Question Re. UCLA & Cal Football Programs' Academic Standards

by Nestor on Jun 25, 2007 4:38 AM PDT in Football Comment 20 comments

During last five years we have heard a number of excuses for UCLA football's mediocre to below average performance under the leadership of Karl Dorrell, the worst head coach (in terms of record) since WW2.

Time and time again we have rebutted all of the excuses proffered by Dorrell apologists here on. The latest round took place when Bill and Ted embarked on a little adventure on BN here and here.

Still there has been one specific excuse that I still see popping up every now and then on various message boards during the recruit season. It has to do with academics and it specifically concerns Cal head-coach Jeff Tedford's football program, which has the Bears fans giddy about their football program up in Strawberry Canyon. The excuse goes something like this: Tedford has had an easier time building up a solid program in Berkeley, because (according to Dorrell supporters) Cal football has lowered it academic standards compared to UCLA.

Does that sound like a plausible excuse? Well last week I reached out to the guys over at the California Golden Blogs, which has quietly emerging (during Tightwad Hill's absence) as the best Bear blog in the internets. I asked those guys whether they can shed any light on the notion that Cal football academics standards < UCLA football academics standards.

Well they didn't disappoint at all. CGB blogger Yellow Fever went to town on this issue and dug up the available numbers of UCLA and Cal football recruits since 2003 (Dorrell's first year and Tedford's second year). Here is the thorough analysis which led him to this conclusion:

So does this prove that UCLA has higher academic standards? Conclusively, no. The sample sizes are just too small. What could prove it perhaps would be a significantly lower average SAT score and/or GPA on the part of Cal recruits, but that just isn't there. The vagaries of recruiting also don't let those outside the process know why students do or don't get offers from particular schools, as well. With us having all gone through the admissions process, you and I alike know that high school students may prefer one school over another for any number of reasons. Schools may not bother offering a scholarship to a player they know is highly unlikely to accept, making it an empty gesture and a waste of time and effort on their part.

Without going into much further detail on why we'll never know exactly why recruits go where they do, what I am inclined to say is that the argument that higher academic standards can probably only apply to a few schools - the Ivy League ones. While some recruits do have more trouble than others getting through the admissions process, I find it hard to believe that if Karl Dorrell wanted a borderline student badly enough for his program, he wouldn't find some way to get them in. The fact that both Cal and UCLA recruited so many students with similar academic profiles (a profile that was hardly outstanding) should speak to this. So the next time the head of your favorite Division I-A program says they can't compete because of academics, it's probably something else. It almost always is.

Please read Yellow Fever's entire post again in which he goes through the SAT scores, GPAs, and number of Junior College transfers in Cal and in UCLA rosters before reaching that conclusion.

So here is my question.

To me it seems like his conclusion is pretty much on the mark. It just doesn't seem believable to me when I read something along the lines that Tedford has had an easier road to building a program than Dorrell because he somehow doesn't have to deal with the same academic constraints Dorrell allegedly has to deal with UCLA. Does that argument make any sense to you?

Here is another strand of thought. We can assume Coach Howland has to deal with the same academic standards as Dorrell deals with in football. Yet we never hear the basketball coaches using academic constraints as an excuse for putting together a solid program.

So what gives here? I know the UCLA athletics administration and Dorrell lackies are closely monitoring what we are writing on BN. If there is any validity to the notion that Cal's athletic program has lowered it's academic standards compared to UCLA, then give us some numbers. We are not looking for anecdotes, but numbers showing how UCLA's football programs have academic standards that are higher than California. I have yet to see anyone offer any kind of tangible evidence to back up that assertion. If there are numbers to back it up, now is the time to step it up here on BN.

Otherwise, next time we hear that argument from a Dorrell supporter, we are going to quash it with facts (with the information dug up by CGB) just like in the threads in response to B&T.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The Blair Pair

Years ago (I think in '71 or '72 but certainly in the Pepper Rodgers era), UCLA successfully recruited James McAlister and Kermit Johnson (Rafer's brother) out of Blair High in Pasadena.

I recall that justsc made a big fuss about lowered academic standards with regard to McAlister. He had a 1.9 gpa or a 1.9 SAT score or something like that.

Anyway, he got in without the academic credentials that would have been expected. Maybe the school decided that we just weren't going to make that sort of exception any more. Maybe they didn't want to lower our standards to those which exist across town. (Not really "standards" over there, just guidelines. You don't really need a high school transcript, just a note from your parole officer to get in at justsc, as I understand it.)

I haven't heard of anything like that since then, and that's just fine with me.

by Fox 71 on Jun 25, 2007 6:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Lame, lame, lame excuses

The absolute bottom line is that KD is not a good coach. Just trust your gut feeling, believe your eyes, and ignore all the smokescreen. When watching a UCLA football game, I do not get the feeling that I am watching a well-coached team that is running like a well-oiled machine. My eyes do not lie.

by bluegold on Jun 25, 2007 7:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Smarter in the Classroom -- Smarter on the Field?

Whether or not we have higher standards or just the same standards, those who coach bright kids always say that these kids better understand what the coaches want to do and better execute their plans.

So, if KD is forced to take brighter kids, he gets the collateral benefit of their ability to better follow his lead (err, that may be the problem).

In the words of the late, great Emily Litella "Never mind."

sjh

by Class of 66 on Jun 25, 2007 8:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, tell me!

What's so bad about violins on TV?

Oh. Never mind.

by Fox 71 on Jun 25, 2007 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

he's looking at the wrong things

It's not about whether the standards are lower across the board, which would affect GPA and SAT scores, it's if a few players get in that otherwise would not. (I believe Cal takes Prop 48 players and UCLA doesn't, but I'm not positive). If Cal takes a few players at a lower standard, that makes little or no impact on the academic statistics but it can pay HUGE dividends on the field.

No one will confuse me with a Dorrell apologist, but I do believe UCLA is fighting an uphill battle with academics and playing games at the Rose Bowl. It's a legitimate excuse for why we're not winning National Championships - trying to get the one incredible player away from 15+ other schools that have easier admissions, better history, better perks and much better facilities... but it is no excuse for why we just stink. And Dorrell is the reason we just stink. Did I mention that we stink? I'm sick of us stinking.

by greatgymnasticsschool on Jun 25, 2007 11:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If that's the case ...

Can you name names? Which Cal players wouldn't have been accepted to UCLA?

Not flaming. Just asking. This is a question I have been very curious about too.

I'd be interested to find out how Cal has been able to admit certain players who wouldn't have been accepted to UCLA?

Was Lynch one of them? Anyone else?

by bluestreet on Jun 25, 2007 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

DeSean Jackson...

DeSean Jackson was the #4-ranked WR in the whole country in '05, coming out of our own backyard (LB Poly).

He had offers from all over the country (LSU, Oklahoma, Florida, Tennessee, Ohio State), and all up and down the west coast... well, almost all up and down the west coast:

"I have written offers for football from everyone in the Pac Ten, except UCLA and Stanford."
--DeSean Jackson, on scout.com (8/9/04)

What an interesting pair of schools for an elite, 5-star wide receiver to lack a scholarship offer from. Every school in the Pac-10 except for Stanford and UCLA?!

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

by patsweetpat on Jun 25, 2007 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay

So we have one example out last five years? Any more?

by bluestreet on Jun 26, 2007 5:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If I recall correctly

McNown was not a 5-star, incredible qb sought after by other major colleges. But Toledo put in a system that utilized McNown's skills, as we came within one bad referee call from the championship game. Good coaching can make up for lack of 5-stars.

It's bad coaching + lack of 5-stars that result in the stink that you speak of.

by bluegold on Jun 25, 2007 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure

I heard that Lynch was a player that otherwise would not have qualified but can't confirm. If I have time I'll make a call or two and see what I can find out. As for McNown, they had a great run but that was a long time ago in football terms.

Recently, the teams that get there or close to a National Championship have really good players at every position and usually at least one killer marquis player. Reggie Bush, Jamarcus Russell, Leinart, Young... Another way to look at it is without Bush two years ago (I think two years ago) they lose to Fresno State and at least one other game if not more. A player of that caliber can keep you undefeated. On the other hand, Florida last year was just STACKED with really talented and fast guys - their admissions standards are basically a JC.

by greatgymnasticsschool on Jun 25, 2007 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A couple stupid questions...

What are Prop 48 players?
Don't Cal and UCLA have the same base admissions standards, being that they are both UC schools? I realize that the actual criteria to get in is much higher because of competition, but in theory, don't both schools have the same minimum requirements?

by ragnarok on Jun 25, 2007 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not stupid at all

Prop 48 is an NCAA regulation regarding student eligibility, setting forth minimum SAT/ACT scores, number of "core classes" taken in high school and GPA in such courses. Under prop 48, a sliding scale of test scores and GPA is used to determine initial eligibility (similar, but with lower standards to that used for UC minimum standards). Prospective student-athletes that do not meet this standard can be admitted, but are ineligible to compete during their freshman year; this lost year of eligibility can be regained at the end of 4-years if the player has met certain set academic standards (I believe graduation within 4 years is one such way to regain eligibility).
The base admission standards are the same, but schools are allowed a number of exceptions, allowing students not meeting the minimum UC standards to enroll. The athletic programs at Berkeley and UCLA (and pretty much any college/uni) are granted some number of such exceptions, whether as official policy or on a case-by-case basis. The issue here deals with what the "base" standards are in regards to football (the difference from Cal/UCLA standards,difference, if any, from base UC standards, and whether waivers from such (presumably) lower standards are granted, and in what frequency).

by bruinhoo on Jun 25, 2007 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

New commitment

3 star TE Cory Harkey has committed to UCLA.

by SuperBruinMan on Jun 25, 2007 1:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Another commitment

4 star RB Milton Knox.

by SuperBruinMan on Jun 25, 2007 3:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Milton Knox

The Knox committment pretty much means we closed the door on any chance of landing Darrell Scott. That's it for us on the RB front, with both Dean and Knox now in the fold.

This is actually a pretty nice grab for UCLA, as I assumed Knox would logically follow Crist to ND. Here's his comment on potentially going to USC a month or so earlier:

"They are so deep at running back that I really don't have them high on my list. It would be great to get an offer though - at least just to have on my resume. But you never know what USC is going to do."

by CAJason80 on Jun 25, 2007 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmm i read

sat scores are comperable, our GPA requirements are higher, and they take way more JUCO players that we do.

Looks to me like we have higher academic standards.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Jun 25, 2007 7:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Uh yeah

But their SAT scores are higher. GPA is kind of a wash based on sample size. I am not seeing how we have higher academic standards.

by Nestor on Jun 26, 2007 4:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

not a great post

I'm not a huge KD fan, but the available evidence points strongly to UCLA having higher academic standards. the Juco thing 26-9 is very revealing as it shows that Cal can get in lots of kids UCLA can't.

when you try to knock down every reason KD supporters offer, even when they are correct, you look obsessive rather than analytic.

KDs poor coaching and staff decisions tell the main story, but its also true that admission standards and lack of admin support are part of the reason he has not been succesful.

by OsoPuro on Jun 25, 2007 9:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

So what are those admission standards?

Can you provide concrete evidence that Cal's standards are lower besides attacking the post and making blanket assertions without any evidence?

by Nestor on Jun 26, 2007 4:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe I just don't get it

but I thought the University of California was one university with one set of admissions requirements. It had lots of campuses (I have no clue as to the spelling of the plural of "campus"), but only one admission standard. I thought if you got in, you got in. You might not get your choice of campus, but you might not get your choice of what time you would take History 7A either.

So correct me, someone. Granted everything is different for athletes, but it can't be that different except at justsc.

by Fox 71 on Jun 26, 2007 6:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs