Need another name other than Low APR U - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Need another name other than Low APR U (/thread-10342.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Need another name other than Low APR U (/thread-10342.html)
Need another name other than Low APR U - OutsiderFan - 10-22-2015
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/pac12/2015/10/21/cal-bears-football-grades-academics-sonny-dykes/74314368/
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - SeattleTree - 10-22-2015
An academic institution that fails its football players miserably while still trying to maintain their reputation as an academic school? I applaud their improvement; honestly, that's great! But they had nowhere to go but up and -- one man's opinion, here -- it'll take more than a couple of years of improvement to ditch the Low APR U moniker they've most definitely earned.
Good luck to the Bears tonight against the Bruins and keep up the good work in the classroom!
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - washingtonismoney - 10-22-2015
Stanford fans should be rooting for UCLA over the 59ers, sorry SeattleTree.
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - OutsiderFan - 10-22-2015
It would seem Ca.l will have established itself as a destination for academically-minded recruits when they are competing head-to-head and winning recruiting battles against Stanford. But then, it also seems possible that there are some recruits that will prefer private schools over public ones.Â
I mean does anyone ever see Ca.l becoming as big a recruiting rival as say ND and USC, even if Ca.l becomes a legit contending program? Then again, there is talk about UCLA and Michigan being Stanford recruiting rivals. So maybe Ca.l does become a bigger recruiting rival if it does in fact get its academic house in order and does do more winning on the field?
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - CTcard - 10-22-2015
Well, things seem encouraging, but ...
1. That article was written based upon a grand total of 1 years worth of reported APRs. Then it noted that, "the school expects another significant jump when the next round of scores are announced". Here's hoping.
2. It takes time to see changes in the actual graduation rate - or even the NCAA's made up Graduation Success Rate. For the most recent year available, covering students who entered in 2007, had to graduate by 2013, Low APR U's 1-year grad rate is 55%, Average over 4 classes is 42%, and Graduation Success Rate (a 4 year average) is 52%.
Until that number looks good, one cannot be sure.
There is a significant history of APRs never quite aligning with actual graduation rates.
[And note that for the overall student body, the actual federal grad rate is 91% - c.a.l. is not quite the Darwinian proving ground it's sports-board posters like to pretend. ]
3. From the article,
"The football program stands well ahead of schedule for a new university admissions policy mandating that at least 80% of incoming recruits hold a 3.0 GPA 77% of recruits during the past two classes topped that mark."
Unless there is something wrong with my math, 77% is not well ahead of 80% - though indeed they appear close.
And asking for a hs 3.0 gpa isn't all that much, particularly with grade inflation in recent years.
Already at Berkeley, the average entering GPA is 4.19.
http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses/berkeley/freshman-profile/index.html
[Hmmmm. It's possible that link means the average GPA of c.a.l. applicants is 4.19.]
The number of Berkeley students with a hs gpa<3.0 is 1.0% (presumably athletes)
The number of c.a.l. students with a gpa>3.5 is 94%
http://opa.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/uc_berkeley_cds_2014-15_august.pdf [p.9]
The overall average GPA for every kid in America was about 3.0 in 2011, presumably higher now.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/04/19/average-high-school-gpas-increased-since-1990
(10-22-2015, 07:54 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:I mean does anyone ever see Ca.l becoming as big a recruiting rival as say ND and Under Stanford Control, even if Ca.l becomes a legit contending program? Then again, there is talk about UCLA and Michigan being Stanford recruiting rivals.
This is an interesting question. Given the proximity and the overall academic excellence at c.a.l., one would think c.a.l. and Stanford would be major recruiting rivals. However, for the most part this has not been the case for some time. Stanford's major recruiting rivals have been und, $C, and UCLA. At the very least one would think c.a.l. could replace UCLA on this list.
We'll see.
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - washingtonismoney - 10-22-2015
(10-22-2015, 07:56 AM)CTcard link Wrote:From the article,
"The football program stands well ahead of schedule for a new university admissions policy mandating that at least 80% of incoming recruits hold a 3.0 GPA 77% of recruits during the past two classes topped that mark."
Unless there is something wrong with my math, 77% is not well ahead of 80% - though indeed they appear close.
Not to dispute your overall point, but "well ahead" refers not to the benchmark, but the schedule for achieving it. (Then again, the reporter doesn't reveal the schedule, so the reader has to take his word for it.)
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - OutsiderFan - 10-22-2015
I'm fairly certain those GPAs also must be inclusive of certain core course - UC qualification - minimums too.Â
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - Stymie - 10-22-2015
I don't like the whole concept of APR as long as a "score" of 925 on a scale of 0-1000 is "low." It reminds me of my days in the Department of the Army helping evaluate the performance of senior officers, where the scale was 0-240 and anything below an average 235 or so over your career meant you would never rise above the rank of Major. At Stanford my 0-4,0 GPA adjusted to APR would have been ~785, which I was told was in the top quartile. From now on, please call me "Low GPA Stymie"......
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - CTcard - 10-22-2015
(10-22-2015, 08:02 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Not to dispute your overall point, but "well ahead" refers not to the benchmark, but the schedule for achieving it. (Then again, the reporter doesn't reveal the schedule, so the reader has to take his word for it.)
Well, yeah, I was using that lack of definition of the schedule to take a shot. I mean it's c.a.l. ...
I looked up the schedule. The plan was passed in fall 2014.
It appears the schedule is supposed to be:
40% by class of 2015
60% by class of 2016
80% by class of 2017
Kind of scary that 40% had to be specified as a target.
http://www.dailycal.org/2014/11/02/academic-senate-releases-new-admissions-criteria-student-athletes/
That article also mentions the 77% number for the football team in the fall of 2014.
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - SeattleTree - 10-22-2015
(10-22-2015, 07:35 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Stanford fans should be rooting for UCLA over the 59ers, sorry SeattleTree.
Yes, a UCLA win would give Cal another Pac-12 loss. But I'd rather see Cal keep winning so that a win over the Bears in Big Game, should the Trees win Big Game, would be that much more impressive. Stanford already got a big boost from the win over UCLA. I'd like to see the opportunity for additional boosts later in the year. And I see a Cal win tonight furthering that goal more than a UCLA win. It would make Big Game bigger and take UCLA further out of the running for a Pac-12 South championship, making it more likely that the Trees would face a highly-ranked (if not undefeated) Utah in the conference championship game, should the Trees get that far.
Why not swing for the stars?
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - stupac2 - 10-22-2015
(10-22-2015, 09:05 AM)SeattleTree link Wrote:Why not swing for the stars?
Because there's basically 0 reason to think that the distribution of wins in the Pac-12 (outside of Stanford's) matters to us for anything besides getting to the CCG. Therefore, just like in the NFL you always root for the other conference and divisions, we should always root for the south over the north.
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - terry - 10-22-2015
Well said, CTCard.
(10-22-2015, 07:56 AM)CTcard link Wrote:Well, things seem encouraging, but ...
1. That article was written based upon a grand total of 1 years worth of reported APRs. Then it noted that, "the school expects another significant jump when the next round of scores are announced". Here's hoping.
2. It takes time to see changes in the actual graduation rate - or even the NCAA's made up Graduation Success Rate. For the most recent year available, covering students who entered in 2007, had to graduate by 2013, Low APR U's 1-year grad rate is 55%, Average over 4 classes is 42%, and Graduation Success Rate (a 4 year average) is 52%.
Until that number looks good, one cannot be sure.
There is a significant history of APRs never quite aligning with actual graduation rates.
[And note that for the overall student body, the actual federal grad rate is 91% - c.a.l. is not quite the Darwinian proving ground it's sports-board posters like to pretend. ]
3. From the article,
"The football program stands well ahead of schedule for a new university admissions policy mandating that at least 80% of incoming recruits hold a 3.0 GPA 77% of recruits during the past two classes topped that mark."
Unless there is something wrong with my math, 77% is not well ahead of 80% - though indeed they appear close.
And asking for a hs 3.0 gpa isn't all that much, particularly with grade inflation in recent years.
Already at Berkeley, the average entering GPA is 4.19.
http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/campuses/berkeley/freshman-profile/index.html
[Hmmmm. It's possible that link means the average GPA of c.a.l. applicants is 4.19.]
The number of Berkeley students with a hs gpa<3.0 is 1.0% (presumably athletes)
The number of c.a.l. students with a gpa>3.5 is 94%
http://opa.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/uc_berkeley_cds_2014-15_august.pdf [p.9]
The overall average GPA for every kid in America was about 3.0 in 2011, presumably higher now.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/04/19/average-high-school-gpas-increased-since-1990
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=13294.msg136184#msg136184 date=1445525678]
I mean does anyone ever see Ca.l becoming as big a recruiting rival as say ND and Under Stanford Control, even if Ca.l becomes a legit contending program? Then again, there is talk about UCLA and Michigan being Stanford recruiting rivals.
This is an interesting question. Given the proximity and the overall academic excellence at c.a.l., one would think c.a.l. and Stanford would be major recruiting rivals. However, for the most part this has not been the case for some time. Stanford's major recruiting rivals have been und, $C, and UCLA. At the very least one would think c.a.l. could replace UCLA on this list.
We'll see.
[/quote]
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - washingtonismoney - 10-22-2015
(10-22-2015, 09:15 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=SeattleTree link=topic=13294.msg136202#msg136202 date=1445529941]Why not swing for the stars?
Because there's basically 0 reason to think that the distribution of wins in the Pac-12 (outside of Stanford's) matters to us for anything besides getting to the CCG. Therefore, just like in the NFL you always root for the other conference and divisions, we should always root for the south over the north.
[/quote]
stupac is exactly correct. The most important first thing to do is winning the division.
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - TreesAndBirds - 10-22-2015
(10-22-2015, 09:15 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=SeattleTree link=topic=13294.msg136202#msg136202 date=1445529941]Why not swing for the stars?
Because there's basically 0 reason to think that the distribution of wins in the Pac-12 (outside of Stanford's) matters to us for anything besides getting to the CCG. Therefore, just like in the NFL you always root for the other conference and divisions, we should always root for the south over the north.
[/quote]
I dont know if I completely agree, because there is a psychological aspect to college ratings that you dont have in the NFL. I think we get more "credit" for beating a 6-0 and an 0-6 team, then for beating two 3-3 teams. People like to see "quality wins". And unrelated to the Cal/UCLA game, I think we benefit when a Pac12 team we play beats one that we dont play that year, because I assume it makes our SOS stronger. So while I agree in general with what you say, that we always want the south to beat the north because it helps us win the division, I dont think it's black and white when you take into account selection for the Playoffs.
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - SeattleTree - 10-22-2015
(10-22-2015, 09:57 AM)TreesAndBirds link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13294.msg136204#msg136204 date=1445530512]
[quote author=SeattleTree link=topic=13294.msg136202#msg136202 date=1445529941]Why not swing for the stars?
Because there's basically 0 reason to think that the distribution of wins in the Pac-12 (outside of Stanford's) matters to us for anything besides getting to the CCG. Therefore, just like in the NFL you always root for the other conference and divisions, we should always root for the south over the north.
[/quote]
I dont know if I completely agree, because there is a psychological aspect to college ratings that you dont have in the NFL. I think we get more "credit" for beating a 6-0 and an 0-6 team, then for beating two 3-3 teams. People like to see "quality wins". And unrelated to the Low APR U/UCLA game, I think we benefit when a Pac12 team we play beats one that we dont play that year, because I assume it makes our SOS stronger. So while I agree in general with what you say, that we always want the south to beat the north because it helps us win the division, I dont think it's black and white when you take into account selection for the Playoffs.
[/quote]
Exactly. Winning the division is still within Stanford's control if they win out. I want them to rack up as many quality wins as possible in the process. It may reduce the margin of error to win the division, but it might also increase the chance of making the playoffs. That's why it's swinging for the stars.
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - stupac2 - 10-22-2015
(10-22-2015, 09:57 AM)TreesAndBirds link Wrote:I dont know if I completely agree, because there is a psychological aspect to college ratings that you dont have in the NFL. I think we get more "credit" for beating a 6-0 and an 0-6 team, then for beating two 3-3 teams. People like to see "quality wins". And unrelated to the Low APR U/UCLA game, I think we benefit when a Pac12 team we play beats one that we dont play that year, because I assume it makes our SOS stronger. So while I agree in general with what you say, that we always want the south to beat the north because it helps us win the division, I dont think it's black and white when you take into account selection for the Playoffs.
Okay sure, say we win out. ESPN predicts UCLA and Cal to both be 8-4 (rounding UCLA up and Cal down, which I think is fair since we're assuming we beat Cal). How much more impressive will it be for Cal to be 9-3 and UCLA 7-5? Or the other way around? Does it really matter? Either way we've beat one team that has a pretty good record and another that has an okay record. Who cares which team is which?
What I really don't get about this line of thought is that it's all so marginal. If we don't win out the records of the teams we beat are completely and utterly meaningless (I don't think anyone disagrees with this). If we do win out, we'll have wins over a highly ranked ND, a highly ranked South champion (whoever it is will be ranked), a probably-back-to-ranked-by-then Oregon, and presumably some other teams we've beaten will be ranked, though it's hard to say who will be. Will beating #15 Cal then #10 ND then #5 Utah really look that much better than beating #25 Cal then #10 ND then #5 Utah? Why? Because you need to compare it to the other Power 5 team we're trying to jump, and in that case either:
1) We're obviously not going to jump them (they're undefeated or a 1-loss SEC team).
2) We're obviously going to jump them (1-loss teams from any conference besides the SEC).
So, again, we're talking about something that only can possibly matter ~13% of the time (according to FPI, as good as anything for estimating this), and even then is so marginal as to provide no real of gain, according to the evidence we have.
Given the fact that there's an 80-something percent chance that none of this matters and that no matter what we want to make the CCG for a shot at the Rose Bowl, we want to root for the south over the north. Outside of that I think we want to root against upsets, insofar as that helps SOS on the margin, but no matter what we absolutely want to root for the south.
(I know that it doesn't actually matter, since who we root for doesn't affect anything, but I think if we're going to be cheering for a team besides Stanford we should do it for good reasons.)
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - SeattleTree - 10-22-2015
You may disagree and it may be irrational on my part, but I still hope Cal wins tonight.Â
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - washingtonismoney - 10-22-2015
If "going to the playoff" is what matters to you, again, you ought to be rooting for UCLA over the 59ers:
1) because it increases the odds of winning the division
2) because it means, performance-wise, that Stanford beat a marginally better team rather than a marginally worse team last Thursday, which in turn means Stanford is more likely to beat the other teams on its schedule.
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - TreesAndBirds - 10-22-2015
The main team I'm rooting for is Utah, because if we both win out until the CCG, then I think we go to at least the Rose Bowl win or lose the CCG ( if we lose I think Utah goes to the Playoffs, so we still likely get the Rose Bowl, and if we beat them we will have beaten a top 3 team and in my view enhanced our Playoff chances).
But they may be he hardest team for us to beat, and of course who we root for doesnt matter, it's just fun.
Re: Need another name other than Low APR U - Extra Point - 10-22-2015
I am more concerned about the long term effects. The LA schools have an inherent recruiting advantage. When they lose, it evens the playing field a bit. C.al will never have a recruiting advantage.