Jump to content
portajohn

2021 Rumor Mill Tracker

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

I have no idea what this even means relative to what I wrote. If your point is Harvard is harder to get into than Cornell, thanks for the news flash. If your point is only Cornell has antivaxxer level morons on their teams, have you ever heard of Dr. Simone Gold, a Stanford grad whose career highlight was the Capitol raid and is the most prominent MD antivaxxer in the world? Every good school has its share of idiots. Is wrestling a preferred sport at Cornell? Duh. Which elite school doesn’t have preferred sports?

Simone Gold wrestled for Stanford?  I'm just saying preferred admissions at Cornell for wrestling is significantly different than preferred admissions at Stanford, Harvard, Upenn, etc for wrestling.  Not worth even comparing them, which is what I thought what you were doing by bringing up Lang's situation in 2002. Getting in for football or basketball at Stanford is comparable though, so if Koll can talk Stanford's admin into getting similar standards for wrestling, he is in business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Billyhoyle said:

Simone Gold wrestled for Stanford?  I'm just saying preferred admissions at Cornell for wrestling is significantly different than preferred admissions at Stanford, Harvard, Upenn, etc for wrestling.  Not worth even comparing them, which is what I thought what you were doing by bringing up Lang's situation in 2002. Getting in for football or basketball at Stanford is comparable though, so if Koll can talk Stanford's admin into getting similar standards for wrestling, he is in business. 

Obviously the point about Simone was that a woman who got two of the toughest degrees possible at two elite schools is a raging antivaxxer, not that she wrestled. Your pot shot at the Deans was unwarranted. We both think antivaxxers have screws loose, but they can still be highly qualified academically. If you knew what kind of academic options the Deans had that weren’t Cornell you might think twice about posting what you did. Where did the other Deans (not brothers) go to school? The main difference was how much wrestling meant to one set of Deans over another. 

Of course Cornell has supported wrestling. Is that a big secret? The top ranked school in the country (if you believe rankings are truly representative of quality), Princeton, is probably the most successful Ivy in athletics. You don’t think the sports back door is alive and well there? Stanford is the most athletically successful program in the country and also a top 10 school in any ranking system. It is absolutely not true that they give jocks a chance at only the two sports you mentioned. Even Harvard does it for more than two sports (Drew87 is wrong about it being just for crew). You should look into the PG back door for athletes, which is a different iteration of the grey shirt. 

Anyway, you missed my point to the poster I was responding to. At schools with very low acceptance rates, you can’t really get too much information about how much support a program has by looking at one or a few isolated cases (e.g. Jason Welch not getting into Stanford). I wasn’t comparing the schools’ admissions standards for wrestling. 

If Koll takes the Stanford job, I’ll be surprised. Stanford is not going from nearly dropping wrestling to supporting the program the way it does for several preferred sports. Doesn’t Koll have another son at Cornell still?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Doesn’t Koll have another son at Cornell still?

Daniel Koll is listed as a junior on the roster, but may be a senior if he attended both semesters this past year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Obviously the point about Simone was that a woman who got two of the toughest degrees possible at two elite schools is a raging antivaxxer, not that she wrestled. Your pot shot at the Deans was unwarranted. We both think antivaxxers have screws loose, but they can still be highly qualified academically. If you knew what kind of academic options the Deans had that weren’t Cornell you might think twice about posting what you did. Where did the other Deans (not brothers) go to school? The main difference was how much wrestling meant to one set of Deans over another. 

Of course Cornell has supported wrestling. Is that a big secret? The top ranked school in the country (if you believe rankings are truly representative of quality), Princeton, is probably the most successful Ivy in athletics. You don’t think the sports back door is alive and well there? Stanford is the most athletically successful program in the country and also a top 10 school in any ranking system. It is absolutely not true that they give jocks a chance at only the two sports you mentioned. Even Harvard does it for more than two sports (Drew87 is wrong about it being just for crew). You should look into the PG back door for athletes, which is a different iteration of the grey shirt. 

Anyway, you missed my point to the poster I was responding to. At schools with very low acceptance rates, you can’t really get too much information about how much support a program has by looking at one or a few isolated cases (e.g. Jason Welch not getting into Stanford). I wasn’t comparing the schools’ admissions standards for wrestling. 

If Koll takes the Stanford job, I’ll be surprised. Stanford is not going from nearly dropping wrestling to supporting the program the way it does for several preferred sports. Doesn’t Koll have another son at Cornell still?

Alright let’s just simplify the discussion. Do you or do you not agree that it is currently much easier to get into Cornell than Stanford for wrestling. If you agree, we are on the same page. I thought you did not by bringing up Lang. 
 

For Koll to take the Stanford job and be competitive, he will need them to lower the admission standards. 

Edited by Billyhoyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

Alright let’s just simplify the discussion. Do you or do you not agree that it is currently much easier to get into Cornell than Stanford for wrestling. If you agree, we are on the same page. I thought you did not by bringing up Lang. 
 

For Koll to take the Stanford job and be competitive, he will need them to lower the admission standards. 

Fully agreed on both points. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Billyhoyle said:

Alright let’s just simplify the discussion. Do you or do you not agree that it is currently much easier to get into Cornell than Stanford for wrestling. If you agree, we are on the same page. I thought you did not by bringing up Lang. 
 

For Koll to take the Stanford job and be competitive, he will need them to lower the admission standards. 

How would this work in a job interview?  Surely a nonstarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Obviously the point about Simone was that a woman who got two of the toughest degrees possible at two elite schools is a raging antivaxxer, not that she wrestled. Your pot shot at the Deans was unwarranted. We both think antivaxxers have screws loose, but they can still be highly qualified academically. If you knew what kind of academic options the Deans had that weren’t Cornell you might think twice about posting what you did. Where did the other Deans (not brothers) go to school? The main difference was how much wrestling meant to one set of Deans over another. 

You mean the three cousins?  One of whom graduated, one is a senior, and the other will be a freshman next year?  At Harvard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Drew87 said:

Sorry, this just demonstrates a lack of understanding for how Ivies handle athletics.  Ivies are all so well endowed, they just funnel everything through regular financial aid. They have enough leeway to do whatever they want with whomever they want.

Obviously Ivies still manage to get their student athletes financial aid in some form. My point, and I guess I phrased it poorly, was that without having athletic scholarships there are just a few more hoops to jump through. It doesn't matter what your parents' household income is for athletic scholarships. It doesn't matter what your academic standing is (as long as you can get into the school). I was just playing devil's advocate in the discussion of why Koll would consider Stanford. As I mentioned further on in my original post, Koll has done a great job with the Cornell program and has managed any Ivy-specific challenges masterfully. His program is a well-oiled machine, which is why I don't think he'll leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Billyhoyle said:

Alright let’s just simplify the discussion. Do you or do you not agree that it is currently much easier to get into Cornell than Stanford for wrestling. If you agree, we are on the same page. I thought you did not by bringing up Lang. 
 

For Koll to take the Stanford job and be competitive, he will need them to lower the admission standards. 

I hate to introduce facts into the discussion, but the admissions standards for recruited athletes at Stanford are much lower than those of the student body in general. This is from the Stanford Daily. 

Looking at the Stanford recruitment 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, 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.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/02/22/the-price-of-athletics-at-stanford/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maximus Meridius said:

I hate to introduce facts into the discussion, but the admissions standards for recruited athletes at Stanford are much lower than those of the student body in general. This is from the Stanford Daily. 

Looking at the Stanford recruitment 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, 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.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/02/22/the-price-of-athletics-at-stanford/

 

you are calling 1800/26 "quite smart?"  ;_;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Maximus Meridius said:

I hate to introduce facts into the discussion, but the admissions standards for recruited athletes at Stanford are much lower than those of the student body in general. This is from the Stanford Daily. 

Looking at the Stanford recruitment 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, 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.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/02/22/the-price-of-athletics-at-stanford/

 

No one on here is contesting that FOOTBALL / BASKETBALL players at stanford have reduced admission standards.

show me where wrestlers do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ionel said:

you are calling 1800/26 "quite smart?"  ;_;

You are something else. 26 is the 82nd percentile. 1800 is also 82nd percentile.   If that isn’t quite smart do you also argue that 20 or so teams should be top 5 every year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maximus Meridius said:

I hate to introduce facts into the discussion, but the admissions standards for recruited athletes at Stanford are much lower than those of the student body in general. This is from the Stanford Daily. 

Looking at the Stanford recruitment 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, 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.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/02/22/the-price-of-athletics-at-stanford/

 

Sounds like football, being the largest revenue generating sport out of every stanford sport, had a lot of pull.  That said, You could find D1 football rosters where 95%+ of the players on the team couldn’t reach that score.  

Penn State, Okie State, and Iowa are the only places where wrestling has football levels of pull.  Of those three I would guess that Penn State has the highest average scores, they actually know how to words more than “we did good an’ rassled hard tha way coach sehd”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MSU158 said:

You are something else. 26 is the 82nd percentile. 1800 is also 82nd percentile.   If that isn’t quite smart do you also argue that 20 or so teams should be top 5 every year?

I'd say there are about 20 fanbases who think they should be top 5 every year.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Median scores mean very little in this context.  44 is all of the first and second stringers on a fb team.  It also happens to be slightly under half an ncaa fb team. Median score doesn't necessarily say anything about scores of the starters or describe entrance requirements for highly recruited players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Major Kong said:

Sheesh. Where'd you go undergrad? Oxford? I'll brag on my kid - Chicago BA, Harvard JD. Wrestler.

No, not me, Dr. Gold. Those are her credentials (hence, why I called her a Stanford grad in my original post to which you replied "Chicago"). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, wrestlingnerd said:

No, not me, Dr. Gold. Those are her credentials (hence, why I called her a Stanford grad in my original post to which you replied "Chicago"). 

No, I was responding to "what elite school doesn't have a preference in sports?". Ah well, good on ya anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Major Kong said:

No, I was responding to "what elite school doesn't have a preference in sports?". Ah well, good on ya anyway.

Now I get it. My misread. You are right. I should've said, what elite D1 school doesn't have a preference in sports.... important qualifier. Chicago is top-notch. You should be very proud of your son, who probably got his brain from the mom's side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Now I get it. My misread. You are right. I should've said, what elite D1 school doesn't have a preference in sports.... important qualifier. Chicago is top-notch. You should be very proud of your son, who probably got his brain from the mom's side.

No doubt about that. But I taught him a claw ride.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wrestlingnerd said:

Fully agreed on both points. 

Do you have any facts to support your claim?  Big time athletic schools (of which Stanford is one) have much lower standards for athletes.  See below.

Now the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has gone ahead and quantified that by comparing average SAT scores and grade-point averagesGPAs of athletes with the rest of the college's student body. Not surprisingly, football and men's basketball players came out on the bottom, and some averaged hundreds of points lower on SATs than their classmates. 

The Journal-Constitution studied 54 public universities, "including the members of the six major Bowl Championship Series conferences and other schools whose teams finished the 2007-08 season ranked among the football or men's basketball top 25." 

We all suspect that big-time student athletes sometimes aren't the best and the brightest academically. 

Some highlights: 

  • Football players average 220 points lower on the SAT than their classmates. Men's basketball was 227 points lower.
  • University of Florida won the prize for biggest gap between football players and the student body, with players scoring 346 points lower than their peers.
  • Georgia Tech had the nation's best average SAT score for football players, 1028 of a possible 1600, and best average high school GPA, 3.39 of a possible 4.0. But because its student body is apparently very smart, Tech's football players still scored 315 SAT points lower than their classmates.
  • UCLA, which has won more NCAA championships in all sports than any other school, had the biggest gap between the average SAT scores of athletes in all sports and its overall student body, at 247 points.

Some "universal truths," according to the Journal-Constitution:

All 53 schools for which football SAT scores were available had at least an 88-point gap between team members' average score and the average for the student body. 

Schools with the highest admissions standards, such as Georgia Tech, the University of Virginia, the University of California-Berkeley, UCLA, and the University of North Carolina, had the biggest gaps between the SAT averages for athletes and the overall student body. 

Football players performed 115 points worse on the SAT than male athletes in other sports.

The differences between athletes' and non-athletes' SAT scores were less than half as big for women (73 points) as for men (170).

Many schools routinely used a special admissions process to admit athletes who did not meet the normal entrance requirements. More than half of scholarship athletes at the University of Georgia, the University of Wisconsin, Clemson University, UCLA, Rutgers University, Texas A&M University and Louisiana State University were special admits. . . At Georgia, for instance, 73.5 percent of athletes were special admits compared with 6.6 percent of the student body as a whole. 

At a glance, here are the top 10 highest and lowest schools based on the average SAT scores of football players (out of a maximum 1600 score): 

FOOTBALL SAT SCORES:

THE TOP 10

School, Average

  • Georgia Tech, 1028
  • Oregon State, 997
  • Michigan, 997
  • Virginia, 993
  • Purdue, 974
  • Indiana, 973
  • Hawaii, 968
  • California, 967
  • Colorado, 966
  • Iowa, 964

THE BOTTOM 10

  • School, Average
  • Oklahoma State, 878
  • Louisville, 878
  • Memphis, 890
  • Florida, 890
  • Texas Tech, 901
  • Arkansas, 910
  • Texas A&M, 911
  • Mississippi State, 911
  • Washington State, 916
  • Michigan State, 917

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Maximus Meridius said:

Do you have any facts to support your claim?  Big time athletic schools (of which Stanford is one) have much lower standards for athletes.  See below.

Now the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has gone ahead and quantified that by comparing average SAT scores and grade-point averagesGPAs of athletes with the rest of the college's student body. Not surprisingly, football and men's basketball players came out on the bottom, and some averaged hundreds of points lower on SATs than their classmates. 

The Journal-Constitution studied 54 public universities, "including the members of the six major Bowl Championship Series conferences and other schools whose teams finished the 2007-08 season ranked among the football or men's basketball top 25." 

We all suspect that big-time student athletes sometimes aren't the best and the brightest academically. 

Some highlights: 

  • Football players average 220 points lower on the SAT than their classmates. Men's basketball was 227 points lower.
  • University of Florida won the prize for biggest gap between football players and the student body, with players scoring 346 points lower than their peers.
  • Georgia Tech had the nation's best average SAT score for football players, 1028 of a possible 1600, and best average high school GPA, 3.39 of a possible 4.0. But because its student body is apparently very smart, Tech's football players still scored 315 SAT points lower than their classmates.
  • UCLA, which has won more NCAA championships in all sports than any other school, had the biggest gap between the average SAT scores of athletes in all sports and its overall student body, at 247 points.

Some "universal truths," according to the Journal-Constitution:

All 53 schools for which football SAT scores were available had at least an 88-point gap between team members' average score and the average for the student body. 

Schools with the highest admissions standards, such as Georgia Tech, the University of Virginia, the University of California-Berkeley, UCLA, and the University of North Carolina, had the biggest gaps between the SAT averages for athletes and the overall student body. 

Football players performed 115 points worse on the SAT than male athletes in other sports.

The differences between athletes' and non-athletes' SAT scores were less than half as big for women (73 points) as for men (170).

Many schools routinely used a special admissions process to admit athletes who did not meet the normal entrance requirements. More than half of scholarship athletes at the University of Georgia, the University of Wisconsin, Clemson University, UCLA, Rutgers University, Texas A&M University and Louisiana State University were special admits. . . At Georgia, for instance, 73.5 percent of athletes were special admits compared with 6.6 percent of the student body as a whole. 

At a glance, here are the top 10 highest and lowest schools based on the average SAT scores of football players (out of a maximum 1600 score): 

FOOTBALL SAT SCORES:

THE TOP 10

School, Average

  • Georgia Tech, 1028
  • Oregon State, 997
  • Michigan, 997
  • Virginia, 993
  • Purdue, 974
  • Indiana, 973
  • Hawaii, 968
  • California, 967
  • Colorado, 966
  • Iowa, 964

THE BOTTOM 10

  • School, Average
  • Oklahoma State, 878
  • Louisville, 878
  • Memphis, 890
  • Florida, 890
  • Texas Tech, 901
  • Arkansas, 910
  • Texas A&M, 911
  • Mississippi State, 911
  • Washington State, 916
  • Michigan State, 917

So these are public schools with BIG time budgets, where the state actually depends on the football teams for money to support other programs.   They are all also huge schools.  Most academically elite schools are nowhere near that size.  Also, this is an average, median would be better, but still, yikes, that’s really tough.  Only one school above 1000?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

still waiting to see how the f this applies to stanford wrestling.

Exploring where precedence is and isn’t set in athletic admissions I suppose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...