What benchmark should be used to determine if our team is doing a good job over time?
- Thread starter UR80sfan
- Start date
I'm not reading all this circular debate stuff but I will ask another question. Is IQ really the best determiner of life outcome? Some of the richest folks I know are not what I would consider genius. In fact EC Robins came to Richmond before the standards were elevated, but he was successful enough to basically save the school. UR ought to look for people who work hard and over achieve in all venues not just test scores and IQs.
All the best universities do that, including Richmond. That is why extra-curriculars, recommendations, and personal essays are a very large part of the admissions process. Of course, admitting students based on merits that are not academic ends up with people bashing the university for letting in underrepresented people instead of people with the highest test scores. You don't need to go much further than this board to see Richmond being accused of "political correctness" in their admission process. You just can't win.
IQ and conscientiousness are the strongest predictors for success. Of course, there are exceptions. And many that are gifted in both those traits forego college.
I don't follow your logic, Merit is based on the individual's effort, energy, accomplishments, etc that has absolutely nothing to do with skin color. How does underrepresented get involved in that?
You are absolutely right, an individuals effort, energy and accomplishments don't have to do with skin color, but when these things are considered to admit underrepresented students there is a group of people who unfortunately disapprove and call it "political correctness". They usually cite lower standardized test scores specifically in their arguments.
Not sure how we got to talking about admissions in the first place.
Wasn't this whole tread about where our sports program should be and then the inevitable slide over into our admission standards for players, as it always does?
So a kid who is a good kid, keeps up his grades, practices endlessly, leads his team, maybe he's captain, does good works out side of school, wouldn't that 'merit' out weight his SAT scores? (he spends a lot more time working on basketball than someone in a HS club, right?) Or maybe he could get in just being an 'underrepresented' student.
What benchmark should be used to determine if our team is doing a good job over time?
Are you saying that E C Robins couldn't be admitted today based on today's admission standards?
Every decision made should always consider what is in the best interest on the University. The University has different academic requirements for students in order to achieve diversity goals or for those that have a special talent. Obviously the athletic department gets a lower academic threshold for top athletes than the average student. These are all facts.
What I think is missing is the realization and acceptance that Basketball is more important to the national reputation of the school than all the other sports combined. A top quality basketball team can increase school applications, average GPAs and SAT scores. It can enhance alumni pride in the university and annual giving levels. We need to have a “special pass” for one or two players a years that are below academic requirements for other sports for exceptionally talented players.
What I think is missing is the realization and acceptance that Basketball is more important to the national reputation of the school than all the other sports combined. A top quality basketball team can increase school applications, average GPAs and SAT scores. It can enhance alumni pride in the university and annual giving levels. We need to have a “special pass” for one or two players a years that are below academic requirements for other sports for exceptionally talented players.
UR80sfan, The "special pass" you describe for "one or two players per year" is probably already in effect. And, the reason why it is not lowered still further is that we probably do not want to see a significant proportion of our basketball players failing out academically. One or two per year is roughly 50% of the 3 players who are brought in per year.
The whole point of the admissions standards, and keeping them at a certain level, is that the admissions standards do a good job of predicting who will graduate and who will fail out. Since there are all kinds of ethical standards that do not allow anyone to talk about (including on this board) which players may not be "cutting it" academically, or which may have had to leave for academic reasons, we can all choose to BELIEVE that this is never an issue. If that were the case then we would likely continue to lower the standards, continuously, until we had several players failing classes and becoming ineligible. I suspect that only those very close to the program, including the coaching staff, know whether they want the standards to be reduced any further. If they do, it may be that having more players declared academically ineligible is not considered a "problem." However, some in the administration likely view failing out of school as a significant PR issue. Finding the ideal "middle ground," and the ideal number of "academic failures" (that most of us will never hear about because a player may just leave or transfer) will likely continue to vex coaches and administrators for many years to come. Just lowering the admissions standards will not ultimately solve anything though, IF college faculty maintain true academic standards in the classroom, and fail students who do not, or cannot do, the work. .
The whole point of the admissions standards, and keeping them at a certain level, is that the admissions standards do a good job of predicting who will graduate and who will fail out. Since there are all kinds of ethical standards that do not allow anyone to talk about (including on this board) which players may not be "cutting it" academically, or which may have had to leave for academic reasons, we can all choose to BELIEVE that this is never an issue. If that were the case then we would likely continue to lower the standards, continuously, until we had several players failing classes and becoming ineligible. I suspect that only those very close to the program, including the coaching staff, know whether they want the standards to be reduced any further. If they do, it may be that having more players declared academically ineligible is not considered a "problem." However, some in the administration likely view failing out of school as a significant PR issue. Finding the ideal "middle ground," and the ideal number of "academic failures" (that most of us will never hear about because a player may just leave or transfer) will likely continue to vex coaches and administrators for many years to come. Just lowering the admissions standards will not ultimately solve anything though, IF college faculty maintain true academic standards in the classroom, and fail students who do not, or cannot do, the work. .
I would really like to know where the current 4 frosh at Duke stand academically? And next year looks like Coach K gets players ranked 1, 2, 3, 10. Like to see their scores, maybe be surprised at how well they did academically? Whatever, in my view the "man" has put himself side by side with Caliperi, winning teams >>> graduating students.
And by the way, I have no problem with the above if true as does the President of Duke. lol. Everywhere I go, I see Duke baseball caps. I wear one with a Spider on it, and people say .... who the hell are they? I can't fathom the high ups don't realize probably only the top 1% of the nation knows what that cap represents. And if they do, I feel for THOSE HERE who are all in contributing to UR b-ball.
And by the way, I have no problem with the above if true as does the President of Duke. lol. Everywhere I go, I see Duke baseball caps. I wear one with a Spider on it, and people say .... who the hell are they? I can't fathom the high ups don't realize probably only the top 1% of the nation knows what that cap represents. And if they do, I feel for THOSE HERE who are all in contributing to UR b-ball.
Spideroldie, Unfortunately, I don't have as much confidence as you that our admission office or school administration understand the value a top basketball program can have on the university. There have been a number of top recruits that have been turned down by admissions that graduated from other institutions. The downside of having a player leave the team for academic season has no impact on applications to a university or giving level of alumni. It hasn't hurt, UCLA, Georgetown, University of Michigan, all of which have better academic reputations than U of R.
Correct. What would hurt UR or any school is recruiting bad kids, not recruiting kids who are a little lower than average academically. There's a huge difference.
Interesting post on the A10 boards about Saint Joe's from a fan.
I wonder how many programs have "Top 4 in the A10 every season" as a benchmark? Only 4 of 14 teams can obviously meet that mark in a given year, but it is probably a benchmark for most of the A10 schools (besides Fordham, who probably sees a winning season as the benchmark for success right now.)
I guess the point is that every fan base wants what we want for our program, but it is a constant battle and very few end up getting to the top. In order to stay at the top the school really needs to go above and beyond their peers, not sure how we stack up to the rest of the A10 in terms of that right now.
I wonder how many programs have "Top 4 in the A10 every season" as a benchmark? Only 4 of 14 teams can obviously meet that mark in a given year, but it is probably a benchmark for most of the A10 schools (besides Fordham, who probably sees a winning season as the benchmark for success right now.)
I guess the point is that every fan base wants what we want for our program, but it is a constant battle and very few end up getting to the top. In order to stay at the top the school really needs to go above and beyond their peers, not sure how we stack up to the rest of the A10 in terms of that right now.
Last edited:
Having academically ineligible students and students who fail to graduate definitely hurts programs. At a small top 25 liberal arts school finding easy classes is much harder.
I would think most schools in the league should have that as a goal. Of course not everyone can get there, but that's why you set goals.
It's difficult for me to look at St. Joe's and say that it's a program that should always be in the top 4 (if you remove Martelli, that is). Its gym is a dump, it's just an average school, there's nothing particularly remarkable about it overall. Martelli has achieved success there beyond what was possible, IMO, but he has also has several clunkers. I don't know what they pay him, and that could change expectations as it should, but take him out of the equation and compare St. Joe's to the rest of the league, and I don't think a top-4 finish every year is a legit expectation.
It's difficult for me to look at St. Joe's and say that it's a program that should always be in the top 4 (if you remove Martelli, that is). Its gym is a dump, it's just an average school, there's nothing particularly remarkable about it overall. Martelli has achieved success there beyond what was possible, IMO, but he has also has several clunkers. I don't know what they pay him, and that could change expectations as it should, but take him out of the equation and compare St. Joe's to the rest of the league, and I don't think a top-4 finish every year is a legit expectation.
I agree with you, but I wonder what a Saint Joe's fan would say about our program and "Top 4 ever year" aspirations. As fans it is very difficult to objectively evaluate our program. I wonder if an objective outsider would look at our program and see potential for a top 4 A10 finish every year as a realistic goal. If it is not a realistic goal right now, what does Hardt need to do to make it a realistic goal?
Google says he was making $900k a couple of years ago.
Agree St. Joe's is a tricky one. Two NCAAs in last four years is great, but he's had quite a few bad seasons in recent years. My gut says it's time for a change there, but I don't know that another coach could do better. Lots of history with that program, but much of it is from a different era. Phil was able to keep it going even as many of the traditional Catholic powers slipped, but feels like now even that's not enough.
Agree St. Joe's is a tricky one. Two NCAAs in last four years is great, but he's had quite a few bad seasons in recent years. My gut says it's time for a change there, but I don't know that another coach could do better. Lots of history with that program, but much of it is from a different era. Phil was able to keep it going even as many of the traditional Catholic powers slipped, but feels like now even that's not enough.
Check out this link on A10 coaches salaries. While a bit dated, it is interesting.
http://www.basketballforum.com/atlantic-10-conference/622409-10-coaches-salaries.html#/topics/622409
I always see people here listing UR's excellence as a school as a recruiting positive and a school like SJU being "just an average school" as a recruiting negative. it's just not the case with the majority of high level basketball players. there's a small pool that we recruit from where there's mutual interest. not every kid wants tough academics and small class sizes that require participation and take attendance. we focus on the ones that do, and I'm good with that.
that said, when we find a Godwin or Bernard that do want to come here, I'd
like Admissions to have more faith in CM and the support people to give those kids a chance. I hope CM didn't burn a mulligan on Solly.
that said, when we find a Godwin or Bernard that do want to come here, I'd
like Admissions to have more faith in CM and the support people to give those kids a chance. I hope CM didn't burn a mulligan on Solly.
I think the way to measure a school's potential, at least within a conference, is severalfold. I would analyze a school in comparison to its peers in the following categories:
• How intent is the administration in building a winning program?
• How much is it willing to pay a coach and coaching staff?
• What level of financial support is it willing to provide for recruiting/travel/other amenities?
• What are its arena and support facilities like?
• What level of fan support does it have?
• Where is it located?
• What level of success has it achieved in the past?
• How many players has it sent to the NBA or other pro ranks?
• How desirable overall as an institution and program is it to a recruit?
By these metrics, I would place Dayton and VCU at the top of the A10, then Richmond, St. Louis, Rhode Island and possibly Davidson in a group together, then Mason/UMass/GW/St. Joe's/Bona/Duquesne in a group, then Lasalle/Fordham.
I think the schools we are with all have great facilities, the proven ability to succeed, spend money and attract good players to a desirable location. The next group has had success but is lacking in at least a few categories. Bona and St. Joe's have overachieved, IMO.
Yes, but I was talking about players who are simply less academically capable than typical UR students, not players who are incapable of staying academically eligible or who can't graduate.
Just cause I wanted to look it up. Godwin is averaging 3 minutes and 1 point per game at ODU this season. This board was in love with him last year.
#FreeQuis
But please Mr. Jones, do not ship him to Europe, this has happened to me recently when I started promoting this hashtag.
#FreeQuis
But please Mr. Jones, do not ship him to Europe, this has happened to me recently when I started promoting this hashtag.
#FreeQuis
Hopefully our new AD will weigh-in on the topic of how many players he is willing to see "fail-out" academically, and weight this against the possible added value of more wins on the court. He get's paid the big-bucks for making these decisions, and maybe we could shift more in the direction of more academic failures, if desired.
As noted earlier we (this board, unless we are "insiders") simply do not KNOW how many of our recent "transfer-out" players have been academic casualties, but I suspect the number would surprise the board, and might bring more posters to a more realistic perspective on the trade-offs that are a reality of admissions.
Here is my take: We should probably "play" with the academics admissions issue a bit more for 4-year players. An occasional exception, based mostly on test scores, may not kill us. If a player is not cutting it in the classroom, they can transfer out after their 1st semester or first year, and we simply lose a spot. Likely no huge loss to the program or to UR's PR there.
For graduate transfers I believe the standards should be kept high. First, we are now talking GRADUATE SCHOOL, and the standards should be higher. Second, a grad transfer who flunks out (or is ineligible) after the first semester is a total waste of resources, and a nightmare for faculty. Given our "hit-rate" with grad transfers (GTs) anyway, I see possible merit in beign extremely selective (limiting GTs to ones from extremely strong schools (the Ivy's)). In my view Chicago State and Florida A&M are not the "pool" we should be fishing in for GTs. Our grad-transfers, in my view, should be serious students who want a change in "scenery;" not an academic wasteland. They should be students who truly want to use the the Master's degree from UR to further their career. Huge difference.
As noted earlier we (this board, unless we are "insiders") simply do not KNOW how many of our recent "transfer-out" players have been academic casualties, but I suspect the number would surprise the board, and might bring more posters to a more realistic perspective on the trade-offs that are a reality of admissions.
Here is my take: We should probably "play" with the academics admissions issue a bit more for 4-year players. An occasional exception, based mostly on test scores, may not kill us. If a player is not cutting it in the classroom, they can transfer out after their 1st semester or first year, and we simply lose a spot. Likely no huge loss to the program or to UR's PR there.
For graduate transfers I believe the standards should be kept high. First, we are now talking GRADUATE SCHOOL, and the standards should be higher. Second, a grad transfer who flunks out (or is ineligible) after the first semester is a total waste of resources, and a nightmare for faculty. Given our "hit-rate" with grad transfers (GTs) anyway, I see possible merit in beign extremely selective (limiting GTs to ones from extremely strong schools (the Ivy's)). In my view Chicago State and Florida A&M are not the "pool" we should be fishing in for GTs. Our grad-transfers, in my view, should be serious students who want a change in "scenery;" not an academic wasteland. They should be students who truly want to use the the Master's degree from UR to further their career. Huge difference.
you aren't getting a Master's degree in one year anyway. most grad transfers are looking to play another year to possibly find a basketball career. I'll be very surprised if we ever bring in a grad transfer basketball player who stays on and pays $60,000 for the 2nd post grad year.
Don't know but I certainly couldn't, it has gotten much harder and he was there before me.
I think the real question is how many of us could be admitted based on today's admission standards? I am biased but I think i could.
I would never have gotten into Law School had not my mother slept with the Dean.
guess one could say, what if we begin admitting very iffy recruits and we cannot win, then we are really losers.
I hope no one wants to lower academic standards for iffy recruits. It should only be done for very strong prospects that can make a difference to the program. One of the best examples would be that kid about 10 years ago who ended up being a star for VA Tech. Last name began with a V. We heavily recruited him, made him take an additional year of high school and then rejected him a 2nd time at the last moment.
For me it would be academically challenged student/athletes who don't have a childhood criminal history. GOOD kids that need some academic assistance.
No, only says this benchmark question comes into play .....
4. How good is the coaching staff?
And my answer would be not good enough. Furthermore with CM coaching this long at UR, having some spurts of great success, and he can't ask/push/demand greater leeway in allowing iffy recruits to be admitted? My feeling is why do it when you have a cushy 10 year contract and no pressure or goals made known to the fan base to judge success or failure. If CM did put his neck out and speak up for upgraded talent , and what Web posted occurs, well now CM has some definitive answering to do as coach.
He can ask all he wants but that doesn’t compel Admissions to concede.
I’ve said this previously, no small part of our Admissions woes rest with the (former) AD.
I agree, CM only asking but nothing beyond that is my guess. CM I believe realizes head coach of A10 UR is probably going to be the pinnacle of his coaching career. No need to make waves with years of money coming his way without any set goals.
