Official COY predictions

[Stagnant]

My picks:

National - Shea
ACC - Lawson
Big 10 - Close
Big East - Dillon
Big 12 - Gerlich
SEC - Shea

 

[Ladeeeeda]

Stanford doesn't lower its admissions standards for athletes. Not sure if that'll continue with Andrew Luck as the GM and with the significant infusion of cash that the athletic department just received from an alum. There's a lot of pressure for Stanford Football to be competitive in the ACC, and they'll have to find a way to get more talented athletes in position to clear admissions hurdles. If that's successful in football, it's only a matter of time before other programs (including women's basketball) take advantage.

The Ivies, as far as I know, don't lower standards for athletes. Instead, athletes receive more "points" towards their admissions score. It's similar to a boost that a student would receive for being a legacy candidate.

Stanford does lower their academic standards for athletes. Now the bar is no where near as low as most other schools, but athletes get in with lower high school gpas and test scores than their non athlete counterparts.

 

[packwrap]

Stanford does lower their academic standards for athletes. Now the bar is no where near as low as most other schools, but athletes get in with lower high school gpas and test scores than their non athlete counterparts.

This is true, the Ivies and even D3 Amherst, Williams and Swarthmore do also.

The only schools that don't lower for athletes are MIT and CalTech, and even there, 'football team' can be a pretty good extra curricular on your app, along with Tuba Player, and NASA programmer.

 

[Ladeeeeda]

Any proof that "standards are lowered considerably" for athletes? Stanford, for example, says otherwise which may or may not be the case, but I don't know that you generalize that Stanford and the Ivies lower standards considerably without data/proof.

All I can say is that I had a family member get into Stanford as an athlete with SAT scores 150 pts lower than the average score and I had a student get in as an athlete with SAT scores that were 200 pts lower than the average score at Stanford. I have also had countless students rejected with score at or above the average SAT scores. I also recall Diana and Sue interviewing Cameron Brink and they discussed SAT scores. Pretty sure Cameron and Sue both got into Stanford with well below the Stanford average SAT score. Diana scored too low to be considered.

 

[triaddukefan]

I was picturing the meme of Jack Nicholson throwing plates around in The Shining, sounds like you'd keep it to less breakable items.


I kinda don't think you need to worry about it, COY is gonna go your way.

I've been using this for years, I had no idea who it was and what movie. Learn something new everyday.

 

[Bobcat73]

Stanford doesn't lower its admissions standards for athletes. Not sure if that'll continue with Andrew Luck as the GM and with the significant infusion of cash that the athletic department just received from an alum. There's a lot of pressure for Stanford Football to be competitive in the ACC, and they'll have to find a way to get more talented athletes in position to clear admissions hurdles. If that's successful in football, it's only a matter of time before other programs (including women's basketball) take advantage.

The Ivies, as far as I know, don't lower standards for athletes. Instead, athletes receive more "points" towards their admissions score. It's similar to a boost that a student would receive for being a legacy candidate.

If the Ivies or Stanford or Duke give “points” or whatever for recruited athletes, then they are indeed lowering their purely academic standards (basically, GPA and SATs) for athletes. I’ve not seen any statistics on these schools, but I did see a study done about 15 years ago on certain of the little Ivies (I believe it was Williams, Amherst and Wesleyan) which concluded that given the same academic qualifications:

• historically discriminated against minorities were 15% more likely to be admitted;
• legacies were 20% more likely to be admitted; and
• recruited athletes were 45% more likely to be admitted.

In other words, being a recruited athlete is worth more than being a minority legacy!
I’ve got to believe that the Ivies, Stanford etc. do something substantially similar (or more so) for recruited athletes, or they could simply not compete.
Further, the elite academic schools play games with athletes that they are recruiting. For example, a highly recruited athlete from my hometown with good but not great academic qualifications was told by Harvard that if she would commit to playing there, they would accept her
BUT that if she would not commit, Harvard could not and would not accept her. She went somewhere else and was an All American.

 

[DefenseBB]

BE-Geno and Dillon should come in a distant 2nd
Big 12-Molly Miller with Jace Hoyt second and Kellogg 3rd. Gurlich was given an ungodly amount of NIL money by the Mahommes foundation, played an unbelievably bad OOC and is now sinking in Conference play against the better teams.
Big Ten-Jenson, Fralick at MSU but Close will probably win…aaarrrggghhh
SEC-Shea with Dawn #2
ACC-Walz…why? 2 reasons, #1 he has far less talent on his team #2 he wouldn’t lose to a WVU team with only 5 players eligible in the second half with their best remaining player with 4 fouls and 6 min left in game held in a freakin ballroom!

 

[nwhoopfan]

urlich was given an ungodly amount of NIL money by the Mahommes foundation

I keep seeing this, and I keep asking "which players did they give a bunch of money to?" Have not received any answers. Look at their roster. It is not comprised of players who would demand big NIL deals. So it's a complete non starter as far as I'm concerned.