June 2020 UCONN recruiting thread

[Alydar]

From the article:


Ok, so football players are comfortably in the bottom quartile. Well, that's about 20 kids per year out of 1700.

Do we know anything about the rest? 200 point SAT boost, per the article. So if the average at Stanford is around 1505, then the average Stanford student-athlete is scoring around 1300. And that includes all those football players, who are already established to have been in the bottom quartile, which means the average non-football athlete will be at least a bit above 1300.

SAT score of 1300 is around the 86th percentile nationally.
SAT score of 1060 is average - around 50th percentile. Anyone think that average Top 100 WBB recruit is much higher (if at all) than the average college applicant generally?

And you want to tell me Tara can magically drag any recruit in the country past admissions when the average Stanford student-athlete is scoring around 86th percentile nationally, ~240 points higher than the national average.

Ok, sure.

Reductio ad absurdum. We aren't talking womens basketball. The stats refer to Stanford athletics, which includes football.
Why do fans always assume that their school is totally ethical and above board while it's other schools that bend rules and cut corners in recruiting?

 

[oldude]

That's the BS I referred to. The study would have been valid if they compared college grads with equal wealth/income in the families. At a school like Duke or Stanford, smallish private schools, the mean earnings of grads are scewed by the huge incomes of a relative handful of grads. If you were to compare the median earnings of grads with similar family income profiles you'd see little difference. It's not that schools like say U of Mich don't produce high earners, it's that there graduating classes are huge compared to Harvard, Yale, Stanford or Duke.

Take a thousand children of Doctors/lawyers and another thousand children of food service workers and sent them to 2 different colleges of equal reputations, the children of the professional parents would earn more in their lifetimes. That doesn't make the degree they earned any more valuable.

Once again, I’m not disputing that kids from wealthy families earn more, on average, than kids from working class families. My objection is to, “whether or not they go to college.” For kids like me who grew up in working class families, the difference in earnings between those with college degrees and those without is significant. The same is true for kids from wealthy families, with or without college degrees, although there is a much lower percentage of kids from wealthy families without college degrees. My point is simply that a college degree is a significant differentiator in this country, regardless of your background.

 

[oldude]

Reductio ad absurdum. We aren't talking womens basketball. The stats refer to Stanford athletics, which includes football.
Why do fans always assume that their school is totally ethical and above board while it's other schools that bend rules and cut corners in recruiting?

Stanford and the Ivies could fill their freshman class with 100% 1600 SAT scores. They don’t, because they strive for a diverse class of students that includes athletes, musicians, geographically and ethnically diverse students. That hardly means they are cutting corners recruiting. All the top schools in the country set minimum academic guidelines for admission and then evaluate candidates based on their total achievement.

I will take a star athlete, and top student, with 1300 SAT’s any day over another kid that does nothing other than study with 1600 SAT’s. Why? Because that student-athlete is managing multiple priorities in a highly competitive environment, and is very likely to make a significant contribution to the college they attend.

 

[Alydar]

Once again, I’m not disputing that kids from wealthy families earn more, on average, than kids from working class families. My objection is to, “whether or not they go to college.” For kids like me who grew up in working class families, the difference in earnings between those with college degrees and those without is significant. The same is true for kids from wealthy families, with or without college degrees, although there is a much lower percentage of kids from wealthy families without college degrees. My point is simply that a college degree is a significant differentiator in this country, regardless of your background.

I was in my freshman sociology class when the instructor asked for a show of hands from those who expected to make more money with a degree. Naturally most everyone raised their hands. He then proceeded to show that learning to drive a backhoe would return more by far in a lifetime. The stats you refer to are touted by the education industry. When you compare those with degrees to those without the "withouts" include a huge number of high school dropouts and other disfunctional people. If you comapred just the people who learned a trade to those who got a degree you would see my point. It's been about 50 years since I read the study and wouldn't know where to look for it.

And we haven't even factored in the lifetime cost of those student loans.

 

[hoophuskee]

So for me, it is an issue of the positions they play and how much more a PG needs to develop to make the jump to the next level while a center could be pro ready if she has a physically dominant body, has good moves and good defensive skills since she is not being asked to run the whole team.

I'll take the guard who is probably going ot be elite throughout her career. Boston is terrific in college but there are a lot of bigs in the pro game. I'm just surprised all of us UCONN fans have seen so much non-power size players become so extremely successful but then we fear size so much. Paige's passing and vision will be superior to Boston's size and power. There's a lot of size and power in WNBA. There are a rare few that have Paige's passing and vision.

You really think Boston's elite skills will be superior to Paige's at the next level? They are available for draft right now I'm taking Paige and not thinking twice.

 

[Alydar]

Stanford and the Ivies could fill their freshman class with 100% 1600 SAT scores. They don’t, because they strive for a diverse class of students that includes athletes, musicians, geographically and ethnically diverse students. That hardly means they are cutting corners recruiting. All the top schools in the country set minimum academic guidelines for admission and then evaluate candidates based on their total achievement.

I will take a star athlete, and top student, with 1300 SAT’s any day over another kid that does nothing other than study with 1600 SAT’s. Why? Because that student-athlete is managing multiple priorities in a highly competitive environment, and is very likely to make a significant contribution to the college they attend.

I was only referring to the quote about Tara "dragging recruits through the admissions office. I would wager that is a 320 lb HS AA offensive tackle and a 6'2" female HS AA forward were both short on academics the tackle would have a better shot at an "exemption" than the wbb player. That may be why Tara loses recruits rather than some iron-handed standard. The problem is that wcbb isn't football.

 

[j66kicker]

I was in my freshman sociology class when the instructor asked for a show of hands from those who expected to make more money with a degree. Naturally most everyone raised their hands. He then proceeded to show that learning to drive a backhoe would return more by far in a lifetime. The stats you refer to are touted by the education industry. When you compare those with degrees to those without the "withouts" include a huge number of high school dropouts and other disfunctional people. If you comapred just the people who learned a trade to those who got a degree you would see my point. It's been about 50 years since I read the study and wouldn't know where to look for it.

And we haven't even factored in the lifetime cost of those student loans.

Well for sure the backhoe operator would earn more than someone with a sociology degree.

I bet the average lifetime earnings of one-and-done and straight-from-high-school NBA players are at least $100 million more than that of the average NBA player who stayed in college 4 years and got a degree.

 

[Alydar]

I'll take the guard who is probably going ot be elite throughout her career. Boston is terrific in college but there are a lot of bigs in the pro game. I'm just surprised all of us UCONN fans have seen so much non-power size players become so extremely successful but then we fear size so much. Paige's passing and vision will be superior to Boston's size and power. There's a lot of size and power in WNBA. There are a rare few that have Paige's passing and vision.

You really think Boston's elite skills will be superior to Paige's at the next level? They are available for draft right now I'm taking Paige and not thinking twice.

Boston was really good in the U19's but it was Bueckers who got the MVP.

Bueckers is a freak. When elite athleticism is combined with an insatiable drive to be the best you better hope that player is on your team. I know that Bueckers will need to adjust to college but the media circus that is UConn pales in comparison to what Bueckers had lived through in the last year. That spotlight hasn't fazed her to this point. Her HS team ran a pretty sophisticated offense for that level and I don't think we'll see Bueckers with that bewildered freshman look while on the floor. I am looking forward to seeing her devastating hesitation move that is so effective because it gets set up by her deadly short jumpers.

I was stunned to read her HS coach's quote that she would be the No 1 pick in this year's WNBA draft if she were available. This coach is no fool, has about 7 state titles to his name and has coached some great players. I can't agree with him simply on logic. But this ain't your daddy's recruit here. This is someone really special.

 

[Alydar]

Well for sure the backhoe operator would earn more than someone with a sociology degree.

I bet the average lifetime earnings of one-and-done and straight-from-high-school NBA players are at least $100 million more than that of the average NBA player who stayed in college 4 years and got a degree.

Over my working life I dealt with hundreds of co-workers with business and /or accounting degrees who never made a penny more than I and my humble BA.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Reductio ad absurdum. We aren't talking womens basketball. The stats refer to Stanford athletics, which includes football.
Why do fans always assume that their school is totally ethical and above board while it's other schools that bend rules and cut corners in recruiting?

Who said other schools cut corners? I haven't said a word about how any other school recruits anywhere in this forum. Given how much I admire Geno, and the fantastic young women UConn attracts, I can only assume his recruiting is entirely above board. Beyond those two programs, I neither know nor care.

 

[oldude]

I was in my freshman sociology class when the instructor asked for a show of hands from those who expected to make more money with a degree. Naturally most everyone raised their hands. He then proceeded to show that learning to drive a backhoe would return more by far in a lifetime. The stats you refer to are touted by the education industry. When you compare those with degrees to those without the "withouts" include a huge number of high school dropouts and other disfunctional people. If you comapred just the people who learned a trade to those who got a degree you would see my point. It's been about 50 years since I read the study and wouldn't know where to look for it.

And we haven't even factored in the lifetime cost of those student loans.

Yes, driving a backhoe, getting a job in AC maintenance or as an electrical lineman are good-paying, “blue collar” jobs. My father dropped out of HS in 1942 to join the Marines, which got him an all-expense paid trip to the Pacific. When he returned he got a job as a machinist that provided us with a comfortable life. But high paying blue collar jobs have been disappearing in this country since the 1970’s due to the combined effects of productivity improvements and global competition.

Your example is anecdotal evidence. Next time you pass a job site, take a look at the guy driving the backhoe. I’ll guarantee you he’s 50+. The “new” jobs available to HS graduates today include warehouse workers, food service and retail, and even those jobs are disappearing rapidly due to automation and on-line retailing.

I don’t know if you have children or not. If you do have children I suspect that you haven’t encouraged them to be backhoe drivers. I have a son who my wife and I started a college account for before he was born. He earned undergraduate and graduate degrees in mechanical engineering, and currently works in the energy services business. He has no college debt and earns a very nice living for himself and his family. In a time when millions of blue collar workers are unemployed, we are very thankful that he has a good job.

 

[oldude]

I was only referring to the quote about Tara "dragging recruits through the admissions office. I would wager that is a 320 lb HS AA offensive tackle and a 6'2" female HS AA forward were both short on academics the tackle would have a better shot at an "exemption" than the wbb player. That may be why Tara loses recruits rather than some iron-handed standard. The problem is that wcbb isn't football.

I’m pretty sure the OT and the WBB player are not competing for the same spot at Stanford. The Stanford FB Coach and Tara both have a finite number of scholarships to award. To the degree they recruit qualified candidates who want to attend Stanford, they can sign as many as they want up to their respective scholarship limit.

 

[Jmsdawg]

I'll take the guard who is probably going ot be elite throughout her career. Boston is terrific in college but there are a lot of bigs in the pro game. I'm just surprised all of us UCONN fans have seen so much non-power size players become so extremely successful but then we fear size so much. Paige's passing and vision will be superior to Boston's size and power. There's a lot of size and power in WNBA. There are a rare few that have Paige's passing and vision.

You really think Boston's elite skills will be superior to Paige's at the next level? They are available for draft right now I'm taking Paige and not thinking twice.

There may be a lot of bigs in the pros but I believe Boston is unique. Based upon what I saw last year, she will be very successful in the pros. As for Paige, we have not seen her playing at the collegiate level yet and I would be surprised if she has the pro potential Boston has exhibited.

 

[HopJim]

I'll take the guard who is probably going ot be elite throughout her career. Boston is terrific in college but there are a lot of bigs in the pro game. I'm just surprised all of us UCONN fans have seen so much non-power size players become so extremely successful but then we fear size so much. Paige's passing and vision will be superior to Boston's size and power. There's a lot of size and power in WNBA. There are a rare few that have Paige's passing and vision.

You really think Boston's elite skills will be superior to Paige's at the next level? They are available for draft right now I'm taking Paige and not thinking twice.

Paige appears to be special but this is speculative until she proves she can perform at the next level. Boston would likely be one of the top 3 choices in the next draft if available.

 

[oldude]

Paige has the size, athleticism and talent to be an outstanding pro, eventually. What remains to be seen is does she have the motivation to put in the work to raise her game to that elite level in college? She is incredibly competitive and she chose to play for Geno, who will push her to be the very best player she can become. Time will tell, but based on those factors, I would have to say that there is a very good chance that Paige will be an outstanding player at both the college and professional level.

 

[Huskee11]

Expect Paige to get the Katie Lou treatment from day one. She will be held, bumped, grabbed, whacked, punched, elbowed, hip-checked, and tackled. Opposing coaches will conclude that is their only hope of stopping her.

She may want to hit the weight room with that in mind.

I fully expect her to become a generational player that we speak of in the same sentence with Maya, DT and Stewie.

 

[DEpup]

Expect Paige to get the Katie Lou treatment from day one. She will be held, bumped, grabbed, whacked, punched, elbowed, hip-checked, and tackled. Opposing coaches will conclude that is their only hope of stopping her.

She may want to hit the weight room with that in mind.

I fully expect her to become a generational player that we speak of in the same sentence with Maya, DT and Stewie.

As much as I love KLS, Paige is a bit more DT than KLS so I think she'll give as good as she takes....I also think Paige will find her inner James Harden and just get to the line. KLS as her career progressed got better at drawing fouls but never perfected it.

 

[hoophuskee]

There may be a lot of bigs in the pros but I believe Boston is unique. Based upon what I saw last year, she will be very successful in the pros. As for Paige, we have not seen her playing at the collegiate level yet and I would be surprised if she has the pro potential Boston has exhibited.

Wow-- I just disagree with this so much. What makes Boston so unique? She is big. But she is 6'4, right (I don't think she is as talla s Olivia)? The super players in the WNBA that were 6'4 and above most had games 15 feet and out. The ones that were dominant inside were players like Fowles who is 6'6. The WNBA attracts more than just USA players which means when Boston gets into the WNBA there will be more players to match up to her size.

Boston is going to overwhelm college players because she is so much bigger and she has very good teammates that will deliver her the ball. What makes her special other than "big?" I'm not saying she is going to be "average."

 

[hoophuskee]

Paige appears to be special but this is speculative until she proves she can perform at the next level. Boston would likely be one of the top 3 choices in the next draft if available.

Let me ask you-- do you think she is special? Yes or no?
You brought up "appears to be special." What makes you say this? Why do you think "she appears to be special?"
---------------------
Secondly, can I assume that whenever UCONN gets a much ballyhooed recruit, that you will always say "she appears to be special but let's wait?" Rather than offering an opinion if you think that she is special?

 

[hoophuskee]

I would have to say that there is a very good chance that Paige will be an outstanding player at both the college and professional level.

Yes. Yes. Yes. That's what I'm saying. Who can disagree with your statement? Then why so so much caution from anyone? If the slight chance we are wrong -- who did we hurt? From the videos we've seen doesn't she look better than anyone in recent memory since Stewie? Why be scared to shout it?

 

[HopJim]

Let me ask you-- do you think she is special? Yes or no?
You brought up "appears to be special." What makes you say this? Why do you think "she appears to be special?"
---------------------
Secondly, can I assume that whenever UCONN gets a much ballyhooed recruit, that you will always say "she appears to be special but let's wait?" Rather than offering an opinion if you think that she is special?

UConn has gotten many #1 recruits and while all have been good, not all have been "special" relative to their performance in college. While I believe Paige will be a special player, there are so many factors that contribute to a generational college player that I wait before anointing.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

Paige has the size, athleticism and talent to be an outstanding pro, eventually. What remains to be seen is does she have the motivation to put in the work to raise her game to that elite level in college?

Really? Have you been following her the past few years? Bueckers is a gym rat, a possible future coach, and someone who clearly aspires to be great.

 

[hoophuskee]

UConn has gotten many #1 recruits and while all have been good, not all have been "special" relative to their performance in college. While I believe Paige will be a special player, there are so many factors that contribute to a generational college player that I wait before anointing.

There is no definition of "generational" imo. I think we all manufacture it (me too) for discussion purposes. Otherwise I would like anyone to explain what is the defintion of a generational player. OFC we can say "DT, Maya, Stewie" but again that;s not a definition.
----------------
But again I'd like to ask -- can I assume that whenever UCONN gets a much ballyhooed recruit, that you will always say "she appears to be special but let's wait?" There will probably never be a player for you to acknowledge ever in h/s that she will be tremendous in college and beyond, correct? Please don't take this as I am "knocking you."

 

[Sluconn Husky]

There may be a lot of bigs in the pros but I believe Boston is unique. Based upon what I saw last year, she will be very successful in the pros. As for Paige, we have not seen her playing at the collegiate level yet and I would be surprised if she has the pro potential Boston has exhibited.

Prepare to be surprised.

 

[oldude]

Really? Have you been following her the past few years? Bueckers is a gym rat, a possible future coach, and someone who clearly aspires to be great.

Yes of course. But Paige will be challenged by Geno like she has never been challenged before, and that’s a very good thing.