quote:I know several hockey guys who went to Cornell and they were average students.
What is your definition of "average?"
What is your definition of "average?"
What is your definition of "average?"
GPA around 3.0.
What is RJ Swinle ? 1 in a billion. After 353 innings in MiLB he had a
a 2.3 era.
I know he struggled in the majors but he wa amazing and topped at 80mph.
a 2.3 era.
I know he struggled in the majors but he wa amazing and topped at 80mph.
quote:I remember 7 or 8 years ago going to a Giants game and watching Kirk Rueter (LHP) top out at 85-87 and be very successful. I thought, wow, my son can throw that hard at age 16...he's got enough velocity to pitch in the big leagues!
Wrong...obviously.
Its too easy to watch the exceptional case (and the ASU LHP is an 'exceptional' case) and think that its all you need. No, no, no. The truth is that he, and Kirk Reueter, are big-time exceptions...1-in-a-thousand, maybe 1-in-a-million?
Go back and read PGStaff's words (as quoted by O44):
"It doesn't mean mid 80s pitchers have no chance. It means they have to be extra special and show it consistently to the right people."
This is the reality of it all. Don't watch that 1-in-a-million and think its impossible...but don't think its routine either. Its far, very far from that.
Excellent, excellent post.
That's why the David Ecksteins and Joe Morgans of this world are so lauded and admired. Despite the long odds, they overcame perception, persevered, and swam upstream until they reached that elusive goal. Everyone loves the underdog.
Yeah, he would be 1-in-a-zillion.
The problem here is some of you guys are taking the one guy you saw who beat all the odds and assuming it can be done more routinely than is reality. I don't wanna write anything that discourages anyone, but I won't use a six-sigma kid to portray the odds for the next kid to be something they are not. Go read PGStaff's comment...again. Thats the reality.
I guess I cannot speak for Cornell, but that GPA just wouldn't work at Stanford unless there's a whole lotta other stuff to make the kid pretty special. Thats reality too.
The problem here is some of you guys are taking the one guy you saw who beat all the odds and assuming it can be done more routinely than is reality. I don't wanna write anything that discourages anyone, but I won't use a six-sigma kid to portray the odds for the next kid to be something they are not. Go read PGStaff's comment...again. Thats the reality.
I guess I cannot speak for Cornell, but that GPA just wouldn't work at Stanford unless there's a whole lotta other stuff to make the kid pretty special. Thats reality too.
Yes like a great hockey play.
I am not sure but several posters have witnessed low 80 guys at top D1 colleges. That unless they are lying seems to up the anti. Not all have to be the stud on a team like ASU to have a great BB experience.
LHPs in the high 80s are draft prospects if they can pitch. No one is arguing that high velo ups your chances.
Jeff francis was sitting at 80 mph and couldn't get a scholarship from a US college. He developed into the 90s, is now injured but the last contract was 13 million a year. Soft tossers do have a tough mountain to climb. My son was up to 86-87 and he wasn't the pitcher that went off to college when he was 82-82.
Not talking about 1 guy just showing those as one of those who have succeded
I am not sure but several posters have witnessed low 80 guys at top D1 colleges. That unless they are lying seems to up the anti. Not all have to be the stud on a team like ASU to have a great BB experience.
LHPs in the high 80s are draft prospects if they can pitch. No one is arguing that high velo ups your chances.
Jeff francis was sitting at 80 mph and couldn't get a scholarship from a US college. He developed into the 90s, is now injured but the last contract was 13 million a year. Soft tossers do have a tough mountain to climb. My son was up to 86-87 and he wasn't the pitcher that went off to college when he was 82-82.
Not talking about 1 guy just showing those as one of those who have succeded
quote:Originally posted by justbaseball:
I guess I cannot speak for Cornell, but that GPA just wouldn't work at Stanford unless there's a whole lotta other stuff to make the kid pretty special. Thats reality too.
justbb - I think I know what you mean by "stuff" but could that stuff be pure baseball stuff alone?
For example, could a 17 year old who had a 3.0 and overwhelming stuff (e.g., 95mph) be admitted to Stanford?
CD, from everything I know about Stanford admissions, the answer to that would be a resounding no.
Over the years, Stanford has lost many coaches(not in baseball) over similar types of issues.
If that 3.0 came from a top ranked high school, the student was active in a number of functions within the high school and community, and is combined with a number of AP classes and an SAT well over 2000, there might be a chance.
That is why this discussion, before justbb got involved, was so deceptive, in my view.
Anyone who knows baseball knows there are a finite number of left handed pitchers in the 80-83 range who have had success in college and beyond. You also know the vast number either don't get a look, or get a look and don't succeed.
Stanford and the Ivies are looking for what they view as that special applicant with a lot of talent. Normally, they are not looking for one talent in what is an otherwise "average" applicant.
For the pitcher who started this thread, he clearly can pitch at the DIII level with that velocity. Depending on his other pitches, he might be able to pitch at many of the top DIII programs.
When it comes to DI, he clearly has the academics to be considered.
However, 82 mph, without a demonstrated ability to consistently get guys out in high level competition won't get many baseball looks as a recruit.
Over the years, Stanford has lost many coaches(not in baseball) over similar types of issues.
If that 3.0 came from a top ranked high school, the student was active in a number of functions within the high school and community, and is combined with a number of AP classes and an SAT well over 2000, there might be a chance.
That is why this discussion, before justbb got involved, was so deceptive, in my view.
Anyone who knows baseball knows there are a finite number of left handed pitchers in the 80-83 range who have had success in college and beyond. You also know the vast number either don't get a look, or get a look and don't succeed.
Stanford and the Ivies are looking for what they view as that special applicant with a lot of talent. Normally, they are not looking for one talent in what is an otherwise "average" applicant.
For the pitcher who started this thread, he clearly can pitch at the DIII level with that velocity. Depending on his other pitches, he might be able to pitch at many of the top DIII programs.
When it comes to DI, he clearly has the academics to be considered.
However, 82 mph, without a demonstrated ability to consistently get guys out in high level competition won't get many baseball looks as a recruit.
Tough times at Stanford.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Stanford's athletic department is projecting a $5 million loss in revenue over the next three years and is considering cutting staff and eliminating some sports teams, The Associated Press has learned.
The school is expected to decide in the next 30 to 60 days on staff cuts, a Stanford employee familiar with the budget issues told the AP on condition of anonymity because the person is not authorized to discuss the shortfall.
The person also said Tuesday it wasn't clear which teams, if any, would be considered for elimination -- and it likely wouldn't be until next season so at the earliest in the fall.
"That's the last thing they want to consider. They don't want it to affect student-athletes," the person said. "We do have some serious budget problems. We're looking at other ways (to save)."
Stanford has 35 sports teams, 19 for women, 15 for men and one coed squad.
Last year, the university captured its 14th consecutive Division I U.S. Sports Academy Directors' Cup, a recognition presented each year to the best overall programs for each athletic division in the country.
Stanford scored points in 24 of its sports but could only count the maximum 10 each on the men's and women's sides -- earning 12 top-five finishes. The Cardinal won an NCAA title in women's cross country; placed second in women's volleyball, women's basketball, men's gymnastics and men's golf; third in baseball, men's and women's swimming, women's gymnastics and women's water polo; and fifth in women's indoor track and field and women's tennis.
The women's basketball team reached the Final Four for the first time in 11 years and lost in the NCAA title game to two-time defending champion Tennessee.
Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...rd.ap/#ixzz0PDSCAaIO
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Stanford's athletic department is projecting a $5 million loss in revenue over the next three years and is considering cutting staff and eliminating some sports teams, The Associated Press has learned.
The school is expected to decide in the next 30 to 60 days on staff cuts, a Stanford employee familiar with the budget issues told the AP on condition of anonymity because the person is not authorized to discuss the shortfall.
The person also said Tuesday it wasn't clear which teams, if any, would be considered for elimination -- and it likely wouldn't be until next season so at the earliest in the fall.
"That's the last thing they want to consider. They don't want it to affect student-athletes," the person said. "We do have some serious budget problems. We're looking at other ways (to save)."
Stanford has 35 sports teams, 19 for women, 15 for men and one coed squad.
Last year, the university captured its 14th consecutive Division I U.S. Sports Academy Directors' Cup, a recognition presented each year to the best overall programs for each athletic division in the country.
Stanford scored points in 24 of its sports but could only count the maximum 10 each on the men's and women's sides -- earning 12 top-five finishes. The Cardinal won an NCAA title in women's cross country; placed second in women's volleyball, women's basketball, men's gymnastics and men's golf; third in baseball, men's and women's swimming, women's gymnastics and women's water polo; and fifth in women's indoor track and field and women's tennis.
The women's basketball team reached the Final Four for the first time in 11 years and lost in the NCAA title game to two-time defending champion Tennessee.
Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...rd.ap/#ixzz0PDSCAaIO
Stanford admitted "Athletic Admits "to lower score athletes.
Coach Hughes of the Princeton football team admitted all the Princeton teams had low score academic admits.
I think you might be shocked to know the truth. Stanford admitted to using the Bell curve to prop up students marks as well.
Coach Hughes of the Princeton football team admitted all the Princeton teams had low score academic admits.
I think you might be shocked to know the truth. Stanford admitted to using the Bell curve to prop up students marks as well.
And the reason that article is relevant to this thread is ???????
Because academic guys like the OP may lose a spot to a better ball player who has lower scores..
The other point about velocity of pitchers is that guys like Kirk Rueter may very well have topped 90 at one time. They may find that the results are better with less velocity and better command and movement. I would think college recruiters like to see a kid hit 90 because they know he can still backoff a little, and improve his command and movement, but still maintain good velocity.
How does the article published several months ago get you to that conclusion?
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
Stanford admitted "Athletic Admits "to lower score athletes.
Coach Hughes of the Princeton football team admitted all the Princeton teams had low score academic admits.
I think you might be shocked to know the truth. Stanford admitted to using the Bell curve to prop up students marks as well.
I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're saying here.
Yes, at Stanford, if you are an outstanding baseball player...you don't have to be a 4.5, 2200 SAT student. But a 3.0-3.3 or so, I doubt you get in without some really special stuff on your application...other than baseball. (BTW, I wouldn't call a 3.0-3.3 kid a "low score academic admit." Seems kind of demeaning to a reasonably smart kid). You can argue all you want about it, I've just known too many kids with credentials in this range (and yes, top-3 round MLB talent...one last year who was one of the top-10 picks overall), not get in. Impossible? No. But not terribly likely.
Velocities at Stanford (a top-level D1) from last year (my best estimate):
Closer, RHP, 1st round pick - topped out at 96.
Starter, RHP - topped out at 93
Starter, LHP - topped out at 93/94
Starter, RHP - topped out at 90
Reliever/midweek starter, RHP - topped out at 89/90
Middle reliever, RHP - topped out at 88
Middle reliever, RHP - topped out at 88
Middle releiver, RHP - topped out at 93
Middle reliever, RHP - topped out at 95
Middle reliever, LHP - topped out at 88/89
Middle reliever, RHP - topped out at 88/89
Situational LHP - topped out at 86
These are the guys who got the vast bulk of the innings. Don't think I left anyone out. Pretty much decreasing role as you go down the list from top to bottom. I believe the numbers to be very accurate...some were taken from scouts. Read it however you want.
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:
How does the article published several months ago get you to that conclusion?
Good question...I have no idea, whatsoever.
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
East coast baseball is a lot different than that played in the west, pitching dominates where out west hitting dominates.
??? Are you saying the pitching on the East Coast is better? I don't don't buy it.. do the ERA's of these schools bear this out?
quote:3.0-3.3 kid a "low score academic admit." Seems kind of demeaning to a reasonably smart kid).
That is in comparison to the Ivy standard. Why don't you convert to the 4.0 scale. The colleges do.
quote:How does the article published several months ago get you to that conclusion?
Your kidding right ?
You expect me to believe what you post and you don't believe what is written by authors of these publishings.
Believe what you like as well.
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
Why don't you convert to the 4.0 scale. The colleges do.
Huh?
quote:Your kidding right ?
You expect me to believe what you post and you don't believe what is written by authors of these publishings.
Believe what you like as well.
I was referring (and I think infielddad too) to the article about budgetary problems...so, double-huh??
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:quote:How does the article published several months ago get you to that conclusion?
Your kidding right ?
You expect me to believe what you post and you don't believe what is written by authors of these publishings.
Believe what you like as well.
What are you talking about?
My wife works at Stanford. I am well aware of the published financial issues at the University and in the Athletic Department. I'm actually aware of a bit more than what is in the article. So what???
What is in the article is pretty accurate.
What isn't clear is why you posted the article. What does it have to do with this discussion about "how fast does a LHP really need to throw to play DI or D3?"
Since justbb and I both posted the same question, could it be possible you are less than clear in the point you are trying to make?
So that article is correct and the others aren't. I am aware your wife works at Stanford. You have stated that before.
We don't use the grade point average system here so I always get confused by all this 4.2 stuff. I know NCAA converts to 4.o scale.
We don't use the grade point average system here so I always get confused by all this 4.2 stuff. I know NCAA converts to 4.o scale.
Stanford converts to a 4.0 scale too. Most US high schools use a 4.0+ scale to show academic load/difficulty.
A student taking lots of AP courses in high school and getting A's in them can ring up a "4.5" GPA. Most of us use that terminology because its how parents talk about grades in the US.
Still don't understand the point of the budgetary article related to everything else in this thread????
A student taking lots of AP courses in high school and getting A's in them can ring up a "4.5" GPA. Most of us use that terminology because its how parents talk about grades in the US.
Still don't understand the point of the budgetary article related to everything else in this thread????
Just showing that the sources are accurate and from good sources.
My son's college was scammed for 10 million. Goggle Al Parish. He is doing time in NC by one of it's profs.
These colleges are big business just like everything else.
My son's college was scammed for 10 million. Goggle Al Parish. He is doing time in NC by one of it's profs.
These colleges are big business just like everything else.
What in the wide, wide world are you talking about? 
You post an SI article from January of this year that, for the most part, duplicates a press release which Stanford issued.
The accuracy of the SI summary of the Stanford Press release is then supposed to justify some impression you have about Stanford admissions or some recall you have of an "article" that you have not linked?
Isn't that like asking us to believe that because SI accurately summarized the Stanford press release, everything SI publishes is correct?
What does any of this have to do with whether a lefty pitcher throwing 82mph can pitch at DI or DIII?
What does Al Parish running a fraudulent investment scheme while also maintaining a professor's position at Charleston Southern have anything to do with this?
You post an SI article from January of this year that, for the most part, duplicates a press release which Stanford issued.
The accuracy of the SI summary of the Stanford Press release is then supposed to justify some impression you have about Stanford admissions or some recall you have of an "article" that you have not linked?
Isn't that like asking us to believe that because SI accurately summarized the Stanford press release, everything SI publishes is correct?
What does any of this have to do with whether a lefty pitcher throwing 82mph can pitch at DI or DIII?
What does Al Parish running a fraudulent investment scheme while also maintaining a professor's position at Charleston Southern have anything to do with this?
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
So in summation you don't believe what the William & Mary fact finding committee states that Ivys allow athletes in that don't meet the scores normally required ?
I was posting about Stanford. Until you diverted things over to the Parish fraud at your son's school, it seemed like you were too.
I don't see where I posted about William & Mary. I don't know I have ever read a "fact finding committee" report about the Ivy's.
How in the wide, wide world does an SI article about financial issues issues in the Stanford Athletic Department, or Al Parish and his issues at CSU, or both for that matter, lead to your "summation" about some W&M committee fact finding about the Ivy's??
How does any of this relate to what most people can go to a college game and see, which is that 82 MPH lefties can pitch at DIII, 82 MPH lefties with talent and command of more than one pitch can succeed at top level DIII's, and 82MPH lefties, on rare occasions, can succeed and even excel at top tier DI's?
Thats what I though. You didn't read all my references and how it applies to the OPs questions.
http://www.tribeathletics.com/wmatf.pdf
It applies because the Athletic Admits take up stops that according to some IVY faculty belong to those who achieve the required scores. They are bumped by AAs.
http://www.tribeathletics.com/wmatf.pdf
It applies because the Athletic Admits take up stops that according to some IVY faculty belong to those who achieve the required scores. They are bumped by AAs.
BHD - please let it go. Whatever point you had to make has been made in triplicate. No need to upset people by badgering them 
Sorry . Who is badgering who ? I posted this several times. It is a fact and I didn't write it. I have no agenda other than to let people know.
quote:Originally posted by BobbleheadDoll:
Thats what I though. You didn't read all my references and how it applies to the OPs questions.
http://www.tribeathletics.com/wmatf.pdf
It applies because the Athletic Admits take up stops that according to some IVY faculty belong to those who achieve the required scores. They are bumped by AAs.
BHD, even a cursory review of that 2/06 article does not support what you are asserting throughout this thread. It is limited to fact finding at W&M?
Where does that report about athletics at W&M make any fact finding about the Ivy league schools/admissions?
Where does that report make any faculty fact findings that athletic admits take up "stops???" or openings of other and more qualified students in the Ivy league schools or that they are taken up by unqualified baseball players?
The 2/06 report does nothing other than make findings about issues at W&M as they existed before 2/06.
It makes a cursory reference, without any citations, to some allegations of "unqualified" athletes being admitted in the NECSAC and Ivy schools and under-performing the student body as a whole, while creating a "jock" mentality. I don't see any reference to those "under-performing" admits being baseball players.
Heck, if I were to use your reasoning, I can argue Stanford should be admitting more baseball players and giving baseball preference.
Why...because my son's former roommate graduated in 3 years with a double major. He isn't the exception on that baseball team either.
There isn't any more to say if this, references to Al defrauding Charlston Southern University and the SI article, are the source of your views and "wisdom" as it is being offered on this thread.
cursory HMMM Now try reading it.
BHD - I don't have time right now to read the whole report you posted. I quickly read the introduction. Some quick thoughts:
1. Any school, especially private, has the right to conduct their business within the law however they see fit. Within the discussion we're having, a university has the right to balance (or not balance) academics with athletics or any other non-academic activity (e.g. theatre, music, etc...).
2. You certainly cannot possibly be surprised that nearly every university places a certain amount of value on activities other than academics. This cannot possibly be a surprise to you.
2b. It also cannot possibly be a surprise to you that a superior athlete or musician (if valued by a university) does not require equal grades and/or SAT/ACT scores to the non-athlete/musician/etc... If this is a surprise, then you've been living in a cave. Therefore, I stipulate that athletes have been admitted to Ivies and other elite schools with lower grades and/or test scores. But so what???? (What does this have to do with LHP's velos for D1/D2/D3?)
3. The 'tension' between the various sectors of a university's faculty, administration and alumni on how to balance or not balance has existed forever. There will always be a sector that wants no preference and there will always be a sector that wants heavy preference. And a bunch of people in between. Each school determines its own course. If you don't like your school's level of balance, fight it at the local level. But again, how is this related to LHP velo.?
4. Do the athletes take up slots of other more qualified admission candidates? I submit, at a local (university) level that the answer is a resounding NO! The university determines what their value system will be, they admit the pool of students that most qualify for the student body (as a whole) that they want (this includes diversity on many, many axes), and those who are not admitted fall outside of that space. Do they make mistakes? Of course...they make mistakes in each dimension of that pool for sure. But on average they get what they want. And they live with their mistakes. If they really stink at it, they lose future students and/or funding and/or donations and/or faculty and/or reputation, etc..., etc... But again, how does this answer the question originally asked?
I have no problem with any of this. There are universities that fit nearly every need, whether it be academic, athletic, musical, theatrical, religion, race, gender, nationality, resident state, fill-in-the-blank or some balance of any or all of those dimensions.
Parents of very bright California high school students get frustrated because the truth is that its probably easier for an equal student from Idaho or Canada to get admitted to Stanford than their child. Just because they're from a different state or county!
Stanford likes national and international representation in their student body. Do the Idahoans or the Canadians take up slots that according to some California parents belong to those who achieved equal or better scores from the ultra-competitve HS across the street?' The answer is no. Its what that university decided it wants in a student body.
You probably couldn't understand this from far away...but the multi-dimensional diversity is one of the things that makes Stanford a very special place.
But I diverge. The truth is, unless you throw high 80's (or better) consistently, with command, the odds say you probably won't be a high impact pitcher at a high D1. But there are always exceptions and if you believe you are that, there is no way for me to say you are not. Go for it!
1. Any school, especially private, has the right to conduct their business within the law however they see fit. Within the discussion we're having, a university has the right to balance (or not balance) academics with athletics or any other non-academic activity (e.g. theatre, music, etc...).
2. You certainly cannot possibly be surprised that nearly every university places a certain amount of value on activities other than academics. This cannot possibly be a surprise to you.
2b. It also cannot possibly be a surprise to you that a superior athlete or musician (if valued by a university) does not require equal grades and/or SAT/ACT scores to the non-athlete/musician/etc... If this is a surprise, then you've been living in a cave. Therefore, I stipulate that athletes have been admitted to Ivies and other elite schools with lower grades and/or test scores. But so what???? (What does this have to do with LHP's velos for D1/D2/D3?)
3. The 'tension' between the various sectors of a university's faculty, administration and alumni on how to balance or not balance has existed forever. There will always be a sector that wants no preference and there will always be a sector that wants heavy preference. And a bunch of people in between. Each school determines its own course. If you don't like your school's level of balance, fight it at the local level. But again, how is this related to LHP velo.?
4. Do the athletes take up slots of other more qualified admission candidates? I submit, at a local (university) level that the answer is a resounding NO! The university determines what their value system will be, they admit the pool of students that most qualify for the student body (as a whole) that they want (this includes diversity on many, many axes), and those who are not admitted fall outside of that space. Do they make mistakes? Of course...they make mistakes in each dimension of that pool for sure. But on average they get what they want. And they live with their mistakes. If they really stink at it, they lose future students and/or funding and/or donations and/or faculty and/or reputation, etc..., etc... But again, how does this answer the question originally asked?
I have no problem with any of this. There are universities that fit nearly every need, whether it be academic, athletic, musical, theatrical, religion, race, gender, nationality, resident state, fill-in-the-blank or some balance of any or all of those dimensions.
Parents of very bright California high school students get frustrated because the truth is that its probably easier for an equal student from Idaho or Canada to get admitted to Stanford than their child. Just because they're from a different state or county!
Stanford likes national and international representation in their student body. Do the Idahoans or the Canadians take up slots that according to some California parents belong to those who achieved equal or better scores from the ultra-competitve HS across the street?' The answer is no. Its what that university decided it wants in a student body.You probably couldn't understand this from far away...but the multi-dimensional diversity is one of the things that makes Stanford a very special place.
But I diverge. The truth is, unless you throw high 80's (or better) consistently, with command, the odds say you probably won't be a high impact pitcher at a high D1. But there are always exceptions and if you believe you are that, there is no way for me to say you are not. Go for it!
I used the word "cursory" to show how easy it is to see that the summary doesn't stand for the "fact finding" you have asserted was made by that committee.
A more deliberate and comprehensive assessment makes one wonder why you would seemingly deliberately misstate its conclusions.
A more deliberate and comprehensive assessment makes one wonder why you would seemingly deliberately misstate its conclusions.
quote:Originally posted by Bum:quote:Originally posted by TPM:
East coast baseball is a lot different than that played in the west, pitching dominates where out west hitting dominates.
??? Are you saying the pitching on the East Coast is better? I don't don't buy it.. do the ERA's of these schools bear this out?
Bum,
I am gonna go back to an article and send to you, give me some time to find it.
I am not trying to insult anyone here, so don't take it personally.
I think that I am going to drop out of this conversation because I do not see, same as others, what all of this has to do with how fast a LHP really needs to throw to play D1 or D3.
Why do these post always stray to some ridiculous stuff that really doesn't answer the young posters questions.
So why are we arguing about this. I agree with everything you now stated. The argument came from staff who stated academics were losing spots to unqualified athletes. A more thorough reading of my posts would have avoided this dance.
The OP was thinking academics would be the determining factor on its own and that isn't the case.
Last comment is that some students who get very good marks avoid IVYs because they don't think they have a hope.
The OP was thinking academics would be the determining factor on its own and that isn't the case.
Last comment is that some students who get very good marks avoid IVYs because they don't think they have a hope.
quote:The argument can from staff who stated academics were losing spots to unqualified athletes.
The use of the term "unqualified athletes" is what my post is all about. How about if I say this...Canadian kids who gained an advantage based solely on their nationality are "unqualified non-residents?" Or one-dimensional academic kids who gained an advantage through perfect test scores are "unqualified geeks?" Its not for me to say...unless I want to engage the university...which I do not.
If a school's policy admits them, there's nothing unqualified about them at that point in time. They fall within the ranges, on each dimension, that the university values.
Seems simple to me. Debate about it will never cease. Tenison on such issues within a university are healthy and good for a school.
Otherwise, I don't care and its a waste of time I will never get back.
quote:The OP was thinking academics would be the determining factor on its own and that isn't the case.
I know that in general athletic admits pass through less stringent academic standards; my main question was how much less athletic ability "high band" athletes have to show in order to still be recruited, and it seems that the answer is that the differences are minimal.
quote:
If the pitcher who throws with this type of velocity has the grades why not look at the top D-III programs in the Northeast
Yep, already am looking at a few; in fact, MIT may very well be my top academic choice. My concern here though is that engineering/economics (I'll likely major in one of these) at MIT is very demanding in itself and might be difficult to manage with baseball. And the other top academic D3 schools are mostly LACs and I admittedly have a preference for larger schools.
monstor- Good luck on whatever decision you make. I'm sure you will be successful wherever you end up.
For the rest of this topic
For the rest of this topic
Monstor,
The Ivies typically do a very good job of balancing academics and baseball. They design the baseball schedule around academics as much as possible.
The Ivies typically do a very good job of balancing academics and baseball. They design the baseball schedule around academics as much as possible.
quote:
The Ivies typically do a very good job of balancing academics and baseball. They design the baseball schedule around academics as much as possible.
That's good to hear.
Another Q - What level of D1 are Ivy League schools generally regarded at? I assume they aren't considered elite but on the other hand they probably do attract some top prospects based on the academic reputation. Are they mid-level D1? Lower-level?