Academics Discussion for Prospective Athletes (split from Mike Ford thread)

[GrandBayTider]

There has been several players over the last few years who were "questionable" about gaining acceptance coming out of H.S. Players like Tyrone Prothro, and LeRon McLain are examples of one's who have excelled on the field after doubts during their recruiting that would be academically elgible. I'm not sure of the name, but I believe Anthony Madison received his year of elgibility this year after graduating on time due to his conditional acceptance. I agree a high intelligence is beneficial in processing information, however academic grades are only one way of evaluating it, and not really the best.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

"A good brain never hurt an athlete!" - Pete Carrill (Ex-Princeton Basketall Coach)

"A 4.4 40 never hurt a Rhodes Scholar!" -- 4Q Basket Case (Lifelong Alabama Fan)

 

[Ldlane]

There has been several players over the last few years who were "questionable" about gaining acceptance coming out of H.S. Players like Tyrone Prothro, and LeRon McLain are examples of one's who have excelled on the field after doubts during their recruiting that would be academically elgible. I'm not sure of the name, but I believe Anthony Madison received his year of elgibility this year after graduating on time due to his conditional acceptance. I agree a high intelligence is beneficial in processing information, however academic grades are only one way of evaluating it, and not really the best.

True. Academics are not the only way of evaulating intelligence and as an opponent of "high stakes" testing I agree totally. In fact some students are "mediocre" in HS and they get to college and maturity sets in and they perform well (I am exactly that case!) In fact, I think that we should take chances on students that don't have the advantages that others have to make it in college. There is a support system in place for these students. Unfortunately, I see those dreams fading, under NCLB and other acts of "accountability" in education. Unfortunately, academics is how you are measured as far as being able to play for your team.

However, if I followed the thread correctly we are talking about "why we don't go after the more "intelligent, average" players in hopes of a "long-term" return? I could be wrong.

 

[RhodeIslandRed]

True. Academics are not the only way of evaulating intelligence and as an opponent of "high stakes" testing I agree totally. In fact some students are "mediocre" in HS and they get to college and maturity sets in and they perform well (I am exactly that case!) In fact, I think that we should take chances on students that don't have the advantages that others have to make it in college. There is a support system in place for these students. Unfortunately, I see those dreams fading, under NCLB and other acts of "accountability" in education. Unfortunately, academics is how you are measured as far as being able to play for your team.

However, if I followed the thread correctly we are talking about "why we don't go after the more "intelligent, average" players in hopes of a "long-term" return? I could be wrong.

It seems that the highly rated players come from teams that had successful seasons. Of course this makes sense as individual players with good abilities made the team achieve at a higher level. However, if 50% of the teams are above average, then that means there are 50% of the teams that are below average. Despite this, there is a high likelihood that those below average teams have great athletes. It's just that their team's record just doesn't flatter their abilities. As a result, they are not highly recruited. The trick, then, becomes being able to identify these individuals and to measure their traits accordingly -- size, speed, vertical jump, aggressiveness, strength, etc., and of course, intellegence which may be measured by GPA, test scores, and curriculum.
It's true that not all intellegence is measured in the classroom, but one may surmise that most people who do well in the classroom are fairly intellegent. It's probably the way to bet.

 

[Ldlane]

It seems that the highly rated players come from teams that had successful seasons. Of course this makes sense as individual players with good abilities made the team achieve at a higher level. However, if 50% of the teams are above average, then that means there are 50% of the teams that are below average. Despite this, there is a high likelihood that those below average teams have great athletes. It's just that their team's record just doesn't flatter their abilities. As a result, they are not highly recruited. The trick, then, becomes being able to identify these individuals and to measure their traits accordingly -- size, speed, vertical jump, aggressiveness, strength, etc., and of course, intellegence which may be measured by GPA, test scores, and curriculum.
It's true that not all intellegence is measured in the classroom, but one may surmise that most people who do well in the classroom are fairly intellegent. It's probably the way to bet.

True. And that goes back to the fact that maybe we are seeking these student/athletes, but they are choosing schools with a richer "academic" tradition that we can't offer at this juncture. Not to say that UA is a great school, because I always wanted to go there but that it doesn't have academic tradition of a Notre Dame (just off the top of my head!).

US New Top Universities 2006

 

[wastedmason]

This thread just goes to show just how stupid the NCAA and all the testing to get in college is. Everyone regardless of their IQ has talent in something somewhere. Whether that talent lies in the brain or the legs makes no difference, it is still God given talent that needs to be nurtured. If God giveth it must be good.

I know plenty of booksmart folks that ain't got a lick of common walking around sence. And I know plenty of folks who have talents that many of you wish you had but can't spell, write or read worth a dang. Then you have those who have the best of both worlds but still don't have a clue and depending on being at the wrong place at the wrong time or luck of the draw wind up nowhere. Of course there is the lucky few who make us all look bad, with talent, wisdom and luck.

My point is this, if basket weaving is a higher education class then why not football. I think it may be to some extent but whats wrong with getting a football degree? If your talent is in football then you should be able to earn a scholarship and a degree in football. Not every kid with a degree in buisness makes it in buisness. Not everyone who has a degree in anything is gauranteed success after graduation. But at least the extra schoolling may lead to other oppertunities in other areas in life. Who knows? Hell I don't! I'm drunk! LOL, if drinking was only offered in college maybe I would have went and have a degree. Just think if there was a drinking course then maybe it would teach moderation. I could see students working in the lab on a hangover cure or a sober up pill you take right before you leave the go go!

Go figure!

Roll Tide!

 

[Capstone46]

Wasted,
I agree we all have God-given unique and different levels of talents and abilities. Combined with work and sustained effort, all of us can find some level of accomplishment. There are as many roads to success as there are people willing to build them. But the University of Alabama is not necessarily the best place to develop ALL talents and abilities. The University cannot be all things to all people. Some things are simply outside the scope of their purpose and mission. "The University was established by constituional provision under statutory mandates and authorizations. Its mission is to advance the social and intellectual condition of the people of the State through quality programs of teaching, research and service". There is certainly nothing wrong with anyone pursuing any academic or any athletic skills they may choose at any institution of their choice. However, after 175 years I don't think the University of Alabama will disregard their mission.

As others have stated, I agree it would be ideal to find great athletes, that are brilliant students, have common sense, and possess the character and work ethic to guarantee their success. Very, very few individuals are so blessed. I think our coaching staff has their priorities in order and considers all those qualities in recruiting. If they don't think they can teach and develop the total student-athlete as a person, we are better off not recruiting them. Do they seek athletic potential as a high priority? I hope so because their game is football and winning is their objective.