The CardBoard
What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - 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: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? (/thread-5901.html)

Pages: 1 2

What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - yvonne - 10-24-2013

Wilner tweeted this:

Quote:#pac12fb Grad Success Rates: Stan 93, UCLA 82, UW 74, Utah 73, Ore 72, CU 70, ASU 67, OSU 66, Az 60, WSU 57, USC 53, Cal 44
https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/393397944172310528

(In all fairness, he does a good job reporting on TV and on contracts.)

Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - Farm93 - 10-24-2013

The most curious thing about the list is not really Stanford or UCB.  It is UCLA!

UCLA is able to field a winning football team, balance an athletic department budget AND graduate football players all while working with the UC Regents.  I know how UCBers dismiss Stanford's success on such metrics, but how do they discount UCLA's accomplishments?

Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - FarmBoy - 10-24-2013

How did UCLA's rate increase 20 points in one year?

Wilner's more extended post on this topic: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/10/24/pac-12-football-graduation-success-rates-climb-for-10-schools-drop-at-cal-and-usc/

Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - Bruce Wang - 10-24-2013

Not surprised at all.  UCLA has had higher academic admission standards for their football players than Kal.  The top academic football players go to Stanford.  The next tier are going to UCLA.  To compete athletically, Tedford recruited lower academic standard football players.  Actually this problem predates Tedford.  When I was in school (early 90s), Kal had Prop 48 cases on their football team.  Kal is tougher academically than UCLA, so the result is the lowest graduation rate in the Pac-12.  Kal's dilemma: field a competitive football team or graduate their players.  This is a real Kobayashi Maru, a test of character.  They could, of course, do what James Tiberius Kirk did: cheat.

Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - Leftcoast - 10-24-2013

Ca.l in 1997:  Our graduation rate sucks but it's all Gilby's fault!  Tom Holmoe is a character guy and he's fixing the problem.

Ca.l in 2003:  Our graduation rate sucks but it's all Holmoe's fault!  Jeff Tedford is a character guy and he's fixing the problem.

Ca.l in 2013:  Our graduation rate sucks but it's all Tedford's fault.  S.onny Dyk.es is a character guy and he's fixing the problem.

Maybe the coaching isn't the problem. 

Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - yvonne - 10-24-2013

Wait, there's more: https://mobile.twitter.com/McMurphyESPN/status/393409239772704769

Quote:Worst 10 BCS AQ grad rates: Cal 44%, OU 51, USC 53, Ark 54, Ole Miss 55, OkSt 56, Tex 56, Hou 57, WSU 57, FSU 58

Worst and third worst.


Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - 76lsjumb - 10-24-2013

What's all this brouhaha about graduation rates?  The REAL scandal in college football is that people are apparently leaving Alabama games early, and Nick Saban isn't happy about it:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/nick-saban-wants-fans-stay-whole-game-not-164341747--ncaaf.html

Who cares if the kids graduate?  Fans not sticking around to see all 60 minutes of the complete demolition of Southwestern Georgia Southern State [or whomever it is that Alabama plays at home] -- THAT's a problem...  :o

PS  I have to admit, though, that outscoring your home opponents 173-9 through the first half of the season is rather impressive, regardless of the opponent.

PPS  No intention to hijack this thread, so please return to your regularly scheduled broadcasting...

Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - terry - 10-24-2013

(10-24-2013, 11:12 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:How did UCLA's rate increase 20 points in one year?

The reported grad rates are combined rates for four classes. In UCLA's grad rate this year, a class with a very low grad rate (14% federal grad rate) dropped out of UCLA's four-year average and was replaced by a class with a very high grad rate (80% federal grad rate). That led to a big jump in UCLA's four-class grad rate.

Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - terry - 10-24-2013

(10-24-2013, 11:39 AM)Leftcoast link Wrote:Ca.l in 1997:  Our graduation rate sucks but it's all Gilby's fault!  Tom Holmoe is a character guy and he's fixing the problem.

Ca.l in 2003:  Our graduation rate sucks but it's all Holmoe's fault!  Jeff Tedford is a character guy and he's fixing the problem.

Ca.l in 2013:  Our graduation rate sucks but it's all Tedford's fault.  S.onny Dyk.es is a character guy and he's fixing the problem.

Maybe the coaching isn't the problem.

Yep. Ca.l has a long tradition of blaming the prior coach for low grad rates and claiming that the new coach already has turned things around.

Ca.l continues to have low grad rates for at least two reasons, it seems to me. First, they don't seem to look at grad rates as an institutional responsibility. Rather, they continue to speak of it as the coach's responsibility. That's a recipe for failure, because most coaches (including the coaches they've had) will prioritize winning over graduation rates.

Second, Ca.l has been unwilling to impose meaningful admission standards in football and basketball. They have admitted athletes who just meet the NCAA minimum standards (far below UC minimums). Then they wonder why they have low grad rates. Another recipe for failure.

A recent recruiting update reported that Ca.l told a recruit that he needed to get an SAT score above the NCAA minimum. If so, maybe that means that Ca.l really is doing something about the problem. But the test will come in specific cases when the coach starts throwing around his weight to get talented, academically marginal guys into school. We'll see what happens then. In the past, Ca.l has not been willing to impose higher admissions standards at the cost of losing high-level talent.

Someone on another site made the point that it's good for us when Ca.l accepts recruits at the NCAA minimum qualifying level because it means they are largely recruiting in a different pool from us, rather than competing directly against us for top academic guys. That's probably right. If Ca.l were to raise its standards, we probably would run into them as our competition more often. . . .

Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - washingtonismoney - 10-24-2013

(10-24-2013, 02:41 PM)garvin link Wrote:Losing teams equals empty seats equals debt-management problems. Low grades appears nowhere in that equation.

The new APR penalties -- which the 59ers are in danger of 59ering-and-burning with -- may focus minds on that front. Sure, it's one thing if some kid doesn't graduate, but imagine all the collateral damage if the 59ers had to miss the Gildan New Mexico Bowl or lost a couple scholarships.

Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - Mick - 10-24-2013

(10-24-2013, 11:19 AM)Publius link Wrote:Kal is tougher academically than UCLA



Is Kal really tougher academically than UCLA?  I guess so.  When I looked five years ago, they were identical.  Here's last year's 2013 incoming frosh averages - Kal / UCLA

Admit rate — Overall
20.8%    /  20.1% 
Acceptance rates for California residents
  21.4%  /  17.4%  (I am seriously unhappy about this) 
Admits
14,101    /  16,177
Applicants
67,691  /  80,494
California Residents (% of admits)
65.4%  /  59.0%
Weighted High School GPA
4.18      /  4.15
ACT Composite Score
31        /    30
SAT Critical Reading
678      /  667
SAT Mathematics
706      /  701
SAT Writing
692      /  684


Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - 71Bear - 10-24-2013

Some thoughts...

1) Lefty is right - nothing but excuses.  I fell for that crap once when JT replaced TH.  No more.  Stop the chatter and show me results.

2) Washington - the APR will drop in May 2014.  Whether it declines to a level that initiates penalties remains to be seen.  I am hopeful (keeping in mind, point #1) that we will see a turnaround beginning in 2015.  The math works to UC's disadvantage in 14 and advantage in 15.

3) Garvin- yes, JT was fired, in part, due to academics.  Of that, there is no doubt.  Many high profile UC alums were really angry about the academic disaster. 

4) Publius - UC only had one Prop 48 player in the 90's, Russell White.  The irony is that White is an incredible success story and a shining example of what is right about college athletics.  Entering UC, he was a dyslexic question mark.  After, his condition was diagnosed, he fell in love with school (to the detriment of his athletic career), graduated and is doing extremely well now.

5) Farm 93 - first of all, UCLA does not have a balanced athletic budget.  The require a subsidy from the University to balance their books (not to the extent that UC does).  They graduate more players because they don't take nearly as many academic risks as UC. 

What is most interesting about this whole discussion is that JT is on record as having said things started going south for him when he got away from recruiting kids that were really qualified for UC.  Early in his tenure, UC did well academically (one year they graduated 100% of the footballers).  When he started taking short cuts, the academics collapsed and the team record soured.

CoachDykes is on record as saying he will address the mess left by JT.  To my earlier point, I'll believe it when I see it but I have heard that he is off to a good start based on the spring and summer results.




Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - Bruce Wang - 10-24-2013

(10-24-2013, 03:34 PM)71Bear link Wrote:4) Publius - UC only had one Prop 48 player in the 90's, Russell White.  The irony is that White is an incredible success story and a shining example of what is right about college athletics.  Entering UC, he was a dyslexic question mark.  After, his condition was diagnosed, he fell in love with school (to the detriment of his athletic career), graduated and is doing extremely well now.

My recollection is that there were multiple Prop 48 players.  The one I was thinking of is Delta O'Neal.  I looked it up and while he was for a while a Prop 48 case, he got the requisite SAT score after his 4th try.  There was some suspicion because of the jump. He was eventually cleared but not soon enough for him to enroll in the spring.

You follow Kal more closely than I do, so I will take your word that Russell White was the only one.  I must have remembered reading about Delta O'Neal while he was being recruited and then Russell White, and came under the impression that this was a common practice at Kal.

Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - 71Bear - 10-24-2013

There was such an outcry about White that UC never signed another Prop 48.  The irony being what I posted about White. And yes, O'Neal did get in as a minimum qualifier (he was eligible to play all four years and did, in fact, letter four times).

Let us not forget.... - CowboyIndian - 10-24-2013

Isaac Curtis: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1243&dat=19710823&id=fnYzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=t_cDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1710,1197759

Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - Farm93 - 10-24-2013

(10-24-2013, 03:24 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=Publius link=topic=8667.msg72257#msg72257 date=1382638750]
Kal is tougher academically than UCLA

Is Kal really tougher academically than UCLA?  I guess so.  When I looked five years ago, they were identical. 
[/quote]
The numbers over the last several years suggest that UCLA is as tough to get into as UCB.  On many metrics UCLA appears to have stronger applicants.

However, I still think UCB is tougher academically in the way that counts here.  I am sure the quality of education between the two is close to comparable, but for whatever reason it seems like there are more reports that it is harder to find and complete the classes needed for graduation at UCB.  UCBers proudly point to that sink or swim culture with pride.

However, I think for the athletes with marginal academic credentials a very little time to spend on bureaucracy that philosophy probably leads to failure.  Getting athletes that have a few extra points on their SAT probably will not solve the graduation challenge if the quirky and demanding campus logistics are still in place.

The real fix would seem to be to improve the quantity of classes and offer a greater variety of class schedules so that it is possible for most students to graduate in four years without too many hassles.  Probably won't happen, so I expect in 2021 UCBers will blame former coach Dykes (and the coach that will start in 2015) for the shortcomings of the 2012-2015 graduation rates.

Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - terry - 10-24-2013

(10-24-2013, 05:16 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:I still think UCB is tougher academically in the way that counts here. . . .  UCBers proudly point to that sink or swim culture with pride.

Yes, people at Ca.l like to point to the "sink or swim" culture. But Ca.l actually has a very high graduation rate for its incoming freshmen -- 91%, according to the most recent report. That compares to 95% at Stanford. The stats suggest that it's not all that hard for regular students to graduate from Ca.l.  Low graduation rates are an athlete issue at Ca.l, not a general student body issue.

Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - 71Bear - 10-24-2013

Terry - I can only speak for myself.  It was definitely sink or swim in my day.  There was no safety net.  I felt like it was a long high wire walk...

Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - 71Bear - 10-24-2013

Ah, Isaac Curtis...  He led UC to a national title in track.  After the NCAA screwed him and UC over, he left to attend SDSU (UC refused to punish Curtis for something he wasn't guilty of; consequently, the school was punished for standing up to the NCAA).  Those were the "good ol' days when taking a principled stand was more important than taking the easy way out.....

Re: What was that about monkeys and Shakespeare? - pincemob - 10-24-2013

Quote: Ca.l has been unwilling to impose meaningful admission standards in football

I don't think that is a realistic option.  C.al would have to recruit nationally (and I don't mean buying a few guys from North Carolina).  National recruiting must be expensive, isn't it?  And even if they had the money I doubt they could put their assistants on private charters and/or pay them enough to do the related grind.  National recruiting may not be consistent with the school's mission either (which presumably has something to do with educating and/or giving opportunities to students from California?).    It is fair to point to UCLA, but on the other hand think of how much bigger the L.A. market is.  Probably easier for UCLA to find good players who aren't academic or citizenship risks.Â