appease his parents.  Breezed through in General Studies in 3.5 years just to get his degree and pursue other things.  I saw people at MSU who looked like they never saw the library.  I thought my course work at Indiana was a joke.  I left there with a 3.9 trying less than I had in high school, but I also saw kids pulling all nighters just to get Cs, and killing themselves over class work.  I don't think there is any sort of universal experience there.  If you want it to be easy, they are more than happy to take your money.  If you don't, certainly all the large universities we are talking about here, have plenty of avenues to challenge yourself in whatever ways you want.

[medinabuckeye1]

It’s too bad that when we see a Craig Krenzel or Michigan’s Noah Furbush with a tough major and high GPA they are rare exceptions and not the majority.

The pathetic thing is that Craig Krenzel graduated ~15 years ago and I can't think of a better, more recent example.  
I think we all tend to have this vision in our heads that our favorite football team is made up of legitimate college students who happen to be really good athletes but unfortunately the reality is far from that.