Re: Mo Claibornce Notched a FOUR on the Wonderlic
Athlete, go to your classes, take tests and all be good.
Athlete, go to your classes, take tests and all be good.
taking tests must be optional...Athlete, go to your classes, take tests and all be good.
A 2009 study by professors from Fresno State University, the University of Georgia and Towson State found no connection between Wonderlic scores and performance during the first three years of a player's NFL career. The group studied 762 players from the 2002, 2003 and 2004 draft classes.
John W. Michel, an assistant professor at Towson University who co-authored the study, told the Washington Post: "We found in no cases was cognitive ability related to (football) performance. We did find a negative relationship for tight ends and defensive backs. For defensive backs, it was the most pronounced; basically, the lower you scored on the Wonderlic, the better you performed."
Forget what this says about his draft potential. This is an embarrassment for higher learning. When 10 is reported as the cutoff score which suggests the taker is literate, it's kind of hard to explain a 4 by a guy who spent 3 years attending classes.The Wonderlick is very overrated in measuring anything - Dan Marino got a 16 out of 50.
In fact, the lower a TE or CB scores on the Wonderlick, the better he performs on the field, so this might actually increase Claiborne's draft value.
Only in our country will we keep digging and manipulating until we can come up with dumb ='s better. Very sad.The Wonderlick is very overrated in measuring anything - Dan Marino got a 16 out of 50.
In fact, the lower a TE or CB scores on the Wonderlick, the better he performs on the field, so this might actually increase Claiborne's draft value.
This is from the ESPN article...
There is always going to be a counter attack to anything that makes a minority or a less fortunate look badly.......this article is just that. We need to ask how an athlete could only answer 4 out of 50 questions correctly yet obtain a college degree from a state school and nothing else.Only in our country will we keep digging and manipulating until we can come up with dumb ='s better. Very sad.
Well, anything other than basic intelligence.The Wonderlick is very overrated in measuring anything - Dan Marino got a 16 out of 50.
In fact, the lower a TE or CB scores on the Wonderlick, the better he performs on the field, so this might actually increase Claiborne's draft value.
This is from the ESPN article...
Basic Intelligence is a culturally biased opinion. The "intelligence" to send a man to the moon vs the making a balsa wood boat with no tools can both be looked on as equally great achievements as they both create the necessary vehicle to stimulate the communities through intelligence.Well, anything other than basic intelligence.
It's not digging and manipulating - it's doing good science. This is why so many people are fooled by divining rods and other quackery.Only in our country will we keep digging and manipulating until we can come up with dumb ='s better. Very sad.
The Wonderlick doesn't imply that it measures football potential, just basic cognitive and reasoning skills. I wouldn't assume that a 16 would preclude a person from being a great football player. I would assume however that someone who scored a 4 couldn't cut it in a college curriculum for a semester, let alone 3 years.The Wonderlick is very overrated in measuring anything - Dan Marino got a 16 out of 50.
You threw the opinion up that it's better to be dumber anyway? Explain away.It's not digging and manipulating - it's doing good science. This is why so many people are fooled by divining rods and other quackery.
Dan Marino has also been successful off of the football field.The Wonderlick doesn't imply that it measures football potential, just basic cognitive and reasoning skills. I wouldn't assume that a 16 would preclude a person from being a great football player. I would assume however that someone who scored a 4 couldn't cut it in a college curriculum for a semester, let alone 3 years.
I didn't throw up the opinion, it was one of the findings of the study. It's in the quoted portion and bolded.You threw the opinion up that it's better to be dumber anyway? Explain away.
Have you seen the study he's referring to?Only in our country will we keep digging and manipulating until we can come up with dumb ='s better. Very sad.
And that goes for players that wear Crimson. I know we have Barrett Jones and Greg McElroys, but we also have our share of guys that wouldn't have gotten to school without their athletic ability.If we held the "standard" of a student-athlete to where we should there'd be a signficant drop in quality of play. I'm not suggesting we don't but I'm just saying I very seriously doubt Mo is a rare case. I'd venture to say there are A LOT of elite players, who make the quality of college football what it is in our conference, that have no business in a college classroom.