OK, so we've all heard that UC is upping the ante with UC/21. So, what does that REALLY mean for student-athletes? And, more importantly, to our beloved basketball team.
I remember hearing about the fact that the minimum entry test scores would be raised for all students at UC across the board. Something like this: if the minimum ACT test score for eligibility is 17, UC/21 calls for it to be 19, and so on. Has that happened yet? If not, when?
Is there a blanket NCAA minimum ACT test score for academic eligibility? If so, how can an institution that is NOT private change that, and overstep the NCAA's bylaws?
Finally, this begs the question: How will this affect Mick's recruiting? We hear these names like Harvey, Vaughn, etc - who allegedly have questionable grades. If that is the truth, and if their scores need to be higher than the standard passing test score, how can Mick be recruiting these kids? Will Mike Thomas let him sign any question marks? Where does the truth lie? I personally don't want to see Mick fall right back into the trap that has plagued Huggins over the years. Taking chances on big question marks, either academically or character-wise.
I'm just curious. It has been nagging at me since the whole recruiting machine has roared back to life. And the inevitable questions of grades for high ranked recruits who are still available.
Marcus? Mike in Clifton? Anybody have a freaking clue?
sobchak19 Wrote:OK, so we've all heard that UC is upping the ante with UC/21. So, what does that REALLY mean for student-athletes? And, more importantly, to our beloved basketball team.
I remember hearing about the fact that the minimum entry test scores would be raised for all students at UC across the board. Something like this: if the minimum ACT test score for eligibility is 17, UC/21 calls for it to be 19, and so on. Has that happened yet? If not, when?
Is there a blanket NCAA minimum ACT test score for academic eligibility? If so, how can an institution that is NOT private change that, and overstep the NCAA's bylaws?
Finally, this begs the question: How will this affect Mick's recruiting? We hear these names like Harvey, Vaughn, etc - who allegedly have questionable grades. If that is the truth, and if their scores need to be higher than the standard passing test score, how can Mick be recruiting these kids? Will Mike Thomas let him sign any question marks? Where does the truth lie? I personally don't want to see Mick fall right back into the trap that has plagued Huggins over the years. Taking chances on big question marks, either academically or character-wise.
I'm just curious. It has been nagging at me since the whole recruiting machine has roared back to life. And the inevitable questions of grades for high ranked recruits who are still available.
Marcus? Mike in Clifton? Anybody have a freaking clue?
Sob,
What I imagine is that some kids will have to UCAT...what does it mean..not usre, but I suspect some kids will be here 4 years on scholarship, make NCAA academic progress, but in 4 years when the coin runs dry, they still will not have a degree
sobchak19 Wrote:OK, so we've all heard that UC is upping the ante with UC/21. So, what does that REALLY mean for student-athletes? And, more importantly, to our beloved basketball team.
I remember hearing about the fact that the minimum entry test scores would be raised for all students at UC across the board. Something like this: if the minimum ACT test score for eligibility is 17, UC/21 calls for it to be 19, and so on. Has that happened yet? If not, when?
Is there a blanket NCAA minimum ACT test score for academic eligibility? If so, how can an institution that is NOT private change that, and overstep the NCAA's bylaws?
Finally, this begs the question: How will this affect Mick's recruiting? We hear these names like Harvey, Vaughn, etc - who allegedly have questionable grades. If that is the truth, and if their scores need to be higher than the standard passing test score, how can Mick be recruiting these kids? Will Mike Thomas let him sign any question marks? Where does the truth lie? I personally don't want to see Mick fall right back into the trap that has plagued Huggins over the years. Taking chances on big question marks, either academically or character-wise.
I'm just curious. It has been nagging at me since the whole recruiting machine has roared back to life. And the inevitable questions of grades for high ranked recruits who are still available.
Marcus? Mike in Clifton? Anybody have a freaking clue?
I think your first sentence there is the problem....as a UC student, I have a pretty good grasp about UC/21, and its unfortunate, but the plan is purely academic. Whatever happens to the athletic programs and the players in them is simply collateral damage. Athletics just aren't a part of the equation, not in the slightest.
Zarathustra Wrote:sobchak19 Wrote:OK, so we've all heard that UC is upping the ante with UC/21. So, what does that REALLY mean for student-athletes? And, more importantly, to our beloved basketball team.
I remember hearing about the fact that the minimum entry test scores would be raised for all students at UC across the board. Something like this: if the minimum ACT test score for eligibility is 17, UC/21 calls for it to be 19, and so on. Has that happened yet? If not, when?
Is there a blanket NCAA minimum ACT test score for academic eligibility? If so, how can an institution that is NOT private change that, and overstep the NCAA's bylaws?
Finally, this begs the question: How will this affect Mick's recruiting? We hear these names like Harvey, Vaughn, etc - who allegedly have questionable grades. If that is the truth, and if their scores need to be higher than the standard passing test score, how can Mick be recruiting these kids? Will Mike Thomas let him sign any question marks? Where does the truth lie? I personally don't want to see Mick fall right back into the trap that has plagued Huggins over the years. Taking chances on big question marks, either academically or character-wise.
I'm just curious. It has been nagging at me since the whole recruiting machine has roared back to life. And the inevitable questions of grades for high ranked recruits who are still available.
Marcus? Mike in Clifton? Anybody have a freaking clue?
Sob,
What I imagine is that some kids will have to UCAT...what does it mean..not usre, but I suspect some kids will be here 4 years on scholarship, make NCAA academic progress, but in 4 years when the coin runs dry, they still will not have a degree
I do remember MT mentioning the UCAT deal, or whatever. But, I thought it was referring specifically to JUCO transfers. Heck, I dunno.
I'm just concerned that Mick wastes time on the Harvey's and Vaughns, isn't able to sign them, and then we're left with blue ba.....um, unfulfilled desires, so to speak, about these big names that never had a chance to wear the C-paw. And Mick would have wasted valuable time.....
cujocat10 Wrote:I think your first sentence there is the problem....as a UC student, I have a pretty good grasp about UC/21, and its unfortunate, but the plan is purely academic. Whatever happens to the athletic programs and the players in them is simply collateral damage. Athletics just aren't a part of the equation, not in the slightest.
I really didn't mean to SEPARATE UC Basketball and student-athletes in that opening paragraph. They should be, and WILL be one and the same going forward, I would think.
But, yeah, that was my fear all along. Vandy this ain't, but that's sort of her pipe dream, isn't it?
sobchak19 Wrote:Zarathustra Wrote:sobchak19 Wrote:OK, so we've all heard that UC is upping the ante with UC/21. So, what does that REALLY mean for student-athletes? And, more importantly, to our beloved basketball team.
I remember hearing about the fact that the minimum entry test scores would be raised for all students at UC across the board. Something like this: if the minimum ACT test score for eligibility is 17, UC/21 calls for it to be 19, and so on. Has that happened yet? If not, when?
Is there a blanket NCAA minimum ACT test score for academic eligibility? If so, how can an institution that is NOT private change that, and overstep the NCAA's bylaws?
Finally, this begs the question: How will this affect Mick's recruiting? We hear these names like Harvey, Vaughn, etc - who allegedly have questionable grades. If that is the truth, and if their scores need to be higher than the standard passing test score, how can Mick be recruiting these kids? Will Mike Thomas let him sign any question marks? Where does the truth lie? I personally don't want to see Mick fall right back into the trap that has plagued Huggins over the years. Taking chances on big question marks, either academically or character-wise.
I'm just curious. It has been nagging at me since the whole recruiting machine has roared back to life. And the inevitable questions of grades for high ranked recruits who are still available.
Marcus? Mike in Clifton? Anybody have a freaking clue?
Sob,
What I imagine is that some kids will have to UCAT...what does it mean..not usre, but I suspect some kids will be here 4 years on scholarship, make NCAA academic progress, but in 4 years when the coin runs dry, they still will not have a degree
I do remember MT mentioning the UCAT deal, or whatever. But, I thought it was referring specifically to JUCO transfers. Heck, I dunno.
I'm just concerned that Mick wastes time on the Harvey's and Vaughns, isn't able to sign them, and then we're left with blue ba.....um, unfulfilled desires, so to speak, about these big names that never had a chance to wear the C-paw. And Mick would have wasted valuable time.....
Well, with JUCOs...not sure what the standards are..I don't imagine the ACT or SAT scores really are part of it
Zarathustra Wrote:Well, with JUCOs...not sure what the standards are..I don't imagine the ACT or SAT scores really are part of it
I wouldn't think so, either. I think MT mentioned the UCAT deal as to alleviate the fears that Mick wouldn't be able to bring in JUCO's at all. I mean, grades are the reasons that most of these kids go JUCO anyway. They should have that straightened out before coming here by getting their 2 year degree. Is there a minimum GPA for JUCO's? I would think the hallowed(yet mostly useless - I would know, I own two) piece of paper would suffice.
I argued with a few guys on this topic. I never thought it would make that much of a difference. Still don't. In a way I thought the new standards were long overdue (for example, otherwise NKU would have had higher admission standards than UC...no way that should be the case with the name on the degree hanging in my office).
That being said, its a moot point since the Big East Presidents adopted very similar standards for all Big East schools last november (13-3 vote....WV, Louisville and SF were the lone dissenters. All the schools in the BE have the slightly higher standards than the general NCAA standards. Instead of having to score something like a 770 on the SAT, you now need to be around a 950.
I'll dig up all the info. I posted the exact information in a thread a couple of months ago.
Rathskeller_Crew Wrote:I argued with a few guys on this topic. I never thought it would make that much of a difference. Still don't. In a way I thought the new standards were long overdue (for example, otherwise NKU would have had higher admission standards than UC...no way that should be the case with the name on the degree hanging in my office).
That being said, its a moot point since the Big East Presidents adopted very similar standards for all Big East schools last november (13-3 vote....WV, Louisville and SF were the lone dissenters. All the schools in the BE have the slightly higher standards than the general NCAA standards. Instead of having to score something like a 770 on the SAT, you now need to be around a 950.
I'll dig up all the info. I posted the exact information in a thread a couple of months ago.
Cool. Thanks for the info, Rath.
But, if that is the case - higher standards for all BE teams, why is Mick going after guys who have allegedly questionable grades?
The short answer is maybe he knows something we don't. I hope so, anyway.
Thats just it. I don't think its that big of a deal. Not to stir things up, but at the time I just think it made good copy and it was easy to get mileage out of it if you wanted to bash Z (like people needed to look for other reasons to do so).
Also, remember, there is the new version of U-College (forget what its called now) in place to help kids who don't quite pass academic muster transition into the main colleges at U.C. Per U.C. student athletes are eligible for this program jsust like anyone else.
IMO I think UC will stay away from documented character risks but won't shy away from recruiting a kid who may not be a good student but by all accounts is at least putting forth the effort.
Rathskeller_Crew Wrote:Thats just it. I don't think its that big of a deal. Not to stir things up, but at the time I just think it made good copy and it was easy to get mileage out of it if you wanted to bash Z (like people needed to look for other reasons to do so).
Also, remember, there is the new version of U-College (forget what its called now) in place to help kids who don't quite pass academic muster transition into the main colleges at U.C. Per U.C. student athletes are eligible for this program jsust like anyone else.
IMO I think UC will stay away from documented character risks but won't shy away from recruiting a kid who may not be a good student but by all accounts is at least putting forth the effort.
I'm absolutely cool with that. As long as there is a system set up to help the academic question marks, then that opens more doors for Mick. I remember him saying he wasn't going to take any chances on kids. I interpreted that as being about character issues. If he stays true to that credo, then I think the less than stellar image of UC basketball(albeit unfair) will be a thing of the past. Praise Jesus. Or whoever he is on Facebook.
Thanks for the enlightenment. Lord knows I need it.
Here is the info. My memory was a little off but this should give you a pretty good picture. Hope this helps.
"UC/21"
Top 10 percent class rank, or
ACT=22 or higher (1010), or
Top 75 percent class rank and high school GPA 2.5 or higher, and ACT 20 or higher (930 SAT).
The current NCAA minimum SAT score is 820.
Basically, if you are in the top 75 percent of your class in high school (not asking a ton there) you need to score a 930 on the SAT.
To put it into perspective: as of last year's SAT statistics, an 820 on the SAT puts you in the 16th percentile nationally. A 930 score on the SAT puts you in the 32nd percentile of all test takers in the country. There is the difference between the NCAA standards and what the Big East is looking at.
Rathskeller_Crew Wrote:Here is the info. My memory was a little off but this should give you a pretty good picture. Hope this helps.
"UC/21"
Top 10 percent class rank, or
ACT=22 or higher (1010), or
Top 75 percent class rank and high school GPA 2.5 or higher, and ACT 20 or higher (930 SAT).
The current NCAA minimum SAT score is 820.
Basically, if you are in the top 75 percent of your class in high school (not asking a ton there) you need to score a 930 on the SAT.
To put it into perspective: as of last year's SAT statistics, an 820 on the SAT puts you in the 16th percentile nationally. A 930 score on the SAT puts you in the 32nd percentile of all test takers in the country. There is the difference between the NCAA standards and what the Big East is looking at.
And the new UCAT(or whatever) school will help the incoming students unable to meet these standards build their academic profile and pass the muster of the mother ship, therefore still allowing them entrance? Is this an off campus satellite 'institution', or just an in-house division of the existing school?
I was under the mistaken impression that UC/21 would be a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. If the new school helps get the at risk incoming students up to speed and enhances their chances at a degree, then what's the big stink? (<---that last question was rhetorical, for those out there looking to fire up the Nanzi flame throwers)
Thanks again for the great info.
Its in house & on campus. Just a different curriculum before you get released into A&S or whatever.
No problem on the info. Glad to pass it along.
Rathskeller_Crew Wrote:That being said, its a moot point since the Big East Presidents adopted very similar standards for all Big East schools last november (13-3 vote....WV, Louisville and SF were the lone dissenters.
I'll dig up all the info. I posted the exact information in a thread a couple of months ago.
Do you have a link regarding how the voting came down? The 3 schools you listed were the popular choices for the 3 votes on the Big East board but I never saw a link actually stating so. Only WVU publicly complained about the standards (Rich Rod.)
I'll have to dig it up. There was an article on the West Virginia Rivals Insider page that was posted as a free article. It had a quote from Jurich and the guy from W.V. saying as much. I'll have to really dig deep since that was posted 6 months ago.
sobchak19 Wrote:cujocat10 Wrote:I think your first sentence there is the problem....as a UC student, I have a pretty good grasp about UC/21, and its unfortunate, but the plan is purely academic. Whatever happens to the athletic programs and the players in them is simply collateral damage. Athletics just aren't a part of the equation, not in the slightest.
I really didn't mean to SEPARATE UC Basketball and student-athletes in that opening paragraph. They should be, and WILL be one and the same going forward, I would think.
But, yeah, that was my fear all along. Vandy this ain't, but that's sort of her pipe dream, isn't it?
Rath has posted some fantastic info on the subject and he's pretty much covered all the bases but I wanted to respond directly real quick.....I know you didn't mean to separate basketball from the rest of the athletics, that wasn't really what I was getting at. I guess my point to what I said originally about your first sentence was that it summed up the problem most people are having with the UC/21 plan to begin with. While it bolsters up the academia, the athletics in general are collateral. Maybe our athletics will rise up again, hopefully very soon, but that's not President Zimpher's concern, as we've all witnessed firsthand.
In regards to your question, please don't call me a Zimpher apologist or accuse me of drinking the Nancy Kool Aid.....but I really don't think she's dumb enough, nor arrogant enough, to just assume she can waltz in here with some nifty plan and turn it into, as you said, the "Vandy" of Ohio or anything. I think she wants to improve the image of the university and back it up with some stronger admissions standards. Obviously that's pretty unfair to the underprivledged and the borderline students out there but UC isn't the first college to do this, not by a long shot. In the academic world of UC, UC/21 could potentially be beneficial. She really has shat on the alumni with her thoughtless and insensitive comments about how, in so many words, their diplomas are garbage. However as a current student, it could benefit me and those who follow in my path in the future. Yes, it sucks for the athletics right now, and its a plan with a lot of holes, but......I guess I just think she wants to make the school even more respectable than it already was.
Go ahead and rip me to shreds, its okay.