Q. Re. Admission Requirements For UCLA/Stanford Football Programs
by Nestor on Oct 18, 2008 12:25 PM PDT
14 comments
Flagged an interesting article in the OC Register from yesterday re. academic requirements for Stanford and UCLA football programs:
Stanford has the highest academic standards for athletes of any major school in the nation, but few people realize that UCLA just might rank in the top three most stringent, along with Notre Dame.
"I think it's probably a little under the radar for most folks," UCLA coach Rick Neuheisel said. "What's unique is that even within the UC system, there are different standards."
Neuheisel, of course, is referring to Cal, which has admitted far more academically marginal players in recent seasons than UCLA has. Tailback Marshawn Lynch and receiver DeSean Jackson, now both NFL starters, expressed interest in playing for the Bruins, but couldn't qualify.
Cal isn't the only school that has absorbed players who couldn't cut it at UCLA. The nation's No. 1 prep tailback last February, Darrell Scott, wanted to be a Bruin, but didn't have the scores. He now plays for Colorado.
"I talk to a lot of guys who are like, 'Oh man, I want to be a Bruin, but I can't get in,'" said UCLA defensive tackle Brigham Harwell, who had to retake the SAT in order to qualify despite a 3.1 grade-point average. "I'm talking about big-time players. I can give you a whole list, but I don't want to put that in the paper. Getting in here is hard, really hard."
The challenge for UCLA is doubled. Not only does it have a smaller recruiting pool than most Pac-10 schools, but most weeks it has to line up against players who wanted to be on their side.
Neuheisel now has to figure out a way to overcome a major recruiting disadvantage, something Karl Dorrell couldn't quite master.
"It's a challenge, because it diminishes the pool, but it's not a deal breaker," Neuheisel said. "First, UCLA has always given opportunities to the hard-working kids, so there will be some guys we can get into school that maybe otherwise wouldn't be eligible. No. 2, we've just got to do a great job of recruiting those kids who have the resumes to be excellent in both."
That's the first time I think I have seen UCLA officials and player allude to the entrance requirements to our football program, which they claim to be one of the three toughest in the country (along with Stanford and Notre Dame).
Still I have yet to see any hard numbers that provides definitive evidence that UCLA's entrance requirements are tougher than any other Pac-10 schools (or BCS programs in the country) except for Stanford and Notre Dame.
Can anyone here point me to evidence corroborating the claims of UCLA coaches and players? This is a question that I'd love to get an answer to with hard numbers instead of just engaging in smack talk that we see on message boards.
So if anyone here has information or can point us to some useful data, it would be very helpful.
GO BRUINS.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
0 recs |
14 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
The thing about hard numbers...
…is it would require the athletic programs at both UCLA and UC Berkeley to release the average GPA and SAT scores of incoming athletes or to release the criteria used in determining admissibility (there I go again with that lawyer-speak).
Perhaps they have, but if they haven’t, I can’t see either athletic department releasing the numbers or criteria used. As for individual players (for example, why DeSean Jackson, a Long Beach Poly product, ended up at Cal and not UCLA), if the player doesn’t tell us their numbers and that they couldn’t make it, with privacy laws, there’s no way of knowing.
I do give Brigham a lot of credit though. He’s a player and he knows a lot of his peers. I do think our speculation on this matter (that Marshawn, DeSean, and Darrell Scott, for example) is, at the minimum, close to being pretty accurate.
That said, I do agree with you: it would be real nice to get some data on this issue.
Especially since there are plenty of Cal Bear trolls hiding around BN, waiting to pop up and run their uneducated, misinformed mouths due to some kind of UCLA penis-envy they can’t deal with. ;)
by norcald503 on Oct 18, 2008 5:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I heard this when I was in school as well
I also heard that it was Notre Dame’s decision to impose such stringent standards upon their football program that made up Lou Holtz’s mind to leave. He knew there would be no more NCs after placing that kind of restriction on his program. I would think this is the source Achilles was looking for when he wondered why we don’t have more impact position players in the NFL.
I don’t have any hard evidence, but it in my mind, it passes the smell test.
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden
by MexiBruin on Oct 18, 2008 7:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
UCLA is tough
I read an article about 2-3 years ago that gave a 1-10 rating based on how difficult it was for a recruit to get into a particular school. Stanford was definitely #1, I think. I do remember that the next level was ND, Vandy and Duke. I think UCLA got the same score or was right below it. Cal was WAY below when it came to admissions. They scored pretty low and was in the neighborhood of some SEC schools.
These are the only recent articles I could find about “special admits”. I think you need to take these with a grain of salt. ND requires recruits to have additional core subjects on their transcript that other school do not require. In addition, the NCAA has that sliding scale rule that makes it even more complex. How a guy like Jerrell Powe (Ole Miss) gets into school is beyond me. Too lazy to look it up but there is a guy that will be suiting up for the SC basketball team (tweener forward) that finally got eligible. It is true about Lou Holtz. I remember hearing on the radio that he was allowed 2-3 guys per class that would never be able to attend ND.
Wilner’s Blog
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/09/10/cal-football-a-report-on-all-the-special-admits/
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080907/SPORTS/809070375/1069/SPORTS0601
A bunch of guys throughout the Pac 10 wanted to suit up for the Bruins but could not get in. Some of them did it to themselves by not taking care of their schoolwork. This is the reason for Cal’s rise. Although we’re both in the UC system, they have far different requirements for athletes. A lot of the guys that were and currently are on their rosters (Desean, Marshawn, Hagan, etc.) could not get past Admissions. Personally, this doesn’t make sense to me. Yes, I don’t want idiots on our team but nobody can deny that a large portion of so called “student-athletes” in the major sports are here to develop their skills for a pro career. This is a whole different issue on whether UCLA should allow these types of students in order to win. There are only a few people in this world that can dedicate themselves to their craft and academics. It’s tough. The NCAA sets the minimum guidelines but each respective institution can determine how they want to include or exclude recruits. This has definitely affected us on the field. I want to win just as much as the next person but I’m not sure what the solution would be. The support system is there at UCLA. We should remember that these recurits are kids and its tough for them to focus. Maybe with the direction and support of the academic staff, they can truly be good students and get an education. As an example, there was that LB from U-Dub that was part of those articles regarding CRN that has or is getting a Master’s Degree right now.
My thoughts are all over the place but Cal does have lower standards than UCLA. Also, I think Admissions is taking a way too hard stance and needs to loosen up.
by BlueReign on Oct 19, 2008 12:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but...
the same standards apply in basketball. We get the elite players who we want, and they don’t seem to have problems with our admissions standards. (I’m assuming that the standards are the same in football and basketball.)
by Fox 71 on Oct 19, 2008 5:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In basketball you only need a few players a year
In football you need two dozen. Having a smaller pool of basketball players to choose from isn’t an issue when you only need to sign 3 or 4, but in football it’s an issue because you need to sign 20-25 of them. Football and basketball are completely different animals.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 19, 2008 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Look at the top 3 academic programs (UCLA, Stanford, and Notre Dame). All 3 are very competitive in basketball but not competitive at all in football.
GO BRUINS!
by rgalloucla on Oct 19, 2008 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some good thoughts there
But here is the section from that Wilner article your cited bugs me a lot:
"California and Florida reported that special admits in sports performed as well as other special admits, but they offered no comparison to the general student body.
"California said all special admits had just below a 2.8 GPA."
Here’s a link to the story.
And here’s the school-by-school chart on special admits.
(Added note here: As the Star makes very clear, but I’ll mention here for those who don’t read the material, the study was of public schools only.)
Now, my thoughts:
1. Kudos for Cal for participating in the report. (UCLA did not.)
2. If you have been paying attention to Cal football, it should come as zero surprise that the Bears accept special admits.
Every school does it, even the ones that didn’t cop to it in their filings to the NCAA, like Texas and Ohio State.
The better the school, the more it must use special admits to compete on the field.
The question is, How far is a school willing to go?
Well, I my deal is if UCLA officials and coaches want to claim that we don’t take “special admits” then let’s have some transparency have disclosure on exactly what our baseline requirements are.
I haven’t seen that anywhere.
So, right I lean towards the thought that lot of frustrations with Cal fans (towards UCLA fans who talk about this on message boards) have some merit.
Again, I would love to see some clear cut info. Cal athletic department showed their cards. Why can’t UCLA’s?
by Nestor on Oct 19, 2008 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we DEFINITELY should accept "special admits" for football
Our argument is that we have higher academic standards, therefore we do not cut corners with regard to academics of our recruits. However, last time I checked, Cal was ranked ahead of UCLA academically as an institution. It seem a little ridiculous. I’m not saying that we should throw all academics out the window, but for football, we need to be a little more lenient if we want to compete on the highest level. Just look at the top 3 academic programs (UCLA, Stanford, and Notre Dame) and take into account how they have performed over the last 10 years. There’s your proof.
GO BRUINS!
by rgalloucla on Oct 19, 2008 3:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I must disagree with your assertion that Cal is academically ahead of UCLA
While most people think Cal is a better academic institution than UCLA, much of that perception is due to its reputation and history. According to the Times Higher Education
survey, UCLA is now ranked as the 30th best university in the world, 11 spots up from last year. Cal, on the other hand, has fallen 14 spots to #36. I truly believe UCLA is unrivaled as the greatest institution of higher learning because of the myriad of opportunities and experiences available to its students and faculty.
by PEDbruin on Oct 20, 2008 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure where you found this obscure poll
But I like the fact that UCLA is #30 while U$C is WAY down at #102. Back to reality though, the mosty common poll of top colleges that people look at is in US News and World Report :
Here Cal is #21, UCLA #25, U$C #27.
GO BRUINS!
by rgalloucla on Oct 23, 2008 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
THE
I am not down with the special calculations for international staff and students. That gives a very large skew to, imho, a relatively less important point of differentiation.
by Deepcut on Oct 20, 2008 10:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
