2018-2019 B1G Basketball Thread

[medinabuckeye1]

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!

I would be interested to see that as well.  How smart are Stanford's football players?  How smart are Duke's basketball players.  
My guess is that there is a better chance that a high-end school could compete in basketball than in football with legitimate students.  I say that simply because there are less of them.  In theory it might be possible for Dook to sign 3-4 legitimate students who can also play high-level BB every year.  I do not think it would be possible for Stanford to sign 15-25 legitimate students who can also play high-level FB every year.  

[847badgerfan]

I'll admit that I cringe when I see UW players majoring in Life Science Communication (at least it's a B.S. - there's that). I don't know what that means or what you'd do with it.

I do like seeing many of them majoring in business, science and engineering.

Joel Stave has a degree in Civil Engineering.

[betarhoalphadelta]

I do think that the SAT is not a good measure of intelligence. I think its reliance on things like algebra and language is more a question of "what did you learn in HS?" than it is of intelligence. As such, it might not be a bad thing for its stated purpose, which is to measure your aptitude for collegiate work, as it is more a measurement of your completion of the basic prerequisites for the sort of material you'll cover in college. 

Compare this to an IQ test, which is more about things like pattern recognition and completion, and is far less culturally-based. An IQ test is designed not to measure acquired skills, but to measure adaptable thinking and is much more of a measurement of the "raw horsepower" of someone's brain. Still imperfect, but designed for something completely different than the SAT.

That said, my point still stands regarding "test-taking skills". As a general rule, tests measure something that was learned. Usually they're somewhere between the SAT (acquired skills that are directly related to a topic of study) and an IQ test (measuring abstract pattern-recognition and completion). Usually most tests we take in life are related to something that we are tasked with learning, and the tests are designed to measure that learning. I think more intelligent people learn more quickly, and have an easier time recalling that information for the test, than less intelligent people, and thus will tend to do better on the tests. That doesn't mean they're a "good test taker", it means they have a better mastery of the concepts being tested, and they acquired that mastery because they're smarter.

[betarhoalphadelta]

I'll admit that I cringe when I see UW players majoring in Life Science Communication (at least it's a B.S. - there's that). I don't know what that means or what you'd do with it.

I do like seeing many of them majoring in business, science and engineering.

I cringe when I see a lot of college students major in things that really don't offer any direct employment options beyond continuing to study to get a Masters/PhD and then teach the subject.
A bachelor's degree does open doors that a HS diploma wouldn't, so there's that. But in general it seems like for so many students, the money and the 4 years spent learning things that have no practical application to the working world seems like a waste. 
I actually cringe less when I see athletes in those majors. At least I know they're not spending their own money, going deep in debt with student loans, to be there. They'll be just as employable as the kids who graduate with $150K in student loans in those same majors.

[medinabuckeye1]

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)

I had a similar experience of "getting smarter" when I took a class for the LSAT.  However, there are definite limitations.  The first day of the LSAT course we took a sample exam.  The purpose was to create a baseline.  When we showed up for the second class the instructor went over the scores and then gave us an idea of what we could expect.  My baseline was high enough that they offered me my money back if I didn't want to stay because they had found that they were not able to significantly improve high scores.  
I share that story because my guess is that the same thing applies to SAT prep courses.  If a kid starts out with average scores the prep course can probably get that kid around a one standard deviation improvement.  However, if you start out much above the 75th percentile my guess is that the prep course will not help you very much.  
WRT the LSAT, the course did help me but only for reasons of time management.  I have always been a fast test taker.  Until the LSAT I had literally never run out of time while taking a test.  When I took the CPA exam I got done with the morning sections so quickly that I had time to go have a beer and lunch before heading back for the afternoon sessions.  
The LSAT was different for me.  They had four logic puzzles on each exam.  Typically one was fairly easy, two were moderate and one was nearly impossibly difficult.  The main thing I gained from the prep course was sufficient experience with their logic puzzles to be able to quickly recognize the most difficult question and put it off until last.  This was a significant benefit because the questions were not weighted.  Spending a ridiculous amount of time solving the difficult logic puzzle would get you maybe 10 correct answers if you got it right.  You could get the same 10 points by solving the easy logic puzzle.  
There was one other benefit to the LSAT prep course.  When I started I was doing the logic puzzles in my head.  I learned that this was a bad idea.  I could usually do the easy one in my head, but even with that one, there was a risk of getting confused somewhere along the way.  The moderate puzzles were extremely difficult for me to do in my head and the difficult puzzle was impossible for me to do in my head.  Drawing a chart or graph made the easy puzzles extremely easy and it made the moderate puzzles reasonably easy.  
After the prep course I knew how to approach the LSAT.  In the puzzle section I skipped the difficult one and quickly solved the other three.  Only then did I return to the difficult puzzle.  That way, if I couldn't finish it I would be guessing on difficult questions rather than easy ones.  
Back to the SAT:
Fundamentally, the SAT is an IQ test.  You are correct that it is unlike the other exams I listed because it is a test of aptitude rather than a test of knowledge.  That said, IQ tests work.  I know that they are frequently criticized but when studies compare large enough groups the results show that IQ does matter.  
Those average non-athlete Michigan freshmen with their 1400+ SAT scores are smart cookies.  The Michigan football players with their <1000 SAT scores aren't.  Back to prepscholar:
Nationally:

• 1450 is 98th percentile:  Only 2% of SAT takers score 1450+ and this is Michigan's average incoming score.  
• 1330 is 90th percentile:  10% of SAT takers score 1330+
• 1230 is 80th percentile:  20% of SAT takers score 1280+
• 1170 is 71st percentile:  29% of SAT takers score 1170+
• 1110 is 61st percentile:  39% of SAT takers score 1110+
• 1060 is 51st percentile:  49% of SAT takers score 1060+
• 1000 is 40th percentile:  60% of SAT takers score 1000+
• 950 is 31st percentile:  69% of SAT takers score 950+
• 890 is 21st percentile:  79% of SAT takers score 890+
• 810 is 11th percentile:  89% of SAT takers score 810+

My guess is that roughly the bottom half of SAT takers are simply not college material.  Ie, a score of <1000 probably does not belong in ANY college let alone a highly selective one.  Then remember that Michigan's average is 997 and they are one of the highest in the nation.  Also remember that I believe that Michigan's (and everybody else's) athlete scores are inflated by the inclusion of walk-ons.  If you eliminated the walk-ons my guess is the Michigan's recruited scholarship football players probably have average scores around the Florida level of about 890 or 20th percentile.  

Now think about your HS class for a minute.  Can you honestly say that you think the least smart 20% (one out of five) were smart enough to compete academically with the smartest 2% (one out of 50)?  Then remember that the SAT is national.  The variation within your HS was not nearly as large as the variation across the entire nation where we include high-end elite prep school students and low-end terrible school students.  

There is no way for academically challenged 20th percentile students to keep up with elite 98th percentile students academically.  Thus, the schools have to find a work-around or else give up on competing athletically.  

[medinabuckeye1]

I cringe when I see a lot of college students major in things that really don't offer any direct employment options beyond continuing to study to get a Masters/PhD and then teach the subject.

A bachelor's degree does open doors that a HS diploma wouldn't, so there's that. But in general it seems like for so many students, the money and the 4 years spent learning things that have no practical application to the working world seems like a waste.

I actually cringe less when I see athletes in those majors. At least I know they're not spending their own money, going deep in debt with student loans, to be there. They'll be just as employable as the kids who graduate with $150K in student loans in those same majors.

At this point we are WAY off topic but I'll keep going anyway, LoL.  I think that your statement about opening doors (underlined by me) is the reason for this.  At this link there is a chart (pg2) showing the percentage of the US population with HS and college degrees.  The chart starts in with people born in 1900 when about 8% of men and 6% of women had bachelor's degrees.  Also in 1900 about 28% of men and 33% of women had HS diplomas.  As of the cohort born in the late 80's:

• ~28% of men have a bachelor's degree
• ~32% of women have a bachelor's degree
• ~89% of both men and women have HS diplomas

IMHO, this is a product of the incessant focus on graduation rates.  IMHO, this focus is counter-productive because when educational administrators are judged based on graduation rates they have an obvious motivation to dumb down the course-work.  Dumbing-down the course-work pushes up graduation rates.  The unfortunate side-effect is that it effectively eliminates the benefit of graduating.  Among those born in 1900, having a HS diploma was effectively equivalent to a person born in the late 80's having a bachelor's degree.  

The need for a bachelor's degree is the main reason that so many college students major in those cringe-worthy majors.  Some of them will get PhD's and teach the next generation but most will simply get jobs that do not actually require a college degree but for which college degrees are required by the employer simply to weed out applicants.  

Employers could accomplish the same thing by simply giving all applicants an IQ test but they are prohibited by law from doing so (Griggs vs Duke Power Co).  Interestingly, public employers are not prohibited from administering IQ tests and they do it all the time.  The most well known being the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test).  The military uses ASVAB to weed out the least intelligent applicants but private employers are forbidden from using such tests.  

Employers use a college degree requirement as an effective IQ test because they are prohibited from simply using an IQ test.  They need an IQ test because HS diplomas are handed out like candy and thus fail to serve this purpose.  

[Brutus Buckeye]

One non-Conference game revealed. 

[ELA]

Is it me or does that schedule seem to back up a little every year?  I remember only like 15-20 years ago being excited Michigan got to play "early" in the Preseason NIT over Thanksgiving.  Most teams didn't start til December.  I thought the Saturday before Thanksgiving then became the norm for a while, to get a game in before the Thanksgiving week tourneys.  Now November 7?

[NickSmith4Three]

Matic Vesel not returning to the Illini.  Still two open scholarships for 2018.

[FearlessF]

Nebraska basketball picked up one of the top guards on the transfer market on Thursday, as Robert Morris transfer Dachon Burke committed to the Huskers while on an official visit. 

The 6-foot-4 Burke is transferring to Nebraska from Robert Morris where he averaged 17.6 points, 5.8 rebounds and 2.5 assists per game last season as a sophomore. Burke will have to sit out next season per NCAA transfer rules, and will have two seasons of eligibility in Lincoln. 

[bayareabadger]

At this point we are WAY off topic but I'll keep going anyway, LoL.  I think that your statement about opening doors (underlined by me) is the reason for this.  At this link there is a chart (pg2) showing the percentage of the US population with HS and college degrees.  The chart starts in with people born in 1900 when about 8% of men and 6% of women had bachelor's degrees.  Also in 1900 about 28% of men and 33% of women had HS diplomas.  As of the cohort born in the late 80's:

• ~28% of men have a bachelor's degree
• ~32% of women have a bachelor's degree
• ~89% of both men and women have HS diplomas

IMHO, this is a product of the incessant focus on graduation rates.  IMHO, this focus is counter-productive because when educational administrators are judged based on graduation rates they have an obvious motivation to dumb down the course-work.  Dumbing-down the course-work pushes up graduation rates.  The unfortunate side-effect is that it effectively eliminates the benefit of graduating.  Among those born in 1900, having a HS diploma was effectively equivalent to a person born in the late 80's having a bachelor's degree.  

The need for a bachelor's degree is the main reason that so many college students major in those cringe-worthy majors.  Some of them will get PhD's and teach the next generation but most will simply get jobs that do not actually require a college degree but for which college degrees are required by the employer simply to weed out applicants.  

Employers could accomplish the same thing by simply giving all applicants an IQ test but they are prohibited by law from doing so (Griggs vs Duke Power Co).  Interestingly, public employers are not prohibited from administering IQ tests and they do it all the time.  The most well known being the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test).  The military uses ASVAB to weed out the least intelligent applicants but private employers are forbidden from using such tests.  

Employers use a college degree requirement as an effective IQ test because they are prohibited from simply using an IQ test.  They need an IQ test because HS diplomas are handed out like candy and thus fail to serve this purpose.  

I think this a part of it, but there's also the factor of the changing of the job market. 
For better or worse, there are many fewer jobs one can do without some kind of baseline skills that often get strengthened in college (death of factory jobs, union jobs, etc, I assumed the right phrase is something like semi-skilled labor). College attendance boomed in the 50s, became a path to a better life, and everyone felt they had a chance at it.
The downside is not enough attention is paid to skilled work that falls outside the academic realm. Being a plumber or electrician or HVAC person are good and lucrative jobs, but they aren't within what colleges teach. So finding a way to make those more of a thing would be good (I also think college offers personal development, but obviously at a cost).
It's funny, when they're called IQ tests, my instinct goes against them. When they're called aptitude, less so. Maybe because I imagine aptitude is more job focused. I also enjoy that "Word Knowledge" is part of the ASVAB. To think the vocabulary tests I took in sixth grade raised my IQ. 

[bayareabadger]

Since I'm helping threadjack, I'll also help unthreadjack.

UW just missed out on a transfer big named Wyatt Walker. Nearly averaged a double-double two years ago. Now headed to NC state. 

I'm annoyed because UW is stupid thin up front (had three bigs who played last year, one who was kind of a SF). But he also was a no-range player, and I kind of want UW to move back toward having everyone who can at least kind of shoot. 

(I was about to post on him still considering, but upon googling, it said he committed 3 minutes earlier)

[medinabuckeye1]

The downside is not enough attention is paid to skilled work that falls outside the academic realm. Being a plumber or electrician or HVAC person are good and lucrative jobs, but they aren't within what colleges teach. So finding a way to make those more of a thing would be good (I also think college offers personal development, but obviously at a cost).

For a LONG time I have felt that way too little attention was paid to vocational education.  Part of it is simply that the education experts are mostly bookwormish academic PhD types who wouldn't know a stick of PVC sanitary pipe from a 2x4.  Consequently, the education experts seem to operate under the assumption that everyone in the world needs to go to college.  I think this system is a major disservice to the ~70% of students who will not end up getting a degree.  Putting non-college-material students through four years of college prep coursework in HS is a waste of everyone's time.  
Part of this is that, way too often, there is almost an unstated assumption that academics is a strict dichotomy in which everyone is either:

• A college graduate, or
• A complete failure.  

I strongly disagree with this assumption.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

For a LONG time I have felt that way too little attention was paid to vocational education.  Part of it is simply that the education experts are mostly bookwormish academic PhD types who wouldn't know a stick of PVC sanitary pipe from a 2x4.  Consequently, the education experts seem to operate under the assumption that everyone in the world needs to go to college.  I think this system is a major disservice to the ~70% of students who will not end up getting a degree.  Putting non-college-material students through four years of college prep coursework in HS is a waste of everyone's time.  
Part of this is that, way too often, there is almost an unstated assumption that academics is a strict dichotomy in which everyone is either:

• A college graduate, or
• A complete failure.  

I strongly disagree with this assumption.  

Agreed.
When the excrement hits the air circulation device, nobody's clamoring for a PhD in English Lit.
But when the excrement hits the air circulation device, that PhD of English Lit will pay the plumber a mint to fix the problem.
The skilled trades is a great career choice for a lot of people who today probably think they "need" to go to college.