CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: betarhoalphadelta on October 08, 2018, 05:12:21 PM
-
EDSBS had an interesting post today: https://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2018/10/8/17941130/lets-discuss-your-recruitment
Thought experiment. You're magically an 18 year old, 5* recruit, with essentially any school who will jump at the chance for you to sign on the dotted line, and play for them.
Where do you go?
(And assume for the sake of argument that you're not you today, i.e. a grad of your current school. If you grew up loving a certain team, it's okay to say you'd go there. But if you're like me and wasn't into college football until I went to college, it would be disingenuous to say I would have gone to Purdue.)
For me, I could see going to someplace like a Stanford. Highly respected school, in a really nice metropolitan area, but not necessarily the "glitz and glamour" of a place like USC. Good enough of a program where I'd feel they could showcase my abilities, but not one where I'll know from day one that I'm just one of a gaggle of 5* recruits, so it would be the best way to get playing time and try to get to the NFL as soon as I'm eligible. And because I was a nerd in high school, I'd do my best to try to actually fast-track graduation in those 3 years so I can leave with a degree. But that may not be realistic.
I wouldn't go to the Southeast or Texas due to weather, and the Midwest or Northeast for the same reason. I'm not exactly the sort who wants a lot of attention, so a college town where I'd be "BMOC" is probably more a selling point away, so large metro areas are helpful.
What do the rest of you think?
-
Of late, it has been Georgia.
-
Stanford, without question.
-
depends on what position I play.
-
Missionary - BYU
Doggy - Georgia
Reverse Cowgirl - Oklahoma St
-
Stanford is the right answer if you qualify. Duke would get some pub.
Good weather too.
-
Stanford is the right answer if you qualify. Duke would get some pub.
Good weather too.
Stanford and Duke are answers that middle aged men pretending to be 18 again would give. You aren’t really putting yourself in the mind of an 18 year old. There’s a reason Stanford and Duke don’t sign a boatload of 5 star football players.
-
A guy who can qualify at Stanford would understand.
-
A B10 school if you don't care about weather.
UCLA, USC, Texas, Florida, Georgia, or UNC if you do.
-
A guy who can qualify at Stanford would understand.
LOL. Well, that probably leaves me out.
-
well, thinking with my small head like an 18 year old, I'd be at USC (song girls) or UT-Austin, or FSU, or Georgia where it was warm and had tons of hot coeds
but, even when I was 18 I was smart enough to know that a diploma from Stanford was a helluva reward.
most of it would have been the same thing that most recruits follow. The message from the coach and assistant coach at my position. If the Stanford coaches were sincere in wanting me to get a diploma and were going to follow through and do what was bet for me, I'd probably be at Stanford. Gotta be a few cute coeds there that would like a football player.
-
It would probably be Notre Dame, given some in my family's very strong inclinations in that direction.
-
Rutger.
Seriously, I'd first choose a place with different weather from where I live. Then, the best academic school I was smart enough for, (in this fantasy I have decided to be smart) but has to be football-prominent.
-
A guy who can qualify at Stanford would understand.
It’s interesting because to go to Stanford means you have to be cool with a few things.
-A campus culture that is very much it’s own thing, and can often be pretentious and stuffy
-A place that doesn’t care much about football
-An Nice little town that isn’t exactly college town, is sort of part of a major metro, but not really close enough to be a major part of the lifestyle.
When we see Stanford, we’re saying we want a mild climate, a pretty campus, a team that’s good and a degree that sounds fancy. And that’s fine. But if college experience counts, it’s not quite the slam dunk.
Is it just the current coaches that make Stanford the slam dunk? Or being private? Cal or UCLA are super good schools in gear climates with pretty nice campuses, but they never make the cut.
-
A degree from Stanford ... Or Duke.
-
A 5* recruit has a realistic shot at the NFL, so his school choice isn't purely academic, guys. This is plainly a case of "football school" + academics.
List Duke's 5* recruits from the past bajillion years. I'll wait.
-
What year is it, and what position am I a 5*? Answer: I don't care about weather. That would likely be 10th out of 10 in any decision. I'm sure I'd target a helmet program, but maybe not. I'd want a program where my skill set was suitable. Coaching staff is gonna matter way more than weather, and college town. Now, if I'm a P/PK, that's anywhere. If I'm a dual threat QB, then that's more limited. If I'm a big OL, there's about five places I'd look at, and that would probably be in the north.
I'd have an easy time running off places I'd never go.
-
It’s interesting because to go to Stanford means you have to be cool with a few things.
-A campus culture that is very much it’s own thing, and can often be pretentious and stuffy
-A place that doesn’t care much about football
-An Nice little town that isn’t exactly college town, is sort of part of a major metro, but not really close enough to be a major part of the lifestyle.
When we see Stanford, we’re saying we want a mild climate, a pretty campus, a team that’s good and a degree that sounds fancy. And that’s fine. But if college experience counts, it’s not quite the slam dunk.
Is it just the current coaches that make Stanford the slam dunk? Or being private? Cal or UCLA are super good schools in gear climates with pretty nice campuses, but they never make the cut.
USC would closely follow. For the alumni network and the weather.
-
A 5* recruit has a realistic shot at the NFL, so his school choice isn't purely academic, guys. This is plainly a case of "football school" + academics.
List Duke's 5* recruits from the past bajillion years. I'll wait.
Yeah, I definitely think some old man sensibilities are being applied when Stanford and Duke come up. Those are answers more along the lines of “How would you advise an 18 year old 5* recruit?”
-
Well, let's see where they have signed (the past 5 years, using 24/7):
23 - Alabama (which no one has suggested by name)
18 - Georgia
14 - USC
11 - Clemson, FSU, Ohio St (tie)
10 - LSU
6 - UCLA, Texas A&M (tie)
5 - Auburn
4 - Penn St, Michigan, Stanford (tie)
3 - Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Ole Miss (tie)
2 - Miami, Tennessee, Virginia
1 - Arkansas, Miss St, Cal, Houston, Oregon, Missouri, Maryland, MSU, Baylor
0 - Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, GA Tech, Notre Dame, Wake Forest, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Illinois, etc......
Strong academic institutions in bold.
-
And you can spit on the weather thing, but I wouldn't.
Of the 10 most popular spots for 5* kids, 9 of them are south of I-40. Which means 104 of those 115 uber-talents are in warm weather.
-
5 - Auburn
4 - Penn St, Michigan, Stanford (tie)
3 - Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Ole Miss (tie)
2 - Miami, Tennessee, Virginia
interesting that Stanford is poo pooed as an old man's recommendation, but Stanford has only one less 5 star than Auburn and equal or more than the remainder of these heavy hitters in the recruiting game
-
So all the kids going to Alabama, Clemson, or LSU are making a mistake?
-
A degree from Stanford ... Or Duke.
Why not Vandy?
-
Why not Vandy?
Vandy is a good school of course but it lacks the star power of Stanford or Duke.
Vandy is perhaps akin to Northwestern or Notre Dame, roughly speaking. One could throw in UVA and Michigan and Cal as well, or Georgia Tech for example.
But, academics is rarely a primary consideration for 5 star players. Playing on Sunday IS. We all understand that the decision will be position dependent. It's unlikely a 5 star QB would sign at UGA right now, but in another year it becomes much more possible.
If I were a QB, I'd want to go where a pro style offense is played, at a high level, with exposure, and a chance to start by my soph year. That is one reason UGA signed three 5 star QBs over the past 3 years (if you count Fromm as one).
A defensive player has more options, like Ohio State, Bama, UGA, etc. A running back would want to go to "Running back U", whatever that is these days in perception. Go where they don't pass all the time, duh.
The main goal for most is to play on Sunday after 3 years playing on Saturday.
-
So all the kids going to Alabama, Clemson, or LSU are making a mistake?
Only if they could get accepted at Stanford, and are interested in a degree.
-
Well, let's see where they have signed (the past 5 years, using 24/7):
23 - Alabama (which no one has suggested by name)
18 - Georgia
14 - USC
11 - Clemson, FSU, Ohio St (tie)
10 - LSU
6 - UCLA, Texas A&M (tie)
5 - Auburn
4 - Penn St, Michigan, Stanford (tie)
3 - Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Ole Miss (tie)
2 - Miami, Tennessee, Virginia
1 - Arkansas, Miss St, Cal, Houston, Oregon, Missouri, Maryland, MSU, Baylor
0 - Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, GA Tech, Notre Dame, Wake Forest, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Illinois, etc......
Strong academic institutions in bold.
I know it's nitpicking but Iowa did sign 5-star DL A.J. Epenesa a couple of years ago.
I'm not sure it would be a "strong" school or not. Ten years ago, I would say "yes", but lately its academic prestige is sinking like a stone.
-
I had Iowa with 1 on my paper, just failed to transfer it over. Sorry.
-
Why not Vandy?
Because then you're the lone ranger going against those 23 guys at Bama or the 18 guys at UGA, getting your head knocked in.
-
Only if they could get accepted at Stanford, and are interested in a degree.
I think this is the pertinent question - what % of these 5* types could even get into Stanford? My guess is fewer than 5%. Might make the whole point moot.
-
When I was 18 and if I was a 5* recruit, my family would have disowned me if I had went anywhere but Ohio State. Believe me it was every kids dream in my neighborhood to play for the Buckeyes.
-
Only if they could get accepted at Stanford, and are interested in a degree.
Even if they could get into Stanford and want a degree going to Bama, UGA, or LSU isn’t necessarily a mistake.
-
If I am said 5 star, I'm going to Stanford. That is how the hypothetical was stated.
If I'm giving advice to another, it will depend on the other.
Obviously, if you are THAT good really, you would spend 3 years at say Georgia and go make serious money in the League, so the academics are not relevant. Even Calvin Johnson left early.
-
One can run the numbers of course, but imagine you sign a 5 year pro contract for say $40 million, and that's it, you get injured whatever.
Now, you are 26-27 years old and have something around $25 million after taxes and fees and whatever. But you are looking at another 60-70 years of life. You should be in good shape IF you manage it properly, but of course that is a large IF.
So, you might need to get a job. For one thing, as Malcolm Forbes once said, the only think a man can do for 8 hours a day is work. I don't really agree, but he said it. A job with a degree from Stanford is probably going to be better than a job with no degree from UGA.
-
Someplace with great weather and school densely populated with gorgeous women. Most likely one of the Southern California schools.
-
Every college campus I've ever visited had gorgeous women. Every one of them.
Well, Princeton not so much, as it was cold and rainy that day.
And Georgia Yech, not so much either.
-
Yes, that's true. Gorgeous women everywhere. But some schools it seems like there's more. For example, Florida State, but the weather in the panhandle sucks in the Summer.
-
But if you end up college football hero boy and don't make it in the NFL, you will always have potential income from your college town (if your school is in one and not a big city). You can do local endorsements, work for the school's broadcast team, or even become the #1 local realtor overnight.
And to have a $25 million head start on others in the work force, where you went to school is largely irrelevant.
-
The % of gorgeous ladies on every big campus is the same, it's just that the warm-weather school's girls are wearing less.
-
I agree lots of gorgeous women on college campuses, but why is it that Oxford has an outsized portion of them? I've been all over the south for games, they are an outlier amongst outliers.
-
Over spring break in 1975, I drove up to Princeton to check it out. It was gray, drizzly, residual snow, and whatever females there may have been were wearing heavy coats and hoodies.
On the way back, I stopped at UNC. It was about 65°F and sunny and the coeds were attractive.
And that is why I ended up at UNC instead of Princeton.
-
And how many gorgeous women do you really need as BMOC? Ten? Twenty?
Now, if I had a million dollars ....
-
When I was 18 and if I was a 5* recruit, my family would have disowned me if I had went anywhere but Ohio State. Believe me it was every kids dream in my neighborhood to play for the Buckeyes.
+1
-
But if you end up college football hero boy and don't make it in the NFL, you will always have potential income from your college town (if your school is in one and not a big city). You can do local endorsements, work for the school's broadcast team, or even become the #1 local realtor overnight.
And to have a $25 million head start on others in the work force, where you went to school is largely irrelevant.
This is important and arguably more important than the academic perception of the diploma that you may or may not ever get. If you go to a place like Ohio State that has a large number of fans concentrated in one area you have a decent chance to make at least good side-job money as a broadcaster/endorser in that area and be the #1 local realtor or insurance agent or similar type networking job.
-
depends on what position I play.
Other than Ohio State because I was a big fan growing up, this would be my #2 answer. If I had a skill-set that did not seem to fit well at Ohio State but that could potentially make me a star elsewhere, I would have to consider that.
-
Icky Woods used to live near me in Cincy. We were on the same basketball team for a few years. He had a nice house. And then he didn't.
The last I heard he was working selling meat for somebody door to door.
-
A 5* recruit has a realistic shot at the NFL, so his school choice isn't purely academic, guys. This is plainly a case of "football school" + academics.
List Duke's 5* recruits from the past bajillion years. I'll wait.
I was thinking this as well. The money you could potentially make in the NFL is a LOT more than the money you would be reasonably likely to make with your degree regardless of whether your degree is from Dook/Stanford or some football factory.
Another issue that I would consider now (but not then) is the question of whether potential employers would trust my degree. Would they suspect that I got my degree based on my football abilities and discount it? As an employer I have actually faced this issue. I had a guy apply for an accounting job. He had a degree in accounting from a P5 football school (not B1G but in this general area) and he was a football player in college. I didn't recognize the name so I'm pretty sure he wasn't a star but he was a scholarship football player at a P5 school with a reasonably strong football tradition. As an employer, I did NOT trust the degree.
-
+1
but, what if your mother doesn't like Urban Meyer or his WR coach?
-
I think this is the pertinent question - what % of these 5* types could even get into Stanford? My guess is fewer than 5%. Might make the whole point moot.
What percentage of any athletes could get into Stanford? Or of the general population?
This link (https://www.iqmindware.com/blog/the-bell-curve-cognitive-elites/) [accurate or not] suggests the average IQ of graduates of the Ivies is north of 140. That's way up there in the 3 SD from mean range... High-end genius.
Finding the cross-section of "high-end genius" and "5* athlete" is undoubtedly a pretty small group, but you can assume that the minimum admission requirements of a place like Stanford, while probably much higher for athletes than most other P5 schools, are not as strict as they are for random applicants. I'm guessing that of those four 5* athletes that Stanford recruited in the last five years, it's not mathematically likely that any of the four had a >140 IQ, and almost absurdely unlikely that two or more of those players did.
I was a pretty good student. My target school list in HS was Purdue, Illinois, MIT, Berkeley, CalTech, and Stanford. It probably would have been a stretch for me to get admitted to Stanford based purely on academics, but if I was even a 3* or 4* football player, I'm sure they'd have admitted me.
So you KNOW they will admit an athlete who probably wouldn't have been admitted on the pure strength of their academics.
Another link (https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/02/22/the-price-of-athletics-at-stanford/):
We can also look at high school scouting reports for football players. Looking at the Stanford (https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/commitments/2009/stanford-63) recruitment (http://stanford.scout.com/topic/players?type=players&start=0&category=%22Football%20Recruiting%22&classYear=%222009%22&team=%22Stanford%22&sortBy=Ranking&committed=true) class of 2009 (this year was quite typical in terms of test scores), the median football player who reported scores got an 1800 out of 2400 on the SAT and 26 on the ACT. Based on university statistics (http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/cds_2009), this puts the football median comfortably in the bottom quartile and likely somewhere in the bottom 10 percent in terms of test scores. Stanford football players are quite smart, but the data suggests they place near the bottom of Stanford’s admits.
A 26 on the ACT puts you in the top 18% of ACT test-takers. That's smart, but that's not 140 IQ level smart...
-
The % of gorgeous ladies on every big campus is the same, it's just that the warm-weather school's girls are wearing less.
I see you've never been to West Lafayette...
-
Now, you are 26-27 years old and have something around $25 million after taxes and fees and whatever. But you are looking at another 60-70 years of life. You should be in good shape IF you manage it properly, but of course that is a large IF.
So, you might need to get a job. For one thing, as Malcolm Forbes once said, the only think a man can do for 8 hours a day is work. I don't really agree, but he said it. A job with a degree from Stanford is probably going to be better than a job with no degree from UGA.
I am reminded of the study that was done that showed correlation between monetary success in life and the tier of school to which students applied to. Didn't matter which school they were accepted to. Didn't matter which one they attended. Didn't matter whether they graduated. The correlation was much one of aptitude.
Pretty sure if you can get admitted to Stanford, athlete or not, you're pretty smart. You're going to be fine, whatever you do, if you've got $25M in the bank.
But I'd bet a business degree from Stanford would go a long way to being successful at the auto dealership you own... Or the franchise of restaurants you establish. Or for the rental property you buy.
Although a degree from Stanford WOULD get you in the right circles to be a venture capitalist... That'd be fun ;-)
-
I was thinking this as well. The money you could potentially make in the NFL is a LOT more than the money you would be reasonably likely to make with your degree regardless of whether your degree is from Dook/Stanford or some football factory.
Another issue that I would consider now (but not then) is the question of whether potential employers would trust my degree. Would they suspect that I got my degree based on my football abilities and discount it? As an employer I have actually faced this issue. I had a guy apply for an accounting job. He had a degree in accounting from a P5 football school (not B1G but in this general area) and he was a football player in college. I didn't recognize the name so I'm pretty sure he wasn't a star but he was a scholarship football player at a P5 school with a reasonably strong football tradition. As an employer, I did NOT trust the degree.
Shew man. That is super cynical.
-
What percentage of any athletes could get into Stanford? Or of the general population?
This link (https://www.iqmindware.com/blog/the-bell-curve-cognitive-elites/) [accurate or not] suggests the average IQ of graduates of the Ivies is north of 140. That's way up there in the 3 SD from mean range... High-end genius.
Finding the cross-section of "high-end genius" and "5* athlete" is undoubtedly a pretty small group, but you can assume that the minimum admission requirements of a place like Stanford, while probably much higher for athletes than most other P5 schools, are not as strict as they are for random applicants. I'm guessing that of those four 5* athletes that Stanford recruited in the last five years, it's not mathematically likely that any of the four had a >140 IQ, and almost absurdely unlikely that two or more of those players did.
I was a pretty good student. My target school list in HS was Purdue, Illinois, MIT, Berkeley, CalTech, and Stanford. It probably would have been a stretch for me to get admitted to Stanford based purely on academics, but if I was even a 3* or 4* football player, I'm sure they'd have admitted me.
So you KNOW they will admit an athlete who probably wouldn't have been admitted on the pure strength of their academics.
Another link (https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/02/22/the-price-of-athletics-at-stanford/):
A 26 on the ACT puts you in the top 18% of ACT test-takers. That's smart, but that's not 140 IQ level smart...
I appreciate all of this, but I'm drawing my line there, at an athlete getting accepted. Not the best Stanford applicant, not the average, but the athletic allowance line....5* guys are already so rare. To combo with even that line academically, it ain't happening often.
It's safe to say the past 10 years or so have been the golden age for Stanford, right? And what do they have? 4 elite recruits in the past 5 years? Sure, the Michigans and Floridas of the world are down, but their ceilings are where the Alabamas and Georgias are in this 5-year look. I'm afraid Stanford's ceiling is now.
THAT'S the difference.
-
I was thinking this as well. The money you could potentially make in the NFL is a LOT more than the money you would be reasonably likely to make with your degree regardless of whether your degree is from Dook/Stanford or some football factory.
Another issue that I would consider now (but not then) is the question of whether potential employers would trust my degree. Would they suspect that I got my degree based on my football abilities and discount it? As an employer I have actually faced this issue. I had a guy apply for an accounting job. He had a degree in accounting from a P5 football school (not B1G but in this general area) and he was a football player in college. I didn't recognize the name so I'm pretty sure he wasn't a star but he was a scholarship football player at a P5 school with a reasonably strong football tradition. As an employer, I did NOT trust the degree.
That guy should sue you.
-
I see you've never been to West Lafayette...
I call BS. In late October, those dainty lil Boilers aren't wearing jeans all around campus? Meanwhile, down in Gainesville, you can't find a skirt longer than mid-thigh.
-
That guy should sue you.
Talked to the lawyer before I made the call and two things:
- He wasn't the #1 applicant no matter how you viewed his degree, and
- Lawyer didn't think it was actionable even if he found out. As an employer I am allowed to have a perception about degrees from various institutions and consider context. This was context.
More on this:
The theoretical basis of most of employment law is "at will" meaning that the employer can make hire/fire decision for "any reason, or no reason at all." Thus, at least in theory, if I am your employer and I decide that I don't want any Florida fans working for me then I can fire you and you have no recourse.
Now, the lawyers around here can tell you better than I, but this is one of those "rules" that has so many exceptions that it almost isn't a rule. That is true, but even so, the underlying theory is still controlling until the plaintiff raises an applicable exception. The onus is on the plaintiff to find an applicable exception and prove it.
-
the females in the engineering college at UNL in the early 80's didn't wear many skirts regardless of weather
same in West Lafaytte I'd guess
-
Shew man. That is super cynical.
I really don't think so (https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-trail/2008/12/30/athletes-show-huge-gaps-in-sat-scores).
-
I see you've never been to West Lafayette...
I call BS. In late October, those dainty lil Boilers aren't wearing jeans all around campus? Meanwhile, down in Gainesville, you can't find a skirt longer than mid-thigh.
OAM, I read his comment as, not all college campuses have hot women, not a quibble over your claims of wardrobe distinctions.
-
easy to discriminate for being a Sooner or Gator
just can't discriminate on religion, age, gender, or race
-
I am reminded of the study that was done that showed correlation between monetary success in life and the tier of school to which students applied to. Didn't matter which school they were accepted to. Didn't matter which one they attended. Didn't matter whether they graduated. The correlation was much one of aptitude.
Pretty sure if you can get admitted to Stanford, athlete or not, you're pretty smart. You're going to be fine, whatever you do, if you've got $25M in the bank.
But I'd bet a business degree from Stanford would go a long way to being successful at the auto dealership you own... Or the franchise of restaurants you establish. Or for the rental property you buy.
Although a degree from Stanford WOULD get you in the right circles to be a venture capitalist... That'd be fun ;-)
I agree with this point 100%. There is a story about Neil Armstrong being advised by someone when he was applying to universities that he could get a good education in Indiana and didn't have to go all the way to the East Coast (MIT) to get it.
The same applies to whether or not you go to college and/or whether or not you get a degree. Educators love to quote the statistic that college graduates earn X multiple of what non-college graduates earn over a lifetime. It is undoubtedly statistically true, but it is also highly misleading. The implication they are trying to make is that a randomly selected person will earn x if they get a degree but only y if they do not. That simply isn't true. The group of "non college graduates" includes some really dim bulbs while the group of "college graduates" includes some incredibly smart people. When we are talking about a single individual, intelligence is a given. If they are smart enough to graduate from college that will help them EVEN IF THEY NEVER SEE THE INSIDE OF A COLLEGE CLASSROOM.
My point is that a guy who has the intelligence to graduate from college but chooses not to is not going to be a minimum wage worker his whole life. He is going to advance in his non-collegiate career to the point where he will earn more than some college graduates. Similarly, someone who is barely smart enough to earn a degree and goes to some low-end school and gets a particularly easy but not very marketable degree is going to be lucky to earn enough "extra" over his hypothetical non-college earnings to pay off his loans.
-
I call BS. In late October, those dainty lil Boilers aren't wearing jeans all around campus? Meanwhile, down in Gainesville, you can't find a skirt longer than mid-thigh.
OAM, I read his comment as, not all college campuses have hot women, not a quibble over your claims of wardrobe distinctions.
I think @OrangeAfroMan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=58) understood that and was simply arguing that you couldn't tell if they were hot or not because they were dressed like Eskimos.
-
I would sign with Stanford myself, as noted.
Few people with any motivation want to retire at 26 with Big Bank.
I would of course, but I'm me.
-
I would sign with Stanford myself, as noted.
Few people with any motivation want to retire at 26 with Big Bank.
I would of course, but I'm me.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by retire:
- If you mean sit around and watch TV all day for the rest of my life, then no.
- If you mean have enough bank to be able to do whatever I wanted to do then yes.
-
I'd like to have done more with my life than just "do whatever I wanted". That's what I do now of course. When younger I had some aspirations to DO something more than that.
I'm tired now and worn down by "life".
-
I'm starting to tire of life
-
If Purdue has 30,000 undergrads, as a 5 second google search says, then yes, it has tons of hotties on campus. Hotties are easier to spot when wearing little more than a bikini 10 months out of the year than only 2. Even an engineering school has its mobile scenery.
I'm reminded of my ex-GF. If I had to marry someone, it'd be her. But she dressed like a 40 year old man. She had an insane body, but unless you saw her undressed, you'd never know. Maybe West Lafayette is similarly disguised.
-
My guess is that a star football player doesn't have to worry much about finding attractive females just about anywhere aside from a small oil town in North Dakota.
I don't think that is a real consideration.
If he is only interested in playing on Sunday in three years. his choices are pretty obvious, perhaps flavored by his position.
If he is serious about academics and getting a degree, Stanford would be a solid choice.
I think a 5 star pro style QB would prefer programs with pro style offensive schemes. Other than that, the choices are obvious. And the list of where they have been going is pretty clear as well. Pick one of them where you like the coaching staff and they appear to have stability therein.
-
I call BS. In late October, those dainty lil Boilers aren't wearing jeans all around campus? Meanwhile, down in Gainesville, you can't find a skirt longer than mid-thigh.
Purdue cheerleaders would be a 7 on Florida's campus, is what I'm saying.
-
I think all of this focus on academics is a little misleading.
Upthread @bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) posted a link which stated that Stanford's median football player "who reported scores" got an 1800 on the SAT and 26 on the ACT. Those a good scores. An 1800 on the SAT is 81st percentile and a 26 on the ACT is 83rd percentile. The thing is that Stanford's average for all students is 2220 on the SAT and a score of 2080 is only the 25th percentile of Stanford students. Those Stanford football players with 1800 SAT scores are 280 points behind a 25th percentile Stanford Student and 420 points behind an average Stanford student.
Furthermore, I strongly suspect that the football averages (at all schools, not just Stanford) are inflated by the inclusion of walk-ons. I've never found absolute confirmation of this, but wherever you see the football player scores you never see "scholarship football players", instead you see it as "all football players". My suspicion is that the walk-ons that we have never heard of probably have normal scores for the institution in question which means that the scholarship football players are even lower than the "average football player" because that average is propped up by higher-scoring walk-ons.
This gap is frankly an embarrassment for all of our schools.
Here is a link that I have posted before (https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-trail/2008/12/30/athletes-show-huge-gaps-in-sat-scores) that lays out the enormous gap between football scores and scores of other students at major schools. Michigan (997), Purdue (974), Indiana (973), and Iowa (964) all made the top-10 which is great. The problem is that those scores aren't great and they are the best in the country. Everybody else is even worse.
There is a good reason why a lot of high-end academic schools with decent football/basketball programs hide most of their athletes in what are effectively "athlete only" majors. They have to because otherwise the athletes couldn't possibly keep up with the general student population.
Look at Stanford:
- 1800 "football average" is 81st percentile nationally.
- 2080 is 25th percentile of Stanford students is 96th percentile nationally.
- 2220 is average for all Stanford students is 98th percentile nationally.
- 2360 is 75th percentile for all Stanford students is 99.8th percentile nationally.
Bottom line, Stanford's "average" football player is in the smartest ~ 1 in 5. Stanford's average student is in the smartest 1 in 50. That is a HUMONGOUS gap. Stanford's 1800 scoring football players cannot possibly keep up academically with the "real" Stanford students.
-
I know that athletes get admitted who otherwise would have no chance, whatever the school (almost).
I think the same may be true for music majors or art majors at times.
HS athletes feel that they can get by in HS because the fix in in, often as not. Even if they realize belatedly that they need some grades to get into college (and SATs), they can't catch up in two years very well. So maybe they slide in to some football school and then get sheltered there with tutors and of course a planned pathway of coursework that is easy.
For some reason, when I was at UGA Geology was one of the science courses considered to be easy, and the nickname was "Rocks for Jocks".
We pretty much knew the "crip courses" that could up your GPA with ease. I took a couple of them.
-
I really don't think so (https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-trail/2008/12/30/athletes-show-huge-gaps-in-sat-scores).
It’s just a shame to hear a story like that. The guy never had a chance based on your preconceived notions of football players and apparently the school he went to. It’s disheartening.
-
And before anyone thinks I’m a Pollyanna who has never had a discriminatory thought in my life I can tell you I absolutely have. In fact, I’ve said before that people don’t have the luxury of getting to know everyone on a personal level so we sometimes have to rely on preconceived notions to guide us through decisions.
But a job interview is a situation where you can get to know someone and ask them questions and learn about their personal experience. And maybe you did all of that but the way I read your post is you saw he was a football player from particular school and immediately disqualified him as a candidate.
-
disheartening, but it's the real world out there
if you are the person responsible for hiring good people you use all your resources to be successful
your life experiences and prejudices are part of that
what's worse is people being hired over more skilled and more deserving folks that have a better chance of being a valued employee because of reverse discrimination rules.
-
For some reason, when I was at UGA Geology was one of the science courses considered to be easy, and the nickname was "Rocks for Jocks". I took a couple of them.
What ya call it now Stones for old Bones.....I'll show myself out
-
And before anyone thinks I’m a Pollyanna who has never had a discriminatory thought in my life I can tell you I absolutely have. In fact, I’ve said before that people don’t have the luxury of getting to know everyone on a personal level so we sometimes have to rely on preconceived notions to guide us through decisions.
But a job interview is a situation where you can get to know someone and ask them questions and learn about their personal experience. And maybe you did all of that but the way I read your post is you saw he was a football player from particular school and immediately disqualified him as a candidate.
A couple of points:
First, I intentionally have NOT named the school because I don't want that to be an issue but it really doesn't matter to me. You said that I saw he was a football player from a "particular school" which made it sound like you were implying that I was picking on THAT school. I wasn't. I follow this enough (see the link I posted) to KNOW that LOTS of football players get into virtually all of the P5 schools who wouldn't be able to get into Clown College based solely on their academics.
Second, the guy in question was, at best, borderline to even get an interview even if I had ignored my well founded skepticism. I would have looked at it differently if he had been the obvious #1 candidate. He wasn't. He was right at the cut-off for getting an interview or not and I didn't give him the interview. Even if I had, he would have had to really knock our socks off in the interview because everything else about his resume put him well behind the people I did interview.
-
I follow this enough (see the link I posted) to KNOW that LOTS of football players get into virtually all of the P5 schools who wouldn't be able to get into Clown College based solely on their academics.
Well Ringling Brothers closed down so that wouldn't be a good career move
-
Lyle Sankey's rodeo school Located in the dusty prison town of Penrose, Colorado
-
I wonder if it would be a good idea to go to a school like NC State to play and get to the League quickly. You'd stand a good shot at starting all three years and standing out, at times against less talented players.
If you go to Bama or OSU, you might not get much PT your first year aside from STs. On defense, you'd have a better chance of being in the rotation.
-
And of course, you'd need to be somewhere where you could stay academically eligible as well.
-
My niece's husband is a Tech grad and likes to note they all have to take calculus at some point. Of course, that doesn't apply if you don't graduate.
I'm sure it does limit their ability to attract players, along with having an odd offensive scheme.
-
My niece's husband is a Tech grad and likes to note they all have to take calculus at some point.
bully for them!
-
Purdue cheerleaders would be a 7 on Florida's campus, is what I'm saying.
Gotta cite sample size here. Hell, Oregon's cheerleaders look especially good, but I wouldn't compare Eugene's young ladies against Florida's favorably, overall. I'm sure the southern campuses may have more visions than a Purdue, but out of ~13,000 ladies on campus, you could find 5,000 that would fit right in any scenic campus.
Anyway, as I've said before, I could swear UF required a photo attached to all the ladies' applications, considering how hot nearly all of them were. Add in the diversity of a college campus - even better.
-
disheartening, but it's the real world out there
what's worse is people being hired over more skilled and more deserving folks that have a better chance of being a valued employee because of reverse discrimination rules.
Yep, I agree.
-
My niece's husband is a Tech grad and likes to note they all have to take calculus at some point. Of course, that doesn't apply if you don't graduate.
I'm sure it does limit their ability to attract players, along with having an odd offensive scheme.
This contributes to one of the great schizophrenic conversations in CFB.Shluld Georgia Tech expect to be very good?
People always say ATLANTA! But then this comes up, and the fact it’s lucky if it has second-tier interest in its own city.
I think Chan Gailey recruited ok there back in the day. But I wonder if that was more blip than not.
-
I think it is tougher for an "academic school" to have consistency in football at a high level. But, the ones that do have a set of courses that players can take to remain eligible even if they are pretty far under the mean in academics.
The main deal for GT is that they are surrounded by recruiting powerhouses.
-
was watching BTN last night - Husker 1997 team, talked a bit about Scott Frost from Wood River, NE going to Stanford instead of UNL.
Academics and the Bill Walsh passing school
didn't matter that Tom Osborne was becoming a legend, Scott's father played for Tom, Scott's mother was an athlete at UNL
-
I think all of this focus on academics is a little misleading.
Here is a link that I have posted before (https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-trail/2008/12/30/athletes-show-huge-gaps-in-sat-scores) that lays out the enormous gap between football scores and scores of other students at major schools. Michigan (997), Purdue (974), Indiana (973), and Iowa (964) all made the top-10 which is great. The problem is that those scores aren't great and they are the best in the country. Everybody else is even worse.
I am not sure how I view this. Almost no one who attends Iowa takes the SAT. Iowans take the ACT (American College Testing) which is an Iowa City company. The Iowa SAT score results probably come from the few players they recruited from east of Illinois.
-
http://investigations.myajc.com/football-admissions/
-
http://investigations.myajc.com/football-admissions/
By Shannon McCaffrey and Nicholas Fouriezos | The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Apparently, these folks thought this was news worthy? Been going on since the 1800's
-
I think adding some numbers to the discussion was the thing.
-
ahhh, like Medina does.....
-
Would everyone be in favor of a "percentage cutoff" - all scholarship athletes must score/rate within X-% of their incoming FR class overall?
That would really hamstring the Stanfords and such of the world. We all know athletes gain entrance with lower scores, but 400+ points??? Football players getting in with sub-600 SAT scores?!?
Is there one person who does this job at each school? A committee? I've heard of coaches jousting with admissions offices before, like at ND. And of course there's tutoring going on, easy classes, etc as well, but those are such long-running things that they're accepted, imo.
But those things would help a student athlete who is somewhat behind his peers academically, not a kid who can't read (which has got to be true of a sub-600 SAT score). Keeping a young person like that eligible would be impossible without improprieties, I think we'd all agree.
Hell, if Vanderbilt is going to act like they're academically superior while getting spanked on the football field, then it needs to hold true. My fear is that there is nearly zero uniformity when comparing admissions offices from school to school. THAT is a problem.
-
I like it the way it is...
The NCAA sets the bottom
the conference can set a higher bottom if they choose
the university can set whatever standard above those as it likes
if the University chooses to lower their standards for dumb jocks, it is the job of the newspaper to call them out
-
Who would care, if the team is winning and the program is a helmet?
-
if the team is winning not many care - just a few academics
helmet or not
-
I am surprised at the number of sub-600 SAT score players who were admitted. That kind of score suggests someone who is probably not able to read well at all. It hits me again what we all really realize that this is a semi-pro league in effect. Very few of these students every graduate, or even make real progress in that direction. I'm delighted some do of course, as they would not have had that chance otherwise. But also some get injured, rather badly at times, and suffer the rest of their lives.
It's a topic of conflict in my mind, one I admit to ignoring most of the time.
In Europe, around 35% of HS students attend college. Here, it's closer to 70%. Our local HS would routinely hit 90% going to college.
Diesel mechanics can make pretty good wages these days.
There is a 29 story apartment building going up just next to us a bit and we walk by it every day and often stop to see what's happening. The crane operator is a magician. The top of the crane must be 400 feet in the air. They have 3-4 guys directing traffic as the construction has consumed one lane of a one way street and only one lane is available. They halt traffic when the crane is working nearby.
I guess they get paid pretty well also. But I digress.
I think that may be my epitaph when my time is done here.
-
if the team is winning not many care - just a few academics
helmet or not
I doubt many care if the team is losing, unless they want the standards lowered so they can compete better.
-
true, most ignore it
some groups of academics, profs and administrators, seem to care almost too much.
Obviously, money rears its head here
Academics feel more money should go towards academics and less to dumb jocks