An observation on college athletics

[wydileie]

Again there are almost no top recruits with that academic ability and they are focused on the pros not academics. The few top schools that focus on an area do well. Well maybe just Duke and ND. But still there aren't a bunch of brilliant football and basketball players signing at Bama and tOSU that are 4-5 star players. The vast majority are marginal for college at all.

This is simply not true. Only 5* basketball players are focused on the pros. Not very many 4* basketball players make an NBA roster because the talent is so delineated and obvious in basketball, even at HS age. You are basically a one-and-done 5*, or you are going to be in college for the long haul with very little in between. 

There is also a difference between being "brilliant" and academically eligible. Contrary to popular belief, Stanford and NW do lower their academic admissions' standards for athletes. This article, for example, says the median Stanford ACT score for football players in 2015 was 26, which is pretty high for football players, I'm sure, but it is extremely low for an Ivy institution whose student body median is probably closer to a 32 or 33 (OSU's median for the student body is around a 29-30 as a comparison). It also means that if the median is 26, they are probably at least entertaining recruits with a 22 or 23. That's still a little above average, but not mind-blowingly brilliant, either.

[Hightop77]

Northwestern obviously has no interest in doing what you are describing.  If they wanted to do it, they would put the money together, hire a quality coach, upgrade facilities and engage in a fan outreach and promo program.  NW is content to be the "academic school" in a big name conference and has no interest in excelling in sports.

Actually, Northwestern has the most expensive practice and training facility in the B1G (that's not hyperbole):

And it is used by athletes from all sports and even students.  Maybe there are plans for football and basketball greatness I am not aware of but this facility alone is not evidence that they are looking to move up.  Chris Collins has a career losing record after 7 seasons in basketball.  They were 3-9 in 2019 in football.  In football their recruiting classes are about 50th in the country most of the time.  There is no evidence of substantial investment in the things you need to compete with the big programs.

Having the most expensive athletic training facility in the B1G is not evidence of substantial investment? Stanford also invests heavily in football (and basketball). Their recruiting classes being 50th in the country was the point of this topic. With all the advantages they have, they should be able to pull every academically eligible recruit that doesn't have a blue blood offer. My question is, why aren't they? I am sure Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Wisky, MSU, Minnesota, Iowa, etc. are pulling academically eligible players that NW is recruiting. Northwestern should be where Wisky is annually. Not able to compete with the blue bloods, but in a clear second tier with high talent 3 and 4* players. They have 3 players in the Top 600 in the country right now. Even if you assume only 15% can meet their minimum bar for admission, that's a 90 player pool.

Building a new facility is evidence of substantial investment but not substantial investment in building a better program.  I just cited their record in basketball and football.  They have not hired top level coaches or taken other measures indicating they want to have a top program because the reality is, having a top level program is not their goal.

[3rdgensooner]

Yeah it is true. The number of top recruits that can thrive or even survive at those schools is tiny. If they want to put in whole basket weaving departments to cater to those players then maybe they'll attract more. It just isn't something a recruit thinks about that much. Not the kind that make you an elite program. Those recruits do not care. Very very few take academics into consideration.

[Hightop77]

Again there are almost no top recruits with that academic ability and they are focused on the pros not academics. The few top schools that focus on an area do well. Well maybe just Duke and ND. But still there aren't a bunch of brilliant football and basketball players signing at Bama and tOSU that are 4-5 star players. The vast majority are marginal for college at all.

This is simply not true. Only 5* basketball players are focused on the pros. Not very many 4* basketball players make an NBA roster ... .

Now I know you have no idea what you are talking about.

[wydileie]

Yeah it is true. The number of top recruits that can thrive or even survive at those schools is tiny. If they want to put in whole basket weaving departments to cater to those players then maybe they'll attract more. It just isn't something a recruit thinks about that much. Not the kind that make you an elite program. Those recruits do not care. Very very few take academics into consideration.

One university isn't really harder than any other. In fact, many say Ivy's are actually easier than other universities and give a lot more leeway. It's all the same material, you don't learn anything different from University A that you don't learn at University B, with rare exceptions, like being an engineering student at MIT.

I'll give you football has a tougher hill to climb in recruiting these players, but basketball is a whole different ballgame. No player rated outside the top 50 is really expecting to make an NBA roster or make a substantial career out of playing basketball, unless they are OK going overseas, and very few of them will leave early. If you have a bunch of Top 50-200 players on your roster, you will be a consistently competitive team.

[wydileie]

Again there are almost no top recruits with that academic ability and they are focused on the pros not academics. The few top schools that focus on an area do well. Well maybe just Duke and ND. But still there aren't a bunch of brilliant football and basketball players signing at Bama and tOSU that are 4-5 star players. The vast majority are marginal for college at all.

This is simply not true. Only 5* basketball players are focused on the pros. Not very many 4* basketball players make an NBA roster ... .

Now I know you have no idea what you are talking about.

There are 25 5* players. Every year, ~10 of these are one and done players, and likely lottery picks. Then you have a handful of 5* from the previous year that took a year to settle in and grow up a little, and that makes up half the first round and most the lottery picks. Those not good enough to be lottery picks are often G league players that will sit there for a couple years to see if they will be good enough to move up. So, yes, not many 4* make NBA rosters. It certainly isn't any sort of guarantee or expectation, especially those players outside the top 50.

[Hightop77]

Again there are almost no top recruits with that academic ability and they are focused on the pros not academics. The few top schools that focus on an area do well. Well maybe just Duke and ND. But still there aren't a bunch of brilliant football and basketball players signing at Bama and tOSU that are 4-5 star players. The vast majority are marginal for college at all.

This is simply not true. Only 5* basketball players are focused on the pros. Not very many 4* basketball players make an NBA roster ... .

Now I know you have no idea what you are talking about.

There are 25 5* players. Every year, ~10 of these are one and done players, and likely lottery picks. Then you have a handful of 5* from the previous year that took a year to settle in and grow up a little, and that makes up half the first round and most the lottery picks. Those not good enough to be lottery picks are often G league players that will sit there for a couple years to see if they will be good enough to move up. So, yes, not many 4* make NBA rosters. It certainly isn't any sort of guarantee or expectation, especially those players outside the top 50.

I am strictly estimating and we can research it later but I would guess if you take the league as a whole, probably 60% of the players were 4 stars or lower.

[zigbee]

NBA is full of players from other nations and rosters are not very big.  It's really difficult to say the % of 4 and 5 star players.  Few make it to the NBA is the bottom line.


Back to NW.   Yes, they do want to win it all but they could spend the equivalent to US federal budget and still not win it all.   About all winning programs are traditional power houses in football and basketball and the momentum of that impacts recruiting and the league the team plays in.  NW would never be able to sign a Ryan Day to coach them.    I'll be surprised if you ever see a PAC 12 team ever win it all again in either of those sports.  Same with B1G in basketball.

[wydileie]

Again there are almost no top recruits with that academic ability and they are focused on the pros not academics. The few top schools that focus on an area do well. Well maybe just Duke and ND. But still there aren't a bunch of brilliant football and basketball players signing at Bama and tOSU that are 4-5 star players. The vast majority are marginal for college at all.

This is simply not true. Only 5* basketball players are focused on the pros. Not very many 4* basketball players make an NBA roster ... .

Now I know you have no idea what you are talking about.

There are 25 5* players. Every year, ~10 of these are one and done players, and likely lottery picks. Then you have a handful of 5* from the previous year that took a year to settle in and grow up a little, and that makes up half the first round and most the lottery picks. Those not good enough to be lottery picks are often G league players that will sit there for a couple years to see if they will be good enough to move up. So, yes, not many 4* make NBA rosters. It certainly isn't any sort of guarantee or expectation, especially those players outside the top 50.

I am strictly estimating and we can research it later but I would guess if you take the league as a whole, probably 60% of the players were 4 stars or lower.

Ok, letâ€s say thatâ€s true. That means there is 36 non-5*s drafted every year. There are 125 4*s and a ton of lower ranked players. Letâ€s say half those drafted never make it out of the G league. You now have 18 players a year that can make a reliable living playing in the NBA, out of the 125 4*s and countless lower ranked players. Not great odds.

[Bonebuck]

Exposure and notice ability by NFL scouts is much higher playing for Buckeyes, Tide, Clempsun etc. Yes there are many NFL players from small town schools but majority are from P5 conferences.

[Jacketbuckeye]

This Tech fan constantly ponders the same question.

[3rdgensooner]

Not saying it's necessarily a smart decision by players but the top players likely do not take academics into consideration at all. Nor do their families. And average ACT scores are probably well south of 20  on average for those players as well. Ones that can get by anything but basket weaving in your average state school are probably in the minority. Most would not be going to college period otherwise. Of those taking academics into consideration and with some academic capability maybe they will consider top schools in their decision making process. But there aren't enough of them to go around. And regardless if Stanford is actually "easier" than Kentucky for undergrads someone with a 16 on the ACT isn't going to be attracted by the school's academic rep.

[wydileie]

Not saying it's necessarily a smart decision by players but the top players likely do not take academics into consideration at all. Nor do their families. And average ACT scores are probably well south of 20  on average for those players as well. Ones that can get by anything but basket weaving in your average state school are probably in the minority. Most would not be going to college period otherwise. Of those taking academics into consideration and with some academic capability maybe they will consider top schools in their decision making process. But there aren't enough of them to go around. And regardless if Stanford is actually "easier" than Kentucky for undergrads someone with a 16 on the ACT isn't going to be attracted by the school's academic rep.

I agree the average is likely well south of 20. But, going back to the math, Northwestern only has 3 of the top 600 players of the country, currently. Even if only 15% can academically qualify, that is a player pool of 90 players in the top 600. I use Northwestern and Stanford so much, because their coaches are generally considered good, borderline great coaches. Both schools have a NFL player presence and pedigree. Both have had at least some limited success in their conference and are not total bottom feeders. Both have good facilities and great locations. Both offer a degree that is world renowned with a guaranteed interview at nearly anywhere you apply.

Just look at Northwestern's offer list. I assume they are offering people capable of academically qualifying. Some examples of mystifying decisions by recruits that have NW offers (Looking at Top 600 players):

QB:
Jake Rubley - 4* - Kansas State
Peter Costelli - 4* - Utah
Kyron Drones - 4* - Baylor

RB:
Donovan Edwards - High 4* - Likely to end up at Michigan

WR:
Joshua Burrell - High 3* - Florida State
Elijah Bean - 3* - Baylor

TE:
Thomas Fidone - 4* - Nebraska

etc.

If NW could get these quality of kids, they would probably be the odds on favorite to win the West year in and year out.

[3rdgensooner]

That's just it there aren't that many. Some will want to go to certain schools because they are fans or whatever. I have Ivy League level standardized tests. Most physicians do. But I went to ASU and OU. dkeener went to tOSU and I'm sure a guy who can secure a Duke residency as he did had Ivy League test numbers as a kid. not everyone of that caliber is thinking big academic school even the non athletes. So now you have a small pool many of whom are big Bama or tOSU fans or really like the programs so now your pool is tiny. Now you divvy that pool up between  Duke, Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, etc.. Northwestern isn't going to get enough of them and they never will. ND and Duke are outliers. Stanford too to a certain extent.

[TcSoup]

That's just it there aren't that many. Some will want to go to certain schools because they are fans or whatever. I have Ivy League level standardized tests. Most physicians do. But I went to ASU and OU. dkeener went to tOSU and I'm sure a guy who can secure a Duke residency as he did had Ivy League test numbers as a kid. not everyone of that caliber is thinking big academic school even the non athletes. So now you have a small pool many of whom are big Bama or tOSU fans or really like the programs so now your pool is tiny. Now you divvy that pool up between  Duke, Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, etc.. Northwestern isn't going to get enough of them and they never will. ND and Duke are outliers. Stanford too to a certain extent.

Duke only needs about 7-10 of those guys, Where a FB Program needs 40-50 . Much easier for Coach K. Especially with his ties to being Coach for Olympics, and USA Basketballs U18 and U19 Teams. 
Built in Feeder Programs for him to pick and choose. Personal insight and relationships with all those kids.