We have always had issues with admissions. Especially at certain positions. In FB, it makes recruiting an entire team a problem. Positions that have proven to be particularly difficult in the past have included DBs , WRs, DEs and other skill positions. We have improved in certain areas but still have not cracked WE recruiting. In BB, PG has been a particularly difficult position
I am totally convinced
- Thread starter heet75
- Start date
Well.... we can't re-write the history until some NU student invents that time machine. And the fan base would be improved by being able to recruit more, better talent. So, a lot of it does boil down to admissions.
You are likely right that we still won't get the elite, elite players. But imagine if we get more of the next crop - the 25-50th ranked players. This team actually has a lot of solid role players right now, but are missing those one or two studs that can carry a team. You increase the chances for landing one of those guys, then the team jumps to another level, which brings in more fans and it starts to spiral up instead of down.
Admissions people are professionals, and no doubt take great pride in what they do. I'm sure they spend a great deal of time dividing the potential athletes who can and want to do the work from those who can't and don't. Based on our grad rates, I'd say they do a very good job. Very few of these athletes are anywhere close to as accomplished in the classroom as the standard enrollee, yet they still all graduate.
It's mighty pompous and presumptuous of us on some random message board to assume we could jump into their role, lower the standards even further and still have a 100% grad rate.
I guess we could still blame the fan base on admissions. I mean if they made being a fan part of the admissions criteria rather than favoring exactly the opposite
I will openly admit that if we win a couple more BIG titles and maybe sniff at a final four one year, I wouldn't be too bummed out if some years we finish 4th or 5th in that graduation rate statistic.
No doubt. But it's not hard to guess they probably take little to no risks. For self preservation purposes.
We're pretty much on the same page. I like NU's approach overall as well. However, the Ivies are fairly unique in endowments in higher ed along with...
Northwestern, University of Chicago, Emory, Wash U, MIT, and Rice in the Top 20 endowments. Not a whole ton of athletic powerhouses there.
that was my point in the other thread. being able to have a perfect storm at NU is the outlier. it shows it CAN be done, but with the admissions issues it need to be expected to be the outlier
Random wild ass assumptions. Admissions is worried about taking risks to cover their back. But not worried what the president and long time chairman of the board think or want? Why self serving in one way and not the other?
I believe I called it a guess and not an assumption. Just like I'd guess the president might have the power to influence admissions more and chooses not to. Just because it's better to try to find support, instead of mandating something. Mandating does not buy you a lot of friends.
But carry on attacking me for not agreeing with you. My guesses will continue to be "wild ass assumptions" while your 300 reasons for admissions not being a problem will be... educated inferences?
We should do that (special admissions). We're not in the Ivy League, although if we were Princeton in the Big Ten, we darn well would get the recruits. Does anyone think Duke is any the worse for special admissions? This represents the cretinous attitude of the NU of the 1970's. Is a top tier basketball player with the smarts to get through NU (actually, most anyone could get through NU, it is getting in that is tough) not as good an addition to the student body as a high IQ Techie whose greatest athletic skill is operating a slide rule?
I know we do in football, but I don't know about basketball. Perhaps we need to do more.
They need to be *more* special!
After all, shouldn't such a great liberal institution be opening its doors to opportunity for disadvantaged students (oh, of course, only if they are men and play basketball and/or football *really* well! Because, you know, SPORTS FANS!!!!)?
Well...someone I'm close to who went to Duke when they were there would tell you that Duke is worse off for admitting Christian Laettner, but not for admitting Grant Hill. The challenge for admissions (and the coaching staff) is finding the latter and avoiding the former.
Same thing in basketball. We wouldn’t have a team if we did not.
Not accurate, plenty of people had a problem with it. As I said, it’s CCC’s double edge sword. Make the tourney and it’s never admissions again. We are fine. See. One year does not make a trend. 50 years makes a trend.
like i said - outliers can happen, but you have to be ok that theyre gonna be outliers and not the consistent way
We have a history of studs without supporting cast. VV, Shurna, Coble immediately come to mind. I know there are more.
Seems like things are flipped. We can find a star but have started to find some solid second and third options.
In my day, one competition NU ALWAYS how-good-looking-are-your-cheer-leaders. Recently overrun by lit majors and cellists.
Well they certainly kept their mouths shut at the time.
Heading into 2017-18, when the general vibe was that the team was a lock for a Sweet 16 appearance, nobody was saying "hang on, last year was an outlier, you can't reasonably expect them to be good two years in a row thanks to our punishing admissions standards."
same goes with football - a handfull of NFL guys over the years but a supporting cast that is less than steller sans the "outlier" "perfect storm" years. for both programs our supporting cast can't hang with the supporting cast of other schools - OR - our best guys can't hang with the other schools best guys
Never heard anything about Laettner’s academics. He stayed 4 years and that’s unheard of today for someone with his talent. Did he graduate?
I think Laettner admitted that he wasn’t always a great guy to be around at all during that time. This was a guy from a working class background. He wasn’t polished like a Grant Hill, who came from money. He had things to learn. Cocky for sure, a jerk on the court at times, absolutely. Also, as competitive of guy as you would ever see. To my knowledge, he didn’t commit any crimes or hurt anyone at Duke. Maybe they covered things up, don’t know. Polarizing, guess so. As much as he is despised, I don’t think of Laettner as Exhibit A of Knuckleheads NU would suddenly be admitting.
You know which current NU player is most disliked by opposition fans? Sure seems like Spencer. That’s because like Laettner, Pat is a competitive SOB that is a pain in the ass to play against. That’s an element NU does not have in spades. Give me a Laettner, yes please.
Last edited:
Following the men's bball team since the 80s, I don't recall ever hearing about our cheerleaders being hot. I would think, with our performing arts heritage, that we would have a better looking cheer squad. I guess the cream of the crop are out there modeling or winning the beauty pageants. I don't think a lot of lit majors and cellists would be interested in cheerleading.
He graduated as far as I know, but I think your post sort of hits a lot of the points that dovetail nicely with my feelings about admissions standards. From what I'm told, Laettner wasn't a positive campus contributor past basketball. Hill was. It had little to do with his "working class background" or Hill's comparative polish (Laettner went to Nichols School, after all). It had to do with what they did or didn't bring to the classroom and what they contributed to campus outside of athletics.
Hey maybe NU needs to also have a separate set of rules for athletes, just like their equals Duke, Vanderbilt, ND, and Stanford seem to have.
[/quote]
A few things here:
To be clear: NU does have a separate set of rules for athletes. Athletes get in with 3.0s and 20+ ACTs that wouldn’t have a prayer of getting in as regular students. So we’re talking about degrees of admissions leniency.
Stanford doesn’t belong on your list because they have the same standards as NU for athletes. They are really the only comp out there.
The only programs on that list that are appreciably better than NU is Duke basketball and Notre Dame football. Both have a rich history as an elite program that NU doesn’t have. It’s apples and oranges.
But is Duke football and Notre Dame basketball any better than NU football? I’d say NU football is definitely better than Duke football, and is at least as good as ND basketball. And NU football is better than either program at Vandy over the last 25 years or so.
I think NU hoop is the worst program among them, but I’m not convinced that lowering admission standards would guarantee any kind of success. Three years ago they had the best season in history and won a game in the tournament with the higher standards. I don’t see why they can’t do it again. I think they are on the road to doing it in the next couple years. And this time maybe they can sustain it.
I am on the enormous camp of the ones who despise him. Yet, I would have been happy to see him in white and purple.
A few things here:
To be clear: NU does have a separate set of rules for athletes. Athletes get in with 3.0s and 20+ ACTs that wouldn’t have a prayer of getting in as regular students. So we’re talking about degrees of admissions leniency.
Stanford doesn’t belong on your list because they have the same standards as NU for athletes. They are really the only comp out there.
The only programs on that list that are appreciably better than NU is Duke basketball and Notre Dame football. Both have a rich history as an elite program that NU doesn’t have. It’s apples and oranges.
But is Duke football and Notre Dame basketball any better than NU football? I’d say NU football is definitely better than Duke football, and is at least as good as ND basketball. And NU football is better than either program at Vandy over the last 25 years or so.
I think NU hoop is the worst program among them, but I’m not convinced that lowering admission standards would guarantee any kind of success. Three years ago they had the best season in history and won a game in the tournament with the higher standards. I don’t see why they can’t do it again. I think they are on the road to doing it in the next couple years. And this time maybe they can sustain it.[/QUOTE]
Maybe but I feel that most on this board would really like to see more then one NCAA appearance in their lifetime. Duke was not always a BB power and Vandy has won 3 SEC Championships and 2 post season Tournament Titles, so I would say they are historically better in BB then NU. Sure lowering admission wouldn't guarantee success but it would just about guarantee more wins and post season appearances.
Likely he could push it and then admissions says, can you guarantee that he (she) will get through and then it gets harder to continue to push
Maybe but I feel that most on this board would really like to see more then one NCAA appearance in their lifetime. Duke was not always a BB power and Vandy has won 3 SEC Championships and 2 post season Tournament Titles, so I would say they are historically better in BB then NU. Sure lowering admission wouldn't guarantee success but it would just about guarantee more wins and post season appearances.[/QUOTE]
I would say we are a ways below ND BB as well. I expect to see more NCAA appearances over my lifetime. I just don't expect something like every other year. More like one every 4-5. We have to develop rather than reload and the correct pieces need to be in place at the correct time and maybe after a little more success it comes a bit more often. For now I will be content with the idea that the pieces look to again be coming together
