AP Poll - Week 13 | Page 2 | The Boneyard

AP Poll - Week 13

A couple of weeks ago, Dawn Staley told her team that none of them would be drafted by the WNBA, and that they needed to step up, play better, and listen to her. I agree. That's a very good team but I've seen a lot of UCLA and they are better.
 
packwrap said:
The key at Vandy is when they hired Shea they committed to fully support a women's basketball program. They now allow incoming players a significant break on academic requirements to be admitted, and they are supporting recruiting with NIL. This allows Vandy to now get top 100 recruits.

I'm not yet sure what limitations Mosely has on recruiting at Wisconsin, but if there are none, she can also quickly improve quality of recruits. Both Madison and Nashville are amazing college towns, so as long as there are no handcuffs on recruiting both can build solid programs.
Expand ...
Receipts or it isn't happening. This is a huge assumption.
 
Vowelguy said:
why? their last 2 matchups with us they have had the best player on the floor and won handily. I'd be very confident if I were them.
Expand ...
How did that go for them in 2013?
 
BRS24 said:
Receipts or it isn't happening. This is a huge assumption.
Expand ...
Vanderbilt is an academic powerhouse. For regular students the average SAT/gpa is 1500/3.9 taking 6+ AP courses. Probably not 1 single athlete in the hoopgurlz top 100 hits these scores.

Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Notre Dame all give huge breaks on standards to recruited athletes. Football players get the biggest break and can get in at these schools with Sat/gpa of 1100 / 2.5.

This is not controversial or anything new.

The Ivies do the same thing, but they only lower the bar for athletes to say 1300 sat / gpa 3.0, so they end up recruiting from a much smaller pool of athletes, and generally are not competitive on national level.

The politics on recruiting goes back and forth on how low to go on standards. When you see Northwestern or Stanford struggle for a few years, it usually means the regime in power tightened up the academic standards. When boosters complain enough, a new coach will be hired, standards loosened, and more funds for recruiting made available. Rice University another example, currently bad at sports with little wiggle room on academic standards.
 
.-.
packwrap said:
Vanderbilt is an academic powerhouse. For regular students the average SAT/gpa is 1500/3.9 taking 6+ AP courses. Probably not 1 single athlete in the hoopgurlz top 100 hits these scores.

Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Notre Dame all give huge breaks on standards to recruited athletes. Football players get the biggest break and can get in at these schools with Sat/gpa of 1100 / 2.5.

This is not controversial or anything new.

The Ivies do the same thing, but they only lower the bar for athletes to say 1300 sat / gpa 3.0, so they end up recruiting from a much smaller pool of athletes, and generally are not competitive on national level.

The politics on recruiting goes back and forth on how low to go on standards. When you see Northwestern or Stanford struggle for a few years, it usually means the regime in power tightened up the academic standards. When boosters complain enough, a new coach will be hired, standards loosened, and more funds for recruiting made available. Rice University another example, currently bad at sports with little wiggle room on academic standards.
Expand ...
This is not “receipts.” It’s circular reasoning. You’re using a preferred conclusion to argue for facts not in evidence. Still, it’s a commonly shared assumption that athletes everywhere are allowed to skate on academics. There may actually be some cases of this, but you’re suggesting it’s the norm. This seems highly improbable to me.
 
Bone Dog said:
This is not “receipts.” It’s circular reasoning. You’re using a preferred conclusion to argue for facts not in evidence. Still, it’s a commonly shared assumption that athletes everywhere are allowed to skate on academics. There may actually be some cases of this, but you’re suggesting it’s the norm. This seems highly improbable to me.
Expand ...
You can see the receipts in the common data set for each school in section c. It's a bit unwieldy, but I'll try to link or screenshot some of it tomorrow.

I'm not saying they can skate on academics while in college, I'm saying they get a break on admission standards. Otherwise these schools would not be able to field competitive Division 1 teams.

This has been going on forever. I was once upon a time a recruited track athlete and managed to attend a top school with my shiny 1270 sat. That was track, no one even cares about track. There's no shame in this; it's also no secret. It's what someone does at a top school with that opportunity that matters. I was lucky to have a guidance counselor who knew how the system worked and gave me a lot of help.

I now volunteer helping underprivileged kids with college apps, including some athletes, so I am still in touch with the current process.

Stanford, Duke and the Ivies now have average sats for regular students of 1550, and plenty of applicants with perfect 1600 are rejected! None, not a single one, of their football and basketball players would qualify academically as general applicants.

You really think every player on Stanford/Vanderbilt/Duke/Northwestern/Rice/Cal/UCLA/Notre Dame/UVA etc has the 1500 and A average normally needed for admission there?
 
packwrap said:
Vanderbilt is an academic powerhouse. For regular students the average SAT/gpa is 1500/3.9 taking 6+ AP courses. Probably not 1 single athlete in the hoopgurlz top 100 hits these scores.

Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Notre Dame all give huge breaks on standards to recruited athletes. Football players get the biggest break and can get in at these schools with Sat/gpa of 1100 / 2.5.

This is not controversial or anything new.

The Ivies do the same thing, but they only lower the bar for athletes to say 1300 sat / gpa 3.0, so they end up recruiting from a much smaller pool of athletes, and generally are not competitive on national level.

The politics on recruiting goes back and forth on how low to go on standards. When you see Northwestern or Stanford struggle for a few years, it usually means the regime in power tightened up the academic standards. When boosters complain enough, a new coach will be hired, standards loosened, and more funds for recruiting made available. Rice University another example, currently bad at sports with little wiggle room on academic standards.
Expand ...
In the past, it was reported that recruits had to be accepted to Stanford before they received or could accept an offer to play WBB. Perhaps it has changed, however I'd bet that a decent number of top recruits would qualify for these schools.
 
packwrap said:
This has been going on forever. I was once upon a time a recruited track athlete and managed to attend a top school with my shiny 1270 sat. That was track, no one even cares about track. There's no shame in this; it's also no secret. It's what someone does at a top school with that opportunity that matters. I was lucky to have a guidance counselor who knew how the system worked and gave me a lot of help.

I now volunteer helping underprivileged kids with college apps, including some athletes, so I am still in touch with the current process.
Expand ...
I’m glad to hear that you have seen the process from the inside. So have I, as a current college prof with almost 40 years experience, who has served on admissions committees as a faculty advisor at three schools. Do the ADs at various schools push for certain applicants to get special consideration? Yes. But that’s not the same as letting anyone skate on grades or scores.

I think you’re misunderstanding the nature of averages. Schools love to publish high averages on test scores or GPAs, but this is not a statement of requirements. It’s more a form of advertising. Lots of kids with higher averages don’t get in and others with lower ones do, and this isn’t just athletes. The fact is all schools have other, rather squishier measures as well and these are not specifically about athletics. And as you can imagine, the use of these other measures involves a constant tug of war between the faculty and various admins.

And I can tell you that 1270 is a shiny SAT and would get non-athletes into every school I’ve ever worked at. On the flip side, I personally know kids who had perfect SATs and GPAs above 4.0 who didn’t get into some schools.

I am familiar with the NCAA rules and though these appear to suggest that athletes are measured on a different scale, in reality the standards turn out to differ very little from non-athletic admissions, and in practice don’t differ at all. The NCAA is concerned to head off the appearance of special treatment. But in practice, it wouldn’t really matter.
 
Last edited:
packwrap said:
Vanderbilt is an academic powerhouse. For regular students the average SAT/gpa is 1500/3.9 taking 6+ AP courses. Probably not 1 single athlete in the hoopgurlz top 100 hits these scores.

Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Notre Dame all give huge breaks on standards to recruited athletes. Football players get the biggest break and can get in at these schools with Sat/gpa of 1100 / 2.5.

This is not controversial or anything new.

The Ivies do the same thing, but they only lower the bar for athletes to say 1300 sat / gpa 3.0, so they end up recruiting from a much smaller pool of athletes, and generally are not competitive on national level.

The politics on recruiting goes back and forth on how low to go on standards. When you see Northwestern or Stanford struggle for a few years, it usually means the regime in power tightened up the academic standards. When boosters complain enough, a new coach will be hired, standards loosened, and more funds for recruiting made available. Rice University another example, currently bad at sports with little wiggle room on academic standards.
Expand ...
I would love to see these statistics for TN,SC and LSU.
 
.-.
UConn simply has to beat Tennessee and South Carolina to earn a number one seed........if they don't get those two wins then they have nobody to blame but themselves for their eventual tournament seeding.......
 
Plebe said:
Voters, plural? I see one first-place vote for SC.

I imagine this one voter probably took note of how SC completely destroyed a top 10 opponent in Oklahoma and a top 5 opponent in Texas. Frankly SC has looked like a better team than UCLA in the past few weeks. It's not a terribly unreasonable position to take.
Expand ...
I do believe SC is more athletic but UCLA’s big is pretty unstoppable and SC lost one of their bags for the season. I’m still not overly impressed by UCLA and if SC has a good shooting day, I believe they win a rematch Connecticut would have to have a great shooting day to beat either team.
 
Charliebball said:
UConn simply has to beat Tennessee and South Carolina to earn a number one seed........if they don't get those two wins then they have nobody to blame but themselves for their eventual tournament seeding.......
Expand ...
I’m not really concerned with ranking as most seem to be. It’s not like we have to get through all of the top teams. Yes you could lose to a lower rank team, but that would be a fairly major upset. If Connecticut plays well, they are at least an elite eight and more like a final four. I do get a kick out of watching the rankings, but with Connecticut in the big east they are at such a disadvantage that I’m not really that concerned. Maybe it’s time to move to a power five
 
Fossil said:
I’m not really concerned with ranking as most seem to be. It’s not like we have to get through all of the top teams. Yes you could lose to a lower rank team, but that would be a fairly major upset. If Connecticut plays well, they are at least an elite eight and more like a final four. I do get a kick out of watching the rankings, but with Connecticut in the big east they are at such a disadvantage that I’m not really that concerned. Maybe it’s time to move to a power five
Expand ...
I could care less about rankings during the season but these two out of conference games against Tennessee and South Carolina will likely determine UConn's seeding in the big tournament.........a split will likely keep them a second seed, two losses may move them back to a three or four seed and two wins most likely means a very advantageous number one seeding........that matters......
 
Charliebball said:
I could care less about rankings during the season but these two out of conference games against Tennessee and South Carolina will likely determine UConn's seeding in the big tournament.........a split will likely keep them a second seed, two losses may move them back to a three or four seed and two wins most likely means a very advantageous number one seeding........that matters......
Expand ...
I think UConn is locked as a 2 seed. The top 7 teams are just clearly better than the next seven , that even if UConn loses both you’ll still be one of the best 7 teams but don’t see juimping uou for a 2 spot

Okay IF Tennessee beats you, you could fall temporally until others in the 8—16 lose Moore games
 
.-.
visitingcock said:
I think UConn is locked as a 2 seed. The top 7 teams are just clearly better than the next seven , that even if UConn loses both you’ll still be one of the best 7 teams but don’t see juimping uou for a 2 spot

Okay IF Tennessee beats you, you could fall temporally until others in the 8—16 lose Moore games
Expand ...
We’re heading for a 2 seed and I don’t think it matters that much which one. All that’s at stake in getting a 1 seed is whether we play one of the current top 4 as the “home” or the “away” team.
 
Bone Dog said:
We’re heading for a 2 seed and I don’t think it matters that much which one. All that’s at stake in getting a 1 seed is whether we play one of the current top 4 as the “home” or the “away” team.
Expand ...
Which, of course, means nothing on a neutral court.
 
Minnesota and Michigan. Being ranked was fun while it lasted.

Hugs GIF
 
visitingcock said:
I think UConn is locked as a 2 seed. The top 7 teams are just clearly better than the next seven , that even if UConn loses both you’ll still be one of the best 7 teams but don’t see juimping uou for a 2 spot

Okay IF Tennessee beats you, you could fall temporally until others in the 8—16 lose Moore games
Expand ...
I'm not as confident as you are about UConn having a lock on a two seed........if they lose badly (15 points or more) to both Tennessee and South Carolina I could easily see a scenario where they fall to a three seed............obviously it depends on how other teams perform too......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,085
Messages
4,552,536
Members
10,435
Latest member
DukeBlue


Top Bottom