http://michigan.scout.com/2/980583.html
Jones didn't qualify and won't enroll this semester. Perhaps he was the rumored other player who wasn't going to qualify? A hit to QB depth, although marginal. Hopefully all the other kids make it in.
:(
Way to support our players
Way to support our players and hope they maximize the talent. And how did you develop these low hopes? Extensive scouting and thorough knowledge of the game, I'm sure
Your MGoPoints
are dropping
rapidly.
I have
low
hope for you.
Hey
Let's make a haiku
On how fast he's losing points
will lesson be learned?
You have to play this game like somebody just hit your mother with a two-by-four. ~Dan Birdwell
This post uses the same
This post uses the same paragraph formatting as the Freep.
Jones was never here
He
Jones was never here
He would have been really good
At very least depth
You forgot...
...a sublime athlete, a perfect body type. [no homo.]
Alas
We spent so much time
on the "R" (or lack thereof);
Lo, we spelled in vain.
Now that's just fucking
Now that's just fucking annoying.
Ann Arbor is a classy broad.
"Get off my plane!" - Ricky Stanzi, Air Force One 2
Well on the positive side
not that there really is a positive side, but it was a clearinghouse issue and not our admissions process.
Hide ya kids, hide ya wife.
I wonder
I wonder how many times this happened in the past and we never knew anything about it. I would give anything to go back to the days when I had no idea what anyone's name was until they were on the field producing. Having said that, I don't like hearing this story this many times (talking about players not getting in, not about this story being posted twice).
Janeane Garofalo (Film Actors Guild): "As actors it is our responsibility to read the newspaper, and then say what we read on television like it's our opinion"
I was thinking the same
I was thinking the same thing. Up until the last year or two, when my reading of this site became obsessive, I never followed recruiting or players not getting in. After seeing the news on Jones, all I could think was, "Has this become a problem or am I just now more aware of the status quo?"
Quinton McCoy
Originally a 2002 recruit. Went to prep school and joined the team in 2003. [Left before the 2004 season.]
Other examples have already been mentioned. This happens from time to time, but three cases in one year is unusual -- the result of two factors that I can think of:
Right now I'm not sure exactly when the formula for eligibility changed, but as far as I know it was within the past decade. I'm thinking that in the past Michigan's minimum admission standards (with regard to grades and test scores) were closer in line with the NCAA eligibility requirements and that is less true now. But more research is needed. I'm thinking of doing a post on this if I find something illuminating.
I've been following
I've been following recruiting since '99 (not to go all Pat Caputo on you). I've never seen anything like this happen before.
Huh? This has happened
Huh? This has happened plenty of times. Marques Slocum ring a bell? Bernard Robinson Jr.?
Yeah
I remember specific times here and there, but not this many players in a 2 year span. That's my whole point, has it always been like this, but with media coverage in the modern era we're just actually hearing about it now? I was thinking along the lines of the 80's and 90's.
Janeane Garofalo (Film Actors Guild): "As actors it is our responsibility to read the newspaper, and then say what we read on television like it's our opinion"
These numbers are out there
These numbers are out there somewhere, perhaps all someone needs to do is FOIA the NCAA and UM admissions. It would be interesting for someone to run them through SPSS. I would bet there is no significant difference between the RR era and any other era. The nature of this particular coaching era thus far just seems to make issues like this more salient.
no
Good luck getting any school to give you detailed information about a select group's GPA. A FOIA wouldn't cover personal confidential information for student athletes.
And as for your second point, I would also bet that you're wrong. Don't get me wrong, I think Rodriguez is a great coach, but he's already lost more potential players due to qualification issues than I think Carr did his entire tenure.
Come one - are you serious?
Come on - are you serious? Why would anything need to be personalized? All we need is numbers and years - # who made it through NCAA clearing house, # who made it through UM admissions. We don't need GPA's or anything of that sort.
It's comparing two perfectly dichotomous variables - NCAA: yes/no; UM: yes/no, with a stratified variable in terms of coaching eras, based on grouping years. Then we can compare coaching eras with the number that made it and the number that didnt. It can be perfectly anonymous.
...
You're assuming somebody keeps these statistics. I don't think anybody does. Even if you did FOIA all of the athlete admissions documents that somehow didn't violate privacy laws, everything that you'd want would be blacked out.
If you're also talking overall numbers, a ridiculous number of people are cleared by the NCAA clearinghouse every year and choose to go to Michigan rather than take a low NCAA division scholarship. There are also many people cleared by the clearinghouse that get rejected by Michigan and end up doing something like Crew at Boston College. They would also count for the overall statistics for Michigan. This means the overall numbers are almost useless at any major school like Michigan.
Now, if you knew the names of people who submitted a full application (Dorsey did not) who made it all the way through the process (because if they decide not to commit...) you might get somewhere. But you can't take this small subset of data, because that violates an athlete's privacy.
It's much simpler than that:
1. I really don't think it would be to difficult to isolate those who were offered a scholarship from Michigan to play football from those who were not. You request the number from the NCAA each year of those who were offered a scholarship for Michigan football and, of that set, the number that the NCAA didn't clear for academic reasons. Nothing too difficult there.
2. I think you are putting the bar for privacy too high. From what I know from academic research, as long as you can ensure anonymity, no harm, and justice, you are good. Again, it would not be difficult to ensure anonymity in terms of the number of students the admissions department accepted who were also offered a football scholarship and the number they did not accept who were also offered a football scholarship. Again, nothing too difficult there.
3. The nature of the comparison makes this much simpler still than you seem to appreciate - we are comparing UM to UM over time, not UM to other schools.
4. There is no doubt people keep these statistics. Its just a matter of matching data points.
But this is useless, as I have no inclination to conduct such a study.
I think you are putting the
I think you are putting the bar for privacy too high. From what I know from academic research, as long as you can ensure anonymity, no harm, and justice, you are good.
Man, I wish you served on the University's Institional Review Board. Wouldn't my life be easier!
Not to be too argumentative, but this would take more legwork than you might think. For one thing, the central admissions & student records system doesn't work that well for athletics, so the athletic department have their own shadow system for keeping track of what they do. There's a lot of work that goes on reconciling the two systems for things we have to have (like NCAA graduation rates, etc). The whole question is thornier than you might expect.
It would astound people, how many things that we "surely must keep records on" are done in arcane ways. And a lot of U-M systems are designed around day-to-day adminstrative needs, with less thought to how the U might pursue good research questions retrospectively. Which is really my point in replying--people don't realize how difficult it can be for the U to keep track of what seems like basic things, or do to analysis on them later.
I am very familiar with the
I am very familiar with the IRB. And my impression is that these data would be accessible. Like I said, while they might not be readily available, some matching would do the trick. I am not arguing that a administrative assistant has a pile of papers with these data just sitting pretty waiting for someone to pick them up. It would take some work to match data points. As is the case for any research.
As a fyi
I would co-sign Feat of Clay's post. It's incredibly difficult to get any information out of admissions. Don't believe me? Try to get a look at your own application and essays.
Remember, the university used the craigslist style version of Wolverine Access until a couple years ago out of sheer laziness. I mean... think about using that on a day to day basis to manage all of the university's records.
And to let you know, the university has the analysis complete. Brian's post on the subject is pretty spot on. It actually puts a rosier spin than what I've seen happen. If you compare the last era to the current one, each year Carr brought in an average of X players per year who were academically marginal. RR is trying to bring in a large multiple of X players each year who could be academically marginal. The numbers are far off enough to see a large difference.
Again, like Brian said, this is not all Rich Rod's fault, it's more of a culture clash/This is what we did at WVU thing. The problem is, nobody in the athletic dept really explained all the potential minefields to him, and now we're in this mess.
It sounds like we're on the
It sounds like we're on the same page then--and it wasn't directed just at you; there are a lot of people who say "surely we can just analyze this..." when in fact it's a real bear to analyze some questions. Which is why I am gainfully employed.
And as for the IRB--they might okay it, but that doesn't mean I don't still have to full out a 32+-page application to hear them say that. LOL
I'm talking about players
I'm talking about players just flat out not making it to campus. also, i'm not saying it hasn't happened here and there, but i can say that having this many players not make it to campus from a single class is out of the ordinary. that is all.
I'm sorry, but I don't think
I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying as close attention as you claim if you believe that. Almost every year we've lost at least one kid before August.
To answer your question:
This has happened in the past, but more on the scale of 1 every couple of years or so. They've increased dramatically over the last 5-6 years.
Historical Comparison
This is the second recruiting class I've really followed, but it seems like a huge number of non-qualifiers. Based on past years is this over the top or just the way things work out?
Your friendly neighborhood contrarian.
If he's...
...successful at prep school, he'll enroll next year. He was a sure fire redshirt this year, so there's no real impact on the 2010 team.
Best of luck to Conelius. We're pulling for him to achieve the academic success he needs regardless of how things work out with football.
LSA '89 - MBB Natl Champions, Big 10/Rose Bowl Champions | @MGoShoe
All this talk about next year
All this talk about next year sounds good, but we are wasting scholarship opportunities for players who could have come in this year. While we may not lose the scholarship, we lose another player who might have an immediate impact, like Dorsey, or someone who could have started the maturation process this year.
Ok, but...
...I'm certainly not suggesting that it's good that this happened, but it is what it is.
He was going to redshirt this year, that's a given. If he does well enough at Fork Union and achieves a qualifying SAT score, he'll enroll in January.
To my mind that's not that big a deal.
LSA '89 - MBB Natl Champions, Big 10/Rose Bowl Champions | @MGoShoe
If he does well enough at
If he does well enough at Fork Union and achieves a qualifying SAT score, he'll enroll in January.
I'll believe it when I see it. Most of these kids never make it back to Michigan, especially now that it seems admissions is taking a hard-line stance against these so-so academic qualifiers. Even with good grades and a good test score, I'd be surprised to see Jones end up in Ann Arbor.
I actually agree...
...with you, I'm just trying to give the kid the benefit of the doubt.
LSA '89 - MBB Natl Champions, Big 10/Rose Bowl Champions | @MGoShoe
I don't believe
admissions is acting any differently than ever. I think we're probably focusing on it a little bit more strongly, and I also think there is a good chance that poor kids from florida, which were rare recruits for us before, are probably a little more likely to toe the line.
I agree about the admissions
I agree about the admissions thing. Dorsey is the only example I can think of of a kid getting a scholarship, clearing the NCAA, then admissions turning him away. I don't think one instance counts as a change in policy/philosophy.
Adrian Witty disagrees.
Adrian Witty disagrees.
The coaches
were actually very high on Witty. With our depth at CB right now, do you really think that Witty was not wanted?
Neither was Witty.
I'm not
Maybe I'm out of line here
But what are some of these kids thinking. I mean, seriously, they are great football players, with a great gift and the world ready to open up for them. They can get an education almost anywhere they want for free, and have a great time doing it. Yet they can't get it together for a few hours a day (also known as class) and meet the minimum requirements. Also, personally, I think the minimum requirements are a joke. I'm not asking for straight A students, but reading at a 9th grade level and knowing addition/subtraction/multiplication/division really shouldn't be too much to ask. When I see a kid doesn't qualify, the first thing I think is that its his own damn fault. And spare me the "he spends so much time on football" argument, b/c I'm not about to buy into that one.
"A flute with no holes is not a flute. A donut with no hole is a danish"
That's because people were
That's because people were much more upset about Dorsey not qualifying than Jones.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia - but only slightly less well-known is this: Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
That's true, but Dorsey had
That's true, but Dorsey had an NCAA-qualifying application. He just didn't have a University of Michigan-qualifying application.
Very true. It was
Very true. It was frustrating because it was self-imposed within the school. Given that Jones didn't pass the NCAA qualifying standards, I'm sure we would have seen the same thing with his application if he had gotten to the the threashold.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia - but only slightly less well-known is this: Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
I agree. This should be the
I agree. This should be the case beyond just sports though. Many people get pushed through school without actually ever learning anything. I wonder sometimes if our schools are better at pumping out CEO's or customer service reps at McDonald's given their general aptitude after high school.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia - but only slightly less well-known is this: Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
Agree wholeheartedly.
You almost have to be trying not to learn to get that type of score.
I know a lot of it has to do with the school systems and such, but there aren't many kids who are incapable of getting the scores/grades necessary to get into college.
Have you ever seen The Wire?
Have you ever seen The Wire?
c/o 2008
GO BLUE!
Even the kids in situations
Even the kids in situations portrayed in The Wire could get good enough grades/test scores to qualify if they put their mind to it. They're highly disadvantaged, and the school system is to blame as well, but it's not like they're not mentally capable of it.
I think you're a little naive
I think you're a little naive here.
Galileo was also chastised.
Normally I agree with you,
Normally I agree with you, but he has the GPA. I understand it could have been better, but he has qualifying grades. His SAT score was low and if you want to rip him on that, ok. The talk of not working hard enough might be a moot point. He may be a poor test taker, he may have screwed around as a 9th grader and not be able to recover, he may not have the money to take the test prep classes, or he may just have thought his talents will let him slide. Should a kid get higher than a 2.5 so his SAT score didn't have to be so high? You betcha, but for some it is a greater struggle than others.
Tradition is something you can't bottle. But it is there to sustain you when you need it most. I've called upon it time and time again.
I don't know the situation
But I just feel like hes probably known he wanted to play college football for a long time. If this is the case, he should have known what it takes to be academically eligible to play, and should have made it happen. I am positive he can get access to at least a few free SAT practice tests, and I'm sure there are many people willing to help him improve his score.
Like I said, I don't know the specifics of the situation, but to me this screams football player getting passing grades b/c of who he is, and not actually learning, or caring to learn a thing. I hope I'm wrong, but this is my knee jerk reaction to cases like this.
"A flute with no holes is not a flute. A donut with no hole is a danish"
:(