VBSH 2
Banned
banned
Posts: 890
|
Post by VBSH 2 on Feb 18, 2019 23:17:20 GMT -5
Also the college game is full of guys who weren’t top recruits in high school. It doesn’t really mean anything if you’re outworked and out-trained by someone who was pretty good as a young player and developed into a beast. Also someone said it earlier but this senior class is insane as far as impact players go a lot of teams all around the country will have big shoes to fill next year just like UCLA did this year with losing Hatch, Arnitz, etc. I think that is part of the issue. Speraw needs to go to other courts besides A! and A2
|
|
|
Post by vball70 on Feb 19, 2019 20:13:53 GMT -5
How many Fresh/Soph/Jr pin hitters that didn't play on court A1/A2 would be on the court for UCLA now...by my count....none.
|
|
|
Post by CoastalVB on Feb 19, 2019 20:41:38 GMT -5
Tremendous talent in the college game from A1 and A2 courts across the country - not a bad place to look for top players.
|
|
|
Post by kolohekeiki on Feb 20, 2019 2:13:22 GMT -5
Beach looking good and TJ had an "off" night offensively! That's scary The Beach is stacked enough with talent for TJ to have an off night and still be very good.
|
|
|
Post by lipton on Feb 20, 2019 15:28:56 GMT -5
Keller had Schneidmiller in his Bay to Bay club, since age 12. UCLA couldn't sign him due to his GPA. They definitely could, UCLA and UCI have the same entrance requirements Not exactly true. Because of sports such as football, UCLA spends its "special action" admits outside of volleyball. Having no football team, UCI is free to spend those on Olympic sports. As for straight admissions, any athlete who can clear the bar for one UC can likely clear it for another.
|
|
|
Post by bealzabubba on Feb 20, 2019 16:50:23 GMT -5
They definitely could, UCLA and UCI have the same entrance requirements As for straight admissions, any athlete who can clear the bar for one UC can likely clear it for another. The bar isn't particularly high at UC, candidly, but that same bar is not reflective of reality for general admission. I.e. the min GPA req'd is 3.0/3.4 (CA/non) in "a-g"; at UCLA, 95% have 3.75+ (not broken down by in/out of state), whereas UCI "only" has 79% at that level.
|
|
|
Post by CoastalVB on Feb 20, 2019 18:56:42 GMT -5
As for straight admissions, any athlete who can clear the bar for one UC can likely clear it for another. The bar isn't particularly high at UC, candidly, but that same bar is not reflective of reality for general admission. I.e. the min GPA req'd is 3.0/3.4 (CA/non) in "a-g"; at UCLA, 95% have 3.75+ (not broken down by in/out of state), whereas UCI "only" has 79% at that level. The bar is actually very high at a UC. The 3.0 required is only a minimum to apply. Very few students get in with under a 3.75. This brings the bar up very high academically for athletes. UCLA admissions for athletes is more difficult than many other schools (exempting Stanford, Harvard, Princeton). This is why they pass on certain kids.
|
|
|
Post by lipton on Feb 20, 2019 19:43:14 GMT -5
The bar isn't particularly high at UC, candidly, but that same bar is not reflective of reality for general admission. I.e. the min GPA req'd is 3.0/3.4 (CA/non) in "a-g"; at UCLA, 95% have 3.75+ (not broken down by in/out of state), whereas UCI "only" has 79% at that level. The bar is actually very high at a UC. The 3.0 required is only a minimum to apply. Very few students get in with under a 3.75. This brings the bar up very high academically for athletes. UCLA admissions for athletes is more difficult than many other schools (exempting Stanford, Harvard, Princeton). This is why they pass on certain kids. Where are you getting the facts to support your opinion about the difficulty level for athletes to get into a given school? Please support your comment with actual data. The following link might be a good place to start. Unfortunately, though, it torpedoes your comment about UCLA admission standards for athletes being such a high bar. dailybruin.com/2009/01/06/emucla-should-not-lower-admission-standards-athlet/At the very least, the article will explain that athletes often get admitted under the "special admit" category. But like I posted earlier, at UCLA the big money sports get the majority of the special admits, so Olympic sports end up with a higher bar. UCI's advantage is that there is no football team to take a chunk of those special admits, so they can lower the standard for Olympic sport athletes as necessary.
|
|
|
Post by CoastalVB on Feb 20, 2019 20:29:04 GMT -5
The bar is actually very high at a UC. The 3.0 required is only a minimum to apply. Very few students get in with under a 3.75. This brings the bar up very high academically for athletes. UCLA admissions for athletes is more difficult than many other schools (exempting Stanford, Harvard, Princeton). This is why they pass on certain kids. Where are you getting the facts to support your opinion about the difficulty level for athletes to get into a given school? Please support your comment with actual data. The following link might be a good place to start. Unfortunately, though, it torpedoes your comment about UCLA admission standards for athletes being such a high bar. dailybruin.com/2009/01/06/emucla-should-not-lower-admission-standards-athlet/At the very least, the article will explain that athletes often get admitted under the "special admit" category. But like I posted earlier, at UCLA the big money sports get the majority of the special admits, so Olympic sports end up with a higher bar. UCI's advantage is that there is no football team to take a chunk of those special admits, so they can lower the standard for Olympic sport athletes as necessary. You make the following quote "The bar isn't particularly high at UC, candidly.." The bar for student athletes is much higher in the UC system. This has been discussed for years by coaches who recruit and loose athletes to other schools. Of course there is a gap between athletes and the general population. Also, you site a daily bruin article (not the most objective source - a student run newspaper) from 2009 - ten years ago. In the article they say the gap from "those schools surveyed." What schools did they survey? State schools? Notre Dame? Michigan? Duke? Florida State?...You can come up with any sort of conclusion by handpicking schools in a survey. To say "the bar isn't particularly high at UC" for athletes is just not accurate. Read more: volleytalk.proboards.com/thread/76591/4-ucla-long-beach-state?page=4#ixzz5g7ltEJYa
|
|
|
Post by bealzabubba on Feb 20, 2019 23:01:55 GMT -5
The bar isn't particularly high at UC, candidly, but that same bar is not reflective of reality for general admission. I.e. the min GPA req'd is 3.0/3.4 (CA/non) in "a-g"; at UCLA, 95% have 3.75+ (not broken down by in/out of state), whereas UCI "only" has 79% at that level. The bar is actually very high at a UC. The 3.0 required is only a minimum to apply. Very few students get in with under a 3.75. This brings the bar up very high academically for athletes. UCLA admissions for athletes is more difficult than many other schools (exempting Stanford, Harvard, Princeton). This is why they pass on certain kids. I cited no stats for the proposition that athletes with less than a 3.0 actually are admitted at any UC (the bar = minimum for admission, and my pithy opinion is that the bar is low, because, well, in my opinion, the bar is too low), nor any stats supporting that v-ball athletes can get in with a GPA that has a statistically significant deviation less than the mean at that given campus. The points I made are twofold: 1. The minimum admissions are the same. 2. The reality is that UCI has a lower average GPA than UCLA. There is simply no argument that UCI is easier to get into than UCLA, for a qualified applicant, by any objective metric. That is wholly different from the statement that UCI is easy to get into. It's not. No UC is, currently - they're excellent schools, relatively cheap for in state, but highly impacted (merced may be a bit of an exception, but that's not going to last). In a later comment, you state "The bar for student athletes is much higher in the UC system." Higher than what? The minimum admission requirement of UC? The minimum SC would admit? The minimum CSUN would admit? Your reference back to the first post on this page doesn't aid your argument, and is likely a typo. In terms of your quip regarding the elite academic uni's: that's disputed. The evidence introduced in the recent Asian discrimination trial against Harvard, indicated that athletes did have a statistically significant advantage in admissions over non-athletes (again, not saying it's easy - just ever so slightly " easier"). This is a good place to start if you don't know about that trial, though it does not specifically address the sports angle except obliquely - the trial was about race, but Harvard admitted : www.chronicle.com/article/Dueling-Economists-Rival/244964Google either expert and harvard admission and you can easily find the reports, though... they're not easy reading.
|
|
|
Post by lipton on Feb 21, 2019 1:23:39 GMT -5
Where are you getting the facts to support your opinion about the difficulty level for athletes to get into a given school? Please support your comment with actual data. The following link might be a good place to start. Unfortunately, though, it torpedoes your comment about UCLA admission standards for athletes being such a high bar. dailybruin.com/2009/01/06/emucla-should-not-lower-admission-standards-athlet/At the very least, the article will explain that athletes often get admitted under the "special admit" category. But like I posted earlier, at UCLA the big money sports get the majority of the special admits, so Olympic sports end up with a higher bar. UCI's advantage is that there is no football team to take a chunk of those special admits, so they can lower the standard for Olympic sport athletes as necessary. You make the following quote "The bar isn't particularly high at UC, candidly.." The bar for student athletes is much higher in the UC system. This has been discussed for years by coaches who recruit and loose athletes to other schools. Of course there is a gap between athletes and the general population. Also, you site a daily bruin article (not the most objective source - a student run newspaper) from 2009 - ten years ago. In the article they say the gap from "those schools surveyed." What schools did they survey? State schools? Notre Dame? Michigan? Duke? Florida State?...You can come up with any sort of conclusion by handpicking schools in a survey. To say "the bar isn't particularly high at UC" for athletes is just not accurate. Read more: volleytalk.proboards.com/thread/76591/4-ucla-long-beach-state?page=4#ixzz5g7ltEJYaSo I guess that means you will not be citing any facts from published data. The Daily Bruin article you choose to dismiss because it's ten years old quoted another article and referenced data. Your opinion of the Daily Bruin's objectivity is irrelevant, because they listed numbers and pointed out that UCLA was LAST in 54 schools surveyed. It also noted that Football and Basketball were the big abusers, meaning the Olympic sports were not able to abuse the admissions system as much. The point in all of this is that special admits happen at every school, and for schools that have no football program, Olympic sports can take advantage by accepting athletes with marginal qualifications. I have no doubt that within the mens volleyball community, schools like UCLA, Stanford, UCSD, Pepperdine, Harvard, Princeton, UCI, and UCSB lose out to CSUN, BYU, Hawaii, Barton, Ball State, Long Beach State, Grand Canyon, Lewis, and George Mason when it comes to certain athletes who scraped by in high school. But that does not mean that the criteria to get in as a volleyball player at any school is staggering.
|
|