Stanford Admissions A Fan of Recruiting Star System?
by Nestor on Jan 24, 2012 6:15 AM PST
Email
PrintYeah, the title of this fanpost is a little snarky. However, check out this interesting piece from Scout.com concerning West St. Mary (Baldwin, LA) DC Jontrey Tillman, a previous Stanford committ who was recently turned down by their admissions department despite having a 4.0 GPA and 26 ACT:
Jontrey Tillman pledged his services to Stanford in June 2011, but he got an unexpected phone call over the weekend.
"Stanford called Jontrey at 5 P.M. Friday and told him he wasn't accepted," said West St. Mary head coach Ryan Antoine. "Their defensive coordinator had been here five times and the DBs coach was here last Monday.
"They said they want him, but they can't question admissions or they will lose their jobs. I talked to Coach (David) Shaw on Saturday, and he said they can't control admissions. He said it's secretive."
Antoine was perplexed.
"Jontrey is devastated," he said. "This is a kid from a depressed socioeconomic environment who had been committed to Stanford since June. He turned down 20 scholarship offers and they tell him about this a week before National Signing Day?
"I read an article that said Barry Sanders has a 3.2 grade point average, and another commit has a 3.7. How do you explain that?"
Hmm. Bolded parts are mind. I checked his scout.com profile and at least according to that data base there were not a lot of offers out there for this kid. How do you explain this?
I have an idea. Perhaps Stanford is not naive and understands that value of a football program. I don't buy Shaw's line about not having control over admissions. I think it is reasonable to assume Stanford admissions and their coaching staff are working close together. They get the guys in the Stanford coaches want.
The question is whether the same mindset is in play at UCLA admissions. Do the UCLA admissions even care about our football program?
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.
49 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is why I have always considered Stanford our real rival
Not because I didn’t get accepted there . . . as an undergrad . . . as a law applicant . . . as a GSB applicant. Its because those guys just do everything right. If they have chinks in their armor, there are too few to see. And now that I live a stone’s toss from the farm, I have grown to hate them more than the trogans . . . not because they are evil, but because in many ways Stanford has become what UCLA only aspires to be. Stanford alums are still a-holes though. :)
Stanford alums I know have been pretty cool though
Really good people who also root for UCLA. I shared the bit above not to bash Stanford. I shared it more to make the point how Stanford despite its regal academic reputation is also cut throat about athletics. I respect that even though the story of this kid is unfortunate. I think he will be fine as he surely will be snapped up by another good program.
I stand corrected
MOST Stanford alums are still a-holes . . . I concede that there are some cool ones too.
I have to jump in here
I won’t argue the fact that Stanford is one of the most elite schools in the world. But I take umbrage with your claim that Stanford has become what UCLA only aspires to be. UCLA and Stanford are fundamentally different in the sense that one is private and one is public. What UCLA has done to make itself a global institution despite the restrictions that go hand in hand with being a public school is truly remarkable.
I do not think that UCLA’s goal should be to try and aspire to be a carbon copy of Stanford. Our goal is to be the best public university in the world. So with that in mind lets not strain our necks looking up at the farm. First off we are closer to Stanford in terms of academics than you make it seem and we are above them in terms of athletic excellence (just count the trophies).
Over 92,000 people are applying to UCLA this year. UCLA has been consistently ranked as one of the top dream schools of high school seniors. Do we have things that could be done to make us a better university? Of course. Does Stanford? Of course.
fwiw
Stanford looks at a LOT more than GPA and ACT. Granted, you would think that those numbers would get a D-1 caliber football player accepted, especially compared to some of their other recruits. I think that you’re point is still valid N, and I agree with the sentiment that it appears as though Stan. admissions care somewhat about football. But when it comes to a school as competitive as Stanford, grades are barely 50% of the admissions process.
i think that your* point
is still valid. Grammer fail
by bucknellbruin on Jan 24, 2012 9:45 AM PST up reply actions
ha
yeah well, I had just woken up and i was hungover….so i’m excusing myself for that one
by bucknellbruin on Jan 24, 2012 12:11 PM PST up reply actions
Well, Bucknell, you admitted your mistake and accepted responsibility for it.
I have seen others here commit a heinous apostrophe violation, and when called out say “I sincerely apologize if my apostrophe violation harmed anyone, which it really shouldn’t have, and which it probably didn’t. But if it did, and I’m not saying I actually committed an apostrophe violation, but if that happened, and if it hurt anyone, which it shouldn’t have, then I apologize. Hypothetically.”
If he was a 5* recruit who the Stanford football coaches wanted,
he’d be at the farm next year.
Nestor’s got it right, they know what they want and are willing to do what it takes to get it. The coaches basically reniged on their offer in a not so straight up way.
It IS very interesting that their entire program is in sync, including admissions.
Take this with a grain of salt
My rowing coach in high school used to run the Stanford Men’s crew program in the 90’s. He used to say that only football and swimming would get special preferences for admissions there. All other athletes were on their own.
He would complain that a rower would need a 1400+ (old SAT score system) and above a 3.7 to even get close. Football players had to be hovering above 1100 and 3.0 range.
I mean lets be real, if you honestly think that every guy on the football roster could have gotten into the school without any special preference from admissions than there is a beautiful ocean in Kansas that I want to show you. That’s not to say that their players are not bright guys, I’m sure most of them are.
Very true
By the way, I raced against your coach’s team while at UCLA…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Small world
No way. I remember talking to my coach when I was accepted into UCLA and he was lamenting the fact that the rowing program at UCLA was no longer a varsity one. He said UCLA used to be right up there in the Pac-10. This probably isn’t the forum for this but it does drive me crazy that UCLA does not have a men’s rowing or swimming program. We could dominate in that area.
Yup, it's true
UCLA was just removed from a top 5 season when they cut the program. I can’t believe they cut swimming, that’s just insane at UCLA.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Good Point
I mean how in the hell could you even recruit swimmers in Southern California? Are there even any?
Hellz yeah!
When’s the race thread going up for the dual race against U$C?! Represent!
I think what jwher was trying to say is that this is isn’t the right thread to talk about rowing. We talk about all sports here! We followed the golf championship, had a great time following baseball in the CWS, women’s volleyball. We ain’t no Trogans!
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Always down to talk about any and all UCLA sports
I only meant that this might not be the forum to talk about rowing to the extent that this was a football thread.
I am a UCLA athletics junkie and could talk all day about the full spectrum of UCLA athletics. I’m relatively new to the this community, and I love getting the daily hit of football recruiting news but thus far the thing I have enjoyed the most was the Championship thread going for the UCLA women’s volleyball team. I thought it showed great support for our athletics.
jwher I would love to see that ocean in Kansas! OK, inland Permean Sea, but take me with you.
I know you have a time machine if you want to show someone that ocean in Kansas. Wow, someone from UCLA invented a time machine. Did I pick up on a Freudian slip? You can’t keep that time machine secret any more. Just think about it, going back 250,000,000 million years. No football, no taxes, no worries.
Stanford is stupid
They may be willing to sacrifice academic prestige, but I am not. Integrating academics and athletics is one thing, lowering standards on one to improve another is something totally different.
I busted my ass off getting in here. I got a 3.91 GPA at my community college to get here, during a time where that may have just cut it. I will never hold an athlete to a lower standard just because he can run fast.
I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...
http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com
How does it constitute lower standards?
You had a 3.91 GPA. An athlete may have a 3.0 GPA, plus excellence in athletics. How is that a lower standard? Sometimes you need to take a holistic view. Upper echelon athletes have to spend more time training in hopes of getting a scholarship. It hurts your grades, just as it would if you had to work. If said athlete spent the time studying instead, you can argue that they would get better grades. It’s a sacrifice and and I don’t view it as a lower standard to take both things into consideration.
It’s demeaning to say that athletes can just “run fast”. That is the obvious uninformed view of someone who is clearly not an athlete. I was an athlete at UCLA and my training was essentially a full time job, requiring about 40 hours a week. My grades suffered a bit as a result. Do you think I should have been kicked out of school?
Academic “prestige” has absolutely nothing to do with a few football players being admitted under special circumstances. That is such baloney.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
It *does* constitute lower standards
In one area. You clearly didn’t read what I said, though.
Being a student-athlete at UCLA is different than being a student-athlete at your local high school or community college. If your grades are hurting, here at UCLA, because you’re an athlete, fine.
But the admissions process? Don’t think it should fly. The current state of public education should be one that students can take advantage of — 4.0s are relatively easier to come around in high school than they were 10 years ago. (Depending on when you went to high school, the ease varies, but it’s definitely easier now than it ever has been.) You act as if it’s impossible to do well in HIGH SCHOOL and play football — it isn’t. Kids at my high school — Oceanside HS, apparently a powerhouse in football — were popping out 3.7 GPAs and up and got those Division-I scholarships. Why do we have to sacrifice academic prestige by admitting athletes who are great at football but crappy in the classroom? (Sorry, but a 3.0 GPA in high school is an indicator that your lazy; I had a 3.0 GPA in high school.)
As for a community college? No reason you can’t get a 3.4+ GPA and play football and get into UCLA as a transfer. Why do we have to lower that standard because the football player is better? WIth TAP, a 3.5 GPA damn near guarantees you admission depending on if the majors you select are competitive. And then with some classes at your local JC being easy (if you pick right) and then the flexibility a JC offers (night classes, online classes, early-as-hell classes), there’s no excuses for you to miss class and get poor grades either.
Why do we have to assume we must admit less-qualified-on-the-academic-side applicants in order to get better football players? Are you telling me we are giving up on going for top-class athletes with legitimate, competitive GPAs? F*** that. This is UCLA. Not some third-rate state school like LSU that picks dummies/lazy people who can play football.
If you want to change the culture of UCLA athletics, then you have to look at academics. Perhaps someone who is dedicated to academics might just be more disciplined and show for it on the football field.
I’m glad you were an athlete at UCLA — grades you accumulated at UCLA be damned. But I find it baffling that I’m “going against the grain” for wanting top-class STUDENT-athletes.
I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...
http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com
I prefer well rounded individuals rather than one dimensional house plants.
If their GPA is a few tenths lower because they are participating in sports, community efforts as wells their academic career – I’d take them before some nerd that is myopic and has no personality.
Being a student athlete is like having a full time job while going to school full time. I am fine with their gpa being a few tenths lower. It’s is really difficult. Been there – done that both in high school and college.
Btw – you don’t seem to mind their gpa too much when they are performing for you every Thursday, Saturday or Sunday……..
I get what your saying
And you make sense — but how much is a “few tenths” lower? That’s the difference between 3.7 and 3.0. Huge difference coming out of HS or JC.
Note that I did say this:
Why do we have to assume we must admit less-qualified-on-the-academic-side applicants in order to get better football players? Are you telling me we are giving up on going for top-class athletes with legitimate, competitive GPAs? F*** that. This is UCLA. Not some third-rate state school like LSU that picks dummies/lazy people who can play football.
Sounds like well-roundedness to me. It’s difficult in high school and JC for sure, but it’s not impossibly difficult. It’s a challenge and if they can get through that, then we’re likely to be a more disciplined team overall.
You’re right — I don’t care. I think I said that here:
Being a student-athlete at UCLA is different than being a student-athlete at your local high school or community college. If your grades are hurting, here at UCLA, because you’re an athlete, fine.
UCLA is not your local HS or JC. It’s UCLA. They’re already here, so if they want 3.0s, I couldn’t give a sh**
And also, as long as they are not stinking it up in the Psych department, and I don’t think any are.
I have the Sons of Westwood on my iPod in my "favorites" playlist ...
http://sonsofwestwood.wordpress.com
Don't know what they take now but......
….the easiest classes on my schedule were english, philosophy and psychology courses. Rest were core science and math. I didn’t have a 4.0 but I did have practice and training 45 hours per week -not including actual games.
The important thing
is not to take a player with bad grades just because he’s good at football.
The important thing is to bring in a good person, a deserving person, and give him an opportunity to succeed. There are always circumstances. Bad grades are not always a sign of a bad student or of laziness. There are always examples of smart kids who come from broken homes and are trying to do everything right for their family but simply do not have the right environment to be successful in the classroom.
In the end, there should be instances in which UCLA should remember that its mission is to educate, not just educate the best and brightest. If they deem that a player can handle the workload, they should take a chance once in a while. We’re talking a handful of cases each year…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Don't kids have to show extra-curricular stuff in addition to being a genius and a Nobel Prize winner?
I read what sjh and his daughter went through trying to get into UCLA. She certainly seemed qualified in all respects to me, but she didn’t get in. What that means is that you have to have a GPA above 4.0 (which to me is a bit difficult – like trying to get a quart bottle to hold a quart and a half, but I digress), perfect test scores, and have done miraculous things in your spare time. Why wouldn’t high school athletics qualify as one of those extra curricular things. I know the high schools around here raise quite a bit of cash (generally it’s for their marching band) at their games.
Anyway, the point is that high school athletes have distinguished themselves as being as good in their fields as some of the nerds have done in their fields. I suppose if there were a physical aptitude test that a lot of our incoming freshmen might not qualify. We’re filling different parts of our campus.
Just wondering...
How are 4.0s easier to achieve now than in the past? I’m wondering because my son is a high school freshman, and his workload is at least twice as difficult as it was for me, and I’m not that old (high school class of 1998). I guess you can say that it is easier now because of technology and the tutoring industry that wasn’t as robust as it was ten years ago, but that advantage is offset by the increased difficulty in attaining an athletic scholarship now compared to the past. This is purely anecdotal based on my experience as a high school athlete and my experience as a parent now, but multi-sport athletes are on the decline. While athletes may participate in other sports for cross-training, they must focus on one primary sport earlier in their high school athletic careers if there’s a chance to earn a scholarship.
High school prospects begin training for their shot at a scholarship at a much earlier age. In football, that means they start Pop Warner football at age 8 and start attending skills/specialty camps in junior high. In basketball, they start playing AAU as early as 10 years-old. In baseball, kids start playing travelball at age 8. Training year-round becomes life-consuming. Any parents with kids playing club-level sports can attest to this.
Personally, I have a lot more respect for the kids today who are able to compete for scholarships while maintaining solid work in the classroom because they’ve all sacrificed a part of their childhood that my peers didn’t have to get to their level.
Just a guess, Ish - I'm way removed from reality on this
Could it be that kids who want to go to a school like UCLA are made aware of what it will take to get in at an earlier age? Kids, at least it seems to me, are much more sophisticated now. Kids study now. Kids apply themselves now. Those kids get accepted. Kids like Fox 71 Fils worked on “people skills” and scratched through college (not UCLA). In my case, I really can’t remember studying ever, until after I got drafted (after my sophomore year), did my time in the army, and got out with thoughts of going to law school. Then I started studying, and it was a little easier because instead of being younger than everyone in my class, I was older.
Anyway, I think kids now are smarter and also study harder. That’s my non-expert take for what it’s worth.
Good point
I graduated high school in 2005, so not too far removed from the admissions scene. And kids def are made aware of how difficult it is to get into UCLA, CAl, Stanford etc. By sophomore year you are already into honors classes and if by junior year you are not taking a boatload of AP’s than you can say goodbye to the three schools I just listed.
I’ve known I wanted to go to UCLA since I was in the fourth grade. The second I set foot in high school I had aplan to make sure that happen and busted to ass to make sure it did. And I wasn’t the only one, most kids that get into these schools have known thats where they wanted to go and put in crazy amounts of work to see it happen.
Sorry to be obtuse
Dont schools and coaches have better or more common ways of revoking offers to players they decide aren’t what they thought? Isn’t UCLA tacitly or overtly telling the over signed players to look elsewhere today? Seems like the Stanford way as described is pretty weak and easily questioned/transparently false.
Back in the day, my coach walked over to the admissions office and with 3 keystrokes got me in. Took all of 30 minutes.
I have no doubt Stanford and other private school coaches can do the same.
Hail to the Hills of Westwood.
I couldn't agree more
This story just seems like they didn’t want to sign this kid in the end. If anything to me this makes the Stanford coaches look like a bunch of spineless d-bags that couldn’t be upfront with a kid about letting him go. I mean do you honestly think David Shaw, who just brought in millions of dollars via a BCS bowl birth, is going to lose his job if they even “question the admissions department.” Total crap.
a little background on admissions
Every major college admissions dept has multiple liaisons with the athletic dept that vet recruited student athlete applications long before admissions decisions are made, particularly with the main revenue sports such as football. I know a lot about the inner workings of admissions offices. It strains credulity that Stanford football coaches did not have an inkling that their recruit was teetering on getting rejected.
The only plausible exception is a damaging or pejorative surprise about the recruit that comes up in a background check or through some other means (someone calls, mails in, faxes some information previously undisclosed to admissions, which happens often enough). Judging by the article it appears that the recruit is a good kid, and certainly the grades are great (although the ACT is a bit low for Stanford). We don’t know what else was on that application, or what his essays and answers to Stanford supplement questions (which are numerous) looked like, but the coaches, the liaison working the application, and the admissions office knew. They simply don’t string along a recruit that long in the recruiting-admissions process especially so close to signing day without letting the recruit know that they might not get in. From the article, it is not clear what they told the recruit about his chances, but it appears that he was not told that his admissions decision was in jeopardy, and to seek alternatives.
So, the whole truth is not revealed here. Either the coaches did a most dishonorable thing and kept this recruit in the dark about his real chances of getting accepted by admissions (which they surely knew about), OR, there is some untold part of the story that can’t be told by admissions or the coaching staff due to it’s sensitive nature. Or it could be that the recruit was told long in advance that he might not get in and to seek alternatives but he is not telling the truth about that (although that seems unlikely from the story).
former editor, DumpDorrell.com ... formerly posted as DumpDorrell
one last point
I find it hard to believe that the coaches suddenly decided after a long recruiting season that they didnt like this recruit and so decided to pin the decision to not offer him a scholarship on the admissions office. Too much time, money and effort had been spent to this point to suddenly change course. It just doesn’t happen that way. There is no reason for it. Unless, of course, some big surprise came to their attention at the end, unbeknownst to the recruit, and it is sensitive and personal so they cannot reveal it.
former editor, DumpDorrell.com ... formerly posted as DumpDorrell
Appreciate the insights.
Based on the fact they had a very recent visit per the coach a surprise or some such sensitive issue seems likely.
Hail to the Hills of Westwood.
Well, a 3* might have been enough
Based on the scout ratings of the Stanford’s commits, the kid would have been their only 2*. All the rest are 3 and 4*. A 5* would not have been necessary as there are no 5* on the committed list.
If this was purely about football, then you could build a case that Stanford didn’t have a need for him. First, they have plenty of DBs on the roster. In addition, based on attrition and outgoing seniors, 15 commits is probably the maximum that Stanford could sign.
Further looking at Stanford's commits strongly indicates Standford is lying to Tillman.
Currently Standford has 4 WR commits, J. Tillman would have been the fifth. The commits and how they are rated nationally are:
- 57 3* Kodi Whitfield soft verbal visited UCLA, but committed 6/23/11
- 74 3* Deante Gray committed 6/23/11
- 96 3* Conner Crane committed 6/23/11
- 3* Dontonio Jordan committed 5/27/11
- 2* Jontrey Tillman committed May or June 2011 & 5’ 9" Tall
Look at Jontrey’s rating nationally, he is 125 behind D. Jordan and the fifth wide receiver and only 5’ 9" tall. I just can’t believe the Standford staff didn’t have second thoughts about keeping him. If I was Jontrey looking at the above info I would think I was on shaky ground especially if Stanford only has about 15 scholarLooking at the abo. .
Got posted in error, my computer is acting up and it is only 9 years old..
The above was suppose to end with, “. . .15 scholarships to give.”
Phooey. when typing copy keeps jumping all over the screen.
Things I typed disappear. Anyway, other corrections – - if it really matters.:
4. 102 3* Dontonio Jordan Committed 5/27/11
5. 227 2* Jontrey Tillman committed June 2011
This data narrows it down
This data shows that there was no new great WR recruit that suddenly popped on their screen, although with the limited number of scholies available a great recruit at another position surely could push a 5th receiver off the scholie list. Im sure there is info out there about who Stanford is going after that could answer this question. I dont care to look it up.
Even if there is a character issue surprise, it does appear that Stanford is lying to this kid. Shame.
former editor, DumpDorrell.com ... formerly posted as DumpDorrell
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
