+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+----- Thread: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread (/thread-683239.html)
Pages: 1 2
OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - texd - 03-22-2014 09:33 PM
We've had some tourney talk in other threads, but I thought we should have an exclusive thread.
Harvard, down 45-33 at the half, and then falling further behind with a cold streak out of the locker room, just tied the game at 55 before allowing a 3. Currently 58-57 Michigan State.
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - Barrett - 03-22-2014 09:55 PM
Stanford, Harvard, Duke. Three schools that are more academically prestigious/harder to get into than Rice. Three schools that would kill or have killed Rice in basketball.
I'm not saying anything that nobody knows, but it's depressing how bad Rice is in basketball.
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - texd - 03-22-2014 09:58 PM
Harvard now trailing by 6 with 26 seconds left.
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - texd - 03-22-2014 09:59 PM
And it's over, or all but.
OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - RiceDoc - 03-23-2014 07:11 AM
(03-22-2014 09:55 PM)Barrett Wrote: Stanford, Harvard, Duke. Three schools that are harder to get into than Rice.
Prestige on a national stage, I'll concede. The quoted part, no way. All three take athletes that couldn't get into Rice. Not a lot and not much difference, but overstating your point doesn't strengthen it.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - johncatworth - 03-23-2014 07:45 AM
Its too bad some enterprising investigative sports journalist (is there such a thing?) hasn't done a detailed analysis of athletic department-related admissions standards at Rice, Stanford, Harvard, Duke - and the academically top flight state schools like Virginia, UNC, Michigan. How lax are their standards compared to regular students, and in what ways, and how do they compare to one another? I know UVA emphasizes academics, while UNC has gotten some not so good press on that account (fake classes). The private schools in the Big East (Georgetown, Villanova, etc) seemingly have had a completely different admissions track for three decades - but has Stanford, Harvard etc moved closer to them over the last few years, accounting for some of the improvements on the court/field, or are other factors (coaches, facilities, money, the driving factors)?
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - Almadenmike - 03-23-2014 12:13 PM
Stanford looked very good, especially inside defensively, during the first half today. Built a 7-point lead ... but scored only 4 points in the last 9 minutes. They botched a last-shot effort, losing the ball attempting to split a double-team .. and Kansas hit a 3 at the buzzer to take its first lead, 24-22.
OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - Hambone10 - 03-23-2014 12:16 PM
I think the thing that bothers me the most is that a thread on a Rice sports board about the NCAA tournament has OT in the header
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - MemOwl - 03-23-2014 12:22 PM
(03-23-2014 07:45 AM)johncatworth Wrote: Its too bad some enterprising investigative sports journalist (is there such a thing?) hasn't done a detailed analysis of athletic department-related admissions standards at Rice, Stanford, Harvard, Duke - and the academically top flight state schools like Virginia, UNC, Michigan.
It's been done for the Ivy League in book length treatment. very readable.
http://www.amazon.com/Playing-Game-Inside-Athletic-Recruiting/dp/0972202668
By the way, I disagree strongly with Doc's assertion that Harvard takes athletes that Rice won't take, unless he is referring to sports that Rice doesn't offer.
I think it is impossible to point to a Harvard football or basketball player that Rice would not take. Yes, there are certainly male soccer and lacrosse players running around Cambridge who would not have been admitted to Rice.
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - Fort Bend Owl - 03-23-2014 12:46 PM
Stanford up 6 now on Kansas at the first TV timeout of the 2nd half. I'm a little disappointed we're coming up on almost 2 weeks now since Braun quit and we haven't heard anything about the coaching search yet. But I do realize that we might be looking at some coaches who are coaching right now in the NCAA tournament (including the very strong possibility of 1 or 2 Stanford assistants). For that reason alone, I wouldn't mind a Kansas win today. If the coaching search does drag on, hopefully the kids on the Rice team understand what is happening behind the scenes.
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - Almadenmike - 03-23-2014 12:48 PM
(03-23-2014 12:22 PM)MemOwl Wrote:(03-23-2014 07:45 AM)johncatworth Wrote: Its too bad some enterprising investigative sports journalist (is there such a thing?) hasn't done a detailed analysis of athletic department-related admissions standards at Rice, Stanford, Harvard, Duke - and the academically top flight state schools like Virginia, UNC, Michigan.
It's been done for the Ivy League in book length treatment. very readable.
http://www.amazon.com/Playing-Game-Inside-Athletic-Recruiting/dp/0972202668
It was published in 2004. I wonder how much has changed in the last decade.
Love some of the comments by reviewers:
Quote:" ...if you've ever sought insight into the upper echelons of Wall Street and Washington, where so many Ivy Leaguers flock, try reading this book about squash and lacrosse. Ethical relativity starts early."
"This remarkably well researched and engaging book reveals the surprising importance of athletics to gain admission to the Ivy League ... where one might think that it's 'grades first, sports second' . This morsel of commonly held wisdom is thoroughly debunked."
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - Almadenmike - 03-23-2014 01:39 PM
Stanford upsets Kansas, 60-57. Heck of a finish. WTG, Cardinal!
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - Fort Bend Owl - 03-23-2014 01:41 PM
Good game. I guess if we're waiting on a Stanford assistant, we're going to have to wait at least 1 more week.
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - westsidewolf1989 - 03-23-2014 01:42 PM
Seems that leadership from upperclassmen-laden teams is winning out against freshman talent. Guess we'll see if that still holds true in the Wichita St / Kentucky game.
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - RiceDoc - 03-23-2014 01:51 PM
(03-23-2014 12:22 PM)MemOwl Wrote: By the way, I disagree strongly with Doc's assertion that Harvard takes athletes that Rice won't take, unless he is referring to sports that Rice doesn't offer.
I think it is impossible to point to a Harvard football or basketball player that Rice would not take. Yes, there are certainly male soccer and lacrosse players running around Cambridge who would not have been admitted to Rice.
I dare say that Stanford and Duke take athletes that are on par or above ATHLETICALLY with the athletes Rice takes, but subpar academically from what Rice would admit. Harvard takes athletes that are on par or above ACADEMICALLY with the athletes Rice takes, but subpar athletically from what Rice would recruit (and who couldn't get in academically without the athletic entrance rule exceptions). In short, my thought process in making my statement was the assertion related to all three school and two of the three take athletes with lesser academics than Rice and one takes athletes with lesser athletic ability than would get them into Rice, making the statement false for all three schools. Certainly all three would take all the kids that go to Rice; Rice would not take all the kids that go to those three schools.
RE: Harvard specifically, a quick search turned up Tyler Caveness, a RB who is at Harvard. His SAT was reportedly 1300. I don't think Rice comes close to that low on its admissions for athletes. In fact, it is reported HERE that the lowest admitted Rice athlete had a 2000! That suggests to me that I gave Harvard too much benefit of the doubt.
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - Gravy Owl - 03-23-2014 02:14 PM
(03-23-2014 01:51 PM)RiceDoc Wrote: I dare say that Stanford and Duke take athletes that are on par or above ATHLETICALLY with the athletes Rice takes, but subpar academically from what Rice would admit. Harvard takes athletes that are on par or above ACADEMICALLY with the athletes Rice takes, but subpar athletically from what Rice would recruit (and who couldn't get in academically without the athletic entrance rule exceptions). In short, my thought process in making my statement was the assertion related to all three school and two of the three take athletes with lesser academics than Rice and one takes athletes with lesser athletic ability than would get them into Rice, making the statement false for all three schools. Certainly all three would take all the kids that go to Rice; Rice would not take all the kids that go to those three schools.
RE: Harvard specifically, a quick search turned up Tyler Caveness, a RB who is at Harvard. His SAT was reportedly 1300. I don't think Rice comes close to that low on its admissions for athletes. In fact, it is reported HERE that the lowest admitted Rice athlete had a 2000! That suggests to me that I gave Harvard too much benefit of the doubt.
Caveness's ACT 26 suggests that the SAT 1300 is probably 2-part, not 3-part.
Rice has signed football players with reported SATs of 1000 (and ACTs of 19) in recent years. Some in the '90s were lower than that.
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - RiceDoc - 03-23-2014 02:20 PM
(03-23-2014 02:14 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:(03-23-2014 01:51 PM)RiceDoc Wrote: I dare say that Stanford and Duke take athletes that are on par or above ATHLETICALLY with the athletes Rice takes, but subpar academically from what Rice would admit. Harvard takes athletes that are on par or above ACADEMICALLY with the athletes Rice takes, but subpar athletically from what Rice would recruit (and who couldn't get in academically without the athletic entrance rule exceptions). In short, my thought process in making my statement was the assertion related to all three school and two of the three take athletes with lesser academics than Rice and one takes athletes with lesser athletic ability than would get them into Rice, making the statement false for all three schools. Certainly all three would take all the kids that go to Rice; Rice would not take all the kids that go to those three schools.
RE: Harvard specifically, a quick search turned up Tyler Caveness, a RB who is at Harvard. His SAT was reportedly 1300. I don't think Rice comes close to that low on its admissions for athletes. In fact, it is reported HERE that the lowest admitted Rice athlete had a 2000! That suggests to me that I gave Harvard too much benefit of the doubt.
Caveness's ACT 26 suggests that the SAT 1300 is probably 2-part, not 3-part.
Rice has signed football players with reported SATs of 1000 (and ACTs of 19) in recent years. Some in the '90s were lower than that.
If the 1300 is a 2-part, then Caveness is NOT a good example. If it is a 3-part it is! Regardless, that is not the aspect I was looking at in my original comment.
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - texd - 03-23-2014 03:07 PM
(03-23-2014 02:14 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote: Rice has signed football players with reported SATs of 1000 (and ACTs of 19) in recent years. Some in the '90s were lower than that.
Pre- or post-rescaling? The test was recentered and rescaled in 1995 such that a 1000 prior to 1995 was the equivalent of a 1100 after, and a 890 prior to 1995 was the equivalent of 1000 after.
Here's the conversion if you want to know what your rescaled score would be for SATs taken prior to 1995.
http://research.collegeboard.org/programs/sat/data/equivalence/sat-individual
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - 75src - 03-23-2014 03:12 PM
The question should be not whether athletes have the same average SATs as the other students admitted, but whether the lowest SATs for athletes still make academic success without watering down the course load the result to be expected. All the schools mentioned turn down many students who would be successful at their universities.
RE: OT - NCAA Tourney Thread - MemOwl - 03-23-2014 03:54 PM
(03-23-2014 01:51 PM)RiceDoc Wrote: I dare say that Stanford and Duke take athletes that are on par or above ATHLETICALLY with the athletes Rice takes, but subpar academically from what Rice would admit. Harvard takes athletes that are on par or above ACADEMICALLY with the athletes Rice takes, but subpar athletically from what Rice would recruit (and who couldn't get in academically without the athletic entrance rule exceptions). In short, my thought process in making my statement was the assertion related to all three school and two of the three take athletes with lesser academics than Rice and one takes athletes with lesser athletic ability than would get them into Rice, making the statement false for all three schools. Certainly all three would take all the kids that go to Rice; Rice would not take all the kids that go to those three schools.
With respect to Harvard and men's basketball, I will make two simple assertions
1. every player who suits up for Harvard would have been admitted to Rice had his application been requested by Ben Braun's staff. every single one.
2. no player on the Rice roster would get minutes for Harvard, with the possible exception of Sean Obi.