Started By
Message
re: Satellite camps, if any other coach tweets this, it's major headlines
Posted on 4/11/16 at 10:52 am to nicholastiger
Posted on 4/11/16 at 10:52 am to nicholastiger
quote:
David Shaw says no reason for satellite camps "where there might be one person in the entire state that's eligible to get into Stanford."
Why let facts get in the way of a great quote...
quote:
Percent who are from out of state
Freshmen
63
All Undergraduates
61
LINK
0
Posted on 4/11/16 at 10:57 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
There isn't a state in this country where only 1 or 2 people could attend Stanford
Exactly. Their enrollment would only be in the hundreds instead of the 20k or so they have now.
Posted on 4/11/16 at 11:03 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:Of course, but you aren't taking into consideration that Stanford is only taking people with 34 or higher that are none athletes. These athletes are likely scoring high 20s and low 30s. They are still fricking smart
You do realize their football players are not held to the same standard as other applicants, right? It's not as low of a threshold as other schools, but it's been shown that many of their football students are in the bottom 5-10% of their student base in almost every category (standardized tests, GPA, etc.) LINK
Posted on 4/11/16 at 11:08 am to MontyFranklyn
quote:Absolutely not. Not even remotely close. The average score for reported football players was a 26. It is safe to assume those that do well are the ones publicly reporting their ACT scores. I would imagine the average scholarship football player at Stanfords ACT score is about a 22-24
These athletes are likely scoring high 20s and low 30s. They are still fricking smart
Posted on 4/11/16 at 11:17 am to nicholastiger
May be imbeleshised, but he isn't completely wrong.
Posted on 4/11/16 at 11:17 am to nicholastiger
i cann't baleve he can saye we are not smart enuff to get in that Stanfurd skool. wut an ediot.
Posted on 4/11/16 at 11:24 am to threedog79
Eye no write. I got my edumacation.
Posted on 4/11/16 at 11:24 am to fibonaccisquared
quote:
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.
That is pretty solid. It may be lower than the general student population at Stanford, but it is like that everywhere.
Posted on 4/11/16 at 11:26 am to LSU GrandDad
quote:
you don't know shite. a knew a guy once that talked like a real Mississippi cornball and made the same mistake you did; assumed he wasn't very smart.
turned out the guy was a Rhodes scholar. he just kept his accent. he also married a Brit when he over there. it was hilarious to be with them; the MS redneck vs the British snob.
I guess there are a ton of people from Mississippi who could impress people by saying they graduated from Oxford....except for those who are familiar with Ole Miss.
Posted on 4/11/16 at 11:38 am to nicholastiger
quote:
David Shaw says no reason for satellite camps "where there might be one person in the entire state that's eligible to get into Stanford."
I like that
Posted on 4/11/16 at 11:53 am to nicholastiger
The realities of doing the job he has. No problem with it.
Posted on 4/11/16 at 11:57 am to nicholastiger
Good. That's one less school we have to worry about competing with. Of course not a lot of worrying about Stanford anyway.
Posted on 4/11/16 at 11:58 am to airfernando
quote:
probably not even a county/parish, much less a state.
Have you watched Making a Murderer?
Posted on 4/11/16 at 12:28 pm to Waffle House
ETA (because this post got long fast): TL;DR - It's not as hard to get student athletes into Stanford as many would like to make it out to be. It's selective to be certain, but the idea that they don't lower their standards compared to their non-athlete counterparts is ridiculous.
I'm not saying it's not. I'm simply providing a counterpoint to the idea that they don't lower their standards for their athletics. There is a difference between not lowering them, and not lowering them as far as other programs. And even in that scenario, I'm not sure you could say in a relative context that they're not lowering them just as much.
Those numbers are only the ones that are publicly reported. Obviously those who got lower scores are going to be less likely to publicly report. Additionally, it's the median. It says nothing about the range of their scores, simply that if you laid the scores all out, this is the one in the middle. For example, lets say a group of 5 took the SAT and the results were:
1000, 1100,1800, 1820, 1850
1800 is the median but the mean/average would be 1514. (Admittedly silly example, but just to illustrate that numbers can be used to tell whatever story you'd like.)
Generally speaking, while it's impressive for an athlete, 1800/2400 ~ 1200/1600 in the old test scoring model... aka, the score that the majority of students now need to get into state schools.
Compare that to their 25th percentile student, which is 690, 700, 690 across the different SAT sections, or 2080/2400 OR their 75th percentile student, which is 780, 800, 780 across the different SAT sections, or 2360/2400... pretty significant difference between the athlete and the rest of the student body, even not being able to account for those that don't report.
In 2015, Stanford accepted approximately 5% or a little less in each category of SAT where scores fell in the range of 400-599 per category (or 1200-1797/2400). 5% of ~2000 gets us 100 students, which a reasonable individual can likely guess would have a high probability of aligning with athletes as opposed to their typical student (though some minority candidates may be included in that number or statistical outliers who do great at one subject but are just dreadful in others - a small number to be certain).
To put that in context...
This puts the 25% student at a 1810 SAT/27 ACT and further still, if you look at scholarship student admission:
The admitted scholarship student average falls well within that range as well. So while I'm certain that we take more low end student athlete scores in our bottom quartile of scholarship students, our average criteria are quite high there as well. I'd imagine that if you looked at the numbers for UF, Texas A&M, and several other SEC schools, what you would see would largely mirror this. The biggest difference is Stanford has to pass on some of the top 25/50 players in the country (particularly at the running back, defensive line, and linebacker spots based on what I've seen in past years on where the biggest struggles for admission seem to be), but it's not as though there is an absolute dearth of athletes that fall into their acceptance criteria. It's simply a fallacy that has continued to get perpetuated and then accepted into the collective mindset of sports fans.
I'm not saying it's not. I'm simply providing a counterpoint to the idea that they don't lower their standards for their athletics. There is a difference between not lowering them, and not lowering them as far as other programs. And even in that scenario, I'm not sure you could say in a relative context that they're not lowering them just as much.
Those numbers are only the ones that are publicly reported. Obviously those who got lower scores are going to be less likely to publicly report. Additionally, it's the median. It says nothing about the range of their scores, simply that if you laid the scores all out, this is the one in the middle. For example, lets say a group of 5 took the SAT and the results were:
1000, 1100,1800, 1820, 1850
1800 is the median but the mean/average would be 1514. (Admittedly silly example, but just to illustrate that numbers can be used to tell whatever story you'd like.)
Generally speaking, while it's impressive for an athlete, 1800/2400 ~ 1200/1600 in the old test scoring model... aka, the score that the majority of students now need to get into state schools.
Compare that to their 25th percentile student, which is 690, 700, 690 across the different SAT sections, or 2080/2400 OR their 75th percentile student, which is 780, 800, 780 across the different SAT sections, or 2360/2400... pretty significant difference between the athlete and the rest of the student body, even not being able to account for those that don't report.
In 2015, Stanford accepted approximately 5% or a little less in each category of SAT where scores fell in the range of 400-599 per category (or 1200-1797/2400). 5% of ~2000 gets us 100 students, which a reasonable individual can likely guess would have a high probability of aligning with athletes as opposed to their typical student (though some minority candidates may be included in that number or statistical outliers who do great at one subject but are just dreadful in others - a small number to be certain).
To put that in context...
quote:
UGA Standardized Test Scores - 2015
SAT-I Middle 50% of Admitted First-Year Students: 1810 - 2060
ACT Middle 50% of Admitted First-Year Students: 27 -31
This puts the 25% student at a 1810 SAT/27 ACT and further still, if you look at scholarship student admission:
quote:
SAT Middle 50% of Admitted Scholarship Students (CR&M): 1290 - 1480
ACT Middle 50% of Admitted Scholarship Students: 30 - 33
The admitted scholarship student average falls well within that range as well. So while I'm certain that we take more low end student athlete scores in our bottom quartile of scholarship students, our average criteria are quite high there as well. I'd imagine that if you looked at the numbers for UF, Texas A&M, and several other SEC schools, what you would see would largely mirror this. The biggest difference is Stanford has to pass on some of the top 25/50 players in the country (particularly at the running back, defensive line, and linebacker spots based on what I've seen in past years on where the biggest struggles for admission seem to be), but it's not as though there is an absolute dearth of athletes that fall into their acceptance criteria. It's simply a fallacy that has continued to get perpetuated and then accepted into the collective mindset of sports fans.
This post was edited on 4/11/16 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 4/11/16 at 12:54 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
Of course, but you aren't taking into consideration that Stanford is only taking people with 34 or higher that are none athletes. These athletes are likely scoring high 20s and low 30s. They are still fricking smart
No one has said they're not smart. That doesn't make it any less accurate that they're "not lowering their standards for athletes".
In 2015, Stanford accepted approximately 12.5% (~250) of their incoming students with ACT scores between 18-29. Again, a reasonable person can assume that *most* of their athletes are going to be outliers on the scores here, and as another poster mentioned, their *average* reported ACT score was only a 26, putting approximately half of them below or at that number (depending on range and max/min across scores).
Posted on 4/11/16 at 1:10 pm to fibonaccisquared
I don't have time to go find the Stanford data to get a true apples to apples, with the data in this article.
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't think that athletes get special admission criteria. Stanford may be massaging their numbers and reporting median v mean but if the 26 close to accurate, that is pretty impressive for a Top 25 football program. The article I linked has UGA's and GT's ACT scores for football as 21 and 22 respectively compared with overall freshman class of 28 and 31.
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't think that athletes get special admission criteria. Stanford may be massaging their numbers and reporting median v mean but if the 26 close to accurate, that is pretty impressive for a Top 25 football program. The article I linked has UGA's and GT's ACT scores for football as 21 and 22 respectively compared with overall freshman class of 28 and 31.
Posted on 4/11/16 at 1:25 pm to Waffle House
Thanks for sharing article! 
Always love a good Tableau report. < / nerd>
Not going to aggregate all the years together, but here is 2015 + other years: LINK
25th percentile ACT - 31, 75th percentile ACT - 35 - let's call the "avg" somewhere in between there... 33?
So the avg. student at Stanford has a 33, the athlete average is at best 26 (likely somewhat lower). Either way, it's about a 20-25% differential between the average student and the student athlete. I've never argued that Stanford doesn't have a higher caliber "student" athlete, simply that they have to do what every other program does in order to field a quality team... which is decrease your standards for admission. There is value beyond strict academic performance to the student athlete, and the fact that they're able to get them in and keep them eligible is indeed impressive. I just don't subscribe to the idea that the Stanford student athlete is equivalent to the valedictorian 4.4 GPA, 1600/2400/36 standardized test scores that they're made out to be often.
ETA:
Entirely unrelated to the OP, but since you shared the article, how the frick did this not get blown out of proportion:
Always love a good Tableau report. < / nerd>
Not going to aggregate all the years together, but here is 2015 + other years: LINK
25th percentile ACT - 31, 75th percentile ACT - 35 - let's call the "avg" somewhere in between there... 33?
So the avg. student at Stanford has a 33, the athlete average is at best 26 (likely somewhat lower). Either way, it's about a 20-25% differential between the average student and the student athlete. I've never argued that Stanford doesn't have a higher caliber "student" athlete, simply that they have to do what every other program does in order to field a quality team... which is decrease your standards for admission. There is value beyond strict academic performance to the student athlete, and the fact that they're able to get them in and keep them eligible is indeed impressive. I just don't subscribe to the idea that the Stanford student athlete is equivalent to the valedictorian 4.4 GPA, 1600/2400/36 standardized test scores that they're made out to be often.
ETA:
Entirely unrelated to the OP, but since you shared the article, how the frick did this not get blown out of proportion:
quote:
"We want a diverse student body," Krohn said. "If we were only taking students with the best scores then the entire freshmen class would be Chinese nationals."
This post was edited on 4/11/16 at 2:16 pm
Posted on 4/11/16 at 5:55 pm to JustGetItRight
quote:
JustGetItRight
quote:
It is? His own actions say otherwise.
According to 247, in 2016 alone they offered players from:
Alabama - 2
Louisiana - 2
Texas - 18
Georgia - 9
Florida - 6
Arkansas - 1
Tennessee - 2
Missouri - 1
They only offered 12 to kids from California.
I guess you could assume he's saying he wouldn't see value in holding camps in Mississippi, South Carolina, and Kentucky. That's probably true, but it would be due to the relative lack of football as opposed to academic talent.
LOL, Alabama doesn't have 2 prospects. Jake Bentley has only been in AL for 2 years, and now he's a product of Alabama education? He was born, raised, and educated in South Carolina.
Just get it right, OK?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News