Former Wiscy coach sites academic standards.....

[Aegon_Targaryen]

as a reason to why he left Wisconsin.



"CORVALLIS, Ore. -- Before Gary Andersen goes on, he wants to make one thing clear.

A part of his surprising departure from Wisconsin had to do with admission standards.

"It's been well [documented] there were some kids I couldn't get in school," the Badgers' former coach said. "That was highly frustrating to me. I lost some guys, and I told them I wasn't going to lose them.

"I think they did what they were supposed to do [academically] and they still couldn't get in. That was really hard to deal with."

Until this recent moment in Andersen's new It had been referred to, but not out loud by Anderson, as the reason he left a Top 25 Big Ten gig for a Pac-12 bottom feeder.

Now we know. Admissions was probably the reason the 50-year-old Andersen arguably caused the biggest stir of the coaching silly season."


I can understand that is frustrating at all, but if a kid is too dumb to even qualify into getting into college, I say let him play ball down south then. I've seen interviews with SEC players and you could barely understand what they were saying.

One thing I like about our players, is that they all seem well spoken and fairly intelligent, if not very intelligent.

Academic standards too much for Andersen.

 

[Hawkeye2222]

the thing that hurts the programs like Wisconsin going forward will be their higher standards and I am not talking about GPA's or test scores I am talking about the required core courses of 17 vs the SEC of 14 required core courses even O$U has the lowest of the BT members,

Rawlings when he was here set the limit at a Ivy league standard he even added that kids had to have 2 {TWO} language not related to English to get in., how many HS's do you know of that offers 1 let alone 2 foreign languages. he is now a President {last I knew} at a Ivy league school,

having a minimum GPA and a minimum score on the ACT or SAT is not a problem its the requirement of the core courses that are the problem

 

[theIowaHawk]

I can certainly understand the difficulty and frustration for coaches. Their stated position is to teach and grow student-athletes of a university. Education is #1.

Except to just about everyone else. Do things the "right" way, graduate your kids, improve them as men.....but lose? Fired.

 

[Hawkeye2222]

BT schools emphasis academics 1st but you let them lose and its a no excuse policy and you get fired, they want both. this why teams like IA, NW and a others will only get to the top on that rare occasion. the fans will just have to live and accept that fact,

 

[mvhomerj]

Yes, we must accept the fact that ISU is better than Uof I. That, and we struggle against MAC teams.

 

[GarryO37]

I guess this squashes the notion that that some on here have stated, "If you pass the NCAA clearing house, you get in at Wisconsin".

This doesn't hurt Wisconsin going forward, because this has always been the standard there and they have excelled athletically. Don't give me the that crap that this is why Iowa will only rise to the top every once in a while Kilroy.

Iowa and NW aren't even in the same building when it comes to academics. Heck, Iowa and Wisconsin aren't even in the same building academically. So what is your excuse now Kilroy?

 

[IamHawkeye]

I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:
I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

You probably read that here. It is an oft-repeated legend that simply isn't true, and is regularly debunked.

The standards are the same. They are set by the Regents. The individual schools have latitude to reject students who meet the standards.

There has been some confusion lately about what percentage of lower-scoring applicants the schools admit, because it turned out that Iowa was using a different method of determining that information. The Regents asked Iowa to change to a more accurate method, although the Regents did not mandate using the same methods UNI and ISU have been using.

Sometimes one of the schools will admit a student that another of the schools would not. It could be because the student has a special skill or cultural background that the school thinks would be a plus. But the basic admission standards are identical.

 

[fecal particulate]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:
I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

You probably read that here. It is an oft-repeated legend that simply isn't true, and is regularly debunked.

The standards are the same. They are set by the Regents. The individual schools have latitude to reject students who meet the standards.

There has been some confusion lately about what percentage of lower-scoring applicants the schools admit, because it turned out that Iowa was using a different method of determining that information. The Regents asked Iowa to change to a more accurate method, although the Regents did not mandate using the same methods UNI and ISU have been using.

Sometimes one of the schools will admit a student that another of the schools would not. It could be because the student has a special skill or cultural background that the school thinks would be a plus. But the basic admission standards are identical.

The Davis brothers. What was their skill beyond running?

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by fecal particulate:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:
I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

You probably read that here. It is an oft-repeated legend that simply isn't true, and is regularly debunked.

The standards are the same. They are set by the Regents. The individual schools have latitude to reject students who meet the standards.

There has been some confusion lately about what percentage of lower-scoring applicants the schools admit, because it turned out that Iowa was using a different method of determining that information. The Regents asked Iowa to change to a more accurate method, although the Regents did not mandate using the same methods UNI and ISU have been using.

Sometimes one of the schools will admit a student that another of the schools would not. It could be because the student has a special skill or cultural background that the school thinks would be a plus. But the basic admission standards are identical.

The Davis brothers. What was their skill beyond running?

That would have been about it. Which is eminently clear from what I wrote. They both, for the record, were full qualifiers under NCAA rules. I doubt like hell that Joe Prep, a non-athletic white guy from, say, Moline, would have been admitted to ISU with the same academic credentials Troy and Darren had. But they weren't Joe Prep.

Would Iowa have admitted them? Hard to say. Iowa was pretty loaded at the time. COULD Iowa have admitted them? Absolutely.

FWIW, Troy had offers from tOSU and all three Florida schools. They offered late, after he qualified (took the ACT a second time).

 

[:Homercles:]

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:
as a reason to why he left Wisconsin.



"CORVALLIS, Ore. -- Before Gary Andersen goes on, he wants to make one thing clear.

A part of his surprising departure from Wisconsin had to do with admission standards.

"It's been well [documented] there were some kids I couldn't get in school," the Badgers' former coach said. "That was highly frustrating to me. I lost some guys, and I told them I wasn't going to lose them.

"I think they did what they were supposed to do [academically] and they still couldn't get in. That was really hard to deal with."

Until this recent moment in Andersen's new It had been referred to, but not out loud by Anderson, as the reason he left a Top 25 Big Ten gig for a Pac-12 bottom feeder.

Now we know. Admissions was probably the reason the 50-year-old Andersen arguably caused the biggest stir of the coaching silly season."


I can understand that is frustrating at all, but if a kid is too dumb to even qualify into getting into college, I say let him play ball down south then. I've seen interviews with SEC players and you could barely understand what they were saying.

One thing I like about our players, is that they all seem well spoken and fairly intelligent, if not very intelligent.

The entrance requirements to UW are incredibly stringent. I know of many people who were life-long, Wisconsin residents, having scored 27,28 on their ACTs who were denied admission. I can completely understand why Andersen found recruiting to Wisconsin frustrating.

 

[IamHawkeye]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:
I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

You probably read that here. It is an oft-repeated legend that simply isn't true, and is regularly debunked.

The standards are the same. They are set by the Regents. The individual schools have latitude to reject students who meet the standards.

There has been some confusion lately about what percentage of lower-scoring applicants the schools admit, because it turned out that Iowa was using a different method of determining that information. The Regents asked Iowa to change to a more accurate method, although the Regents did not mandate using the same methods UNI and ISU have been using.

Sometimes one of the schools will admit a student that another of the schools would not. It could be because the student has a special skill or cultural background that the school thinks would be a plus. But the basic admission standards are identical.

I read this in one of the articles are Iowa needing to have more Iowa kids due to the Regents new rules about percentage of all students being Iowa kids affecting the money got from the state.. I will believe it until it is debunked officially. I'm sure both schools have ways to enroll athletes.

This post was edited on 1/24 9:31 PM by IamHawkeye

 

[Slappy Pappy]

Yes, standards are what have been keeping Connie down all these years. With the standards they have had in place for many years still in effect, they can't possibly be competitive in the B10.

*chortle*

 

[PinkLockerRoom]

If you recall, Podolak has been saying for years that our admission standards are hurting our recruiting. If anyone would know he would. I don't think it's a well kept secret.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:
I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

You probably read that here. It is an oft-repeated legend that simply isn't true, and is regularly debunked.

The standards are the same. They are set by the Regents. The individual schools have latitude to reject students who meet the standards.

There has been some confusion lately about what percentage of lower-scoring applicants the schools admit, because it turned out that Iowa was using a different method of determining that information. The Regents asked Iowa to change to a more accurate method, although the Regents did not mandate using the same methods UNI and ISU have been using.

Sometimes one of the schools will admit a student that another of the schools would not. It could be because the student has a special skill or cultural background that the school thinks would be a plus. But the basic admission standards are identical.

All 3 public universities use the Regent Admission Index. Scoring a 245 qualifies you. The RAI is based on GPA, ACT, core classes and college credit. The core classes for admission at the regent universities are basically the same with a few minor differences depending on what college you applying to be admitted into it.

 

[cidhawkeye]

Did we ever get an apples to apples comparison as to who admits more students that are exceptions to those standards? Interesting to see what that showed. You know because the standards are the same at each school it should be almost identical. I just don't recall it being that way.

 

[epicbret]

OP must have gone to UW. Should not be talking smack...

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:
I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

You probably read that here. It is an oft-repeated legend that simply isn't true, and is regularly debunked.

The standards are the same. They are set by the Regents. The individual schools have latitude to reject students who meet the standards.

There has been some confusion lately about what percentage of lower-scoring applicants the schools admit, because it turned out that Iowa was using a different method of determining that information. The Regents asked Iowa to change to a more accurate method, although the Regents did not mandate using the same methods UNI and ISU have been using.

Sometimes one of the schools will admit a student that another of the schools would not. It could be because the student has a special skill or cultural background that the school thinks would be a plus. But the basic admission standards are identical.

I read this in one of the articles are Iowa needing to have more Iowa kids due to the Regents new rules about percentage of all students being Iowa kids affecting the money got from the state.. I will believe it until it is debunked officially. I'm sure both schools have ways to enroll athletes.

This post was edited on 1/24 9:31 PM by IamHawkeye

I think you probably misunderstood the story, or the story was incorrect.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by cidhawkeye:
Did we ever get an apples to apples comparison as to who admits more students that are exceptions to those standards? Interesting to see what that showed. You know because the standards are the same at each school it should be almost identical. I just don't recall it being that way.

No. There was such a comparison, but then it was found that Iowa used a different standard than the other two schools to determine what admissions are exceptions. The Regents directed Iowa to alter its methodology.

I am not suggesting Iowa was "wrong" or that a revised method will make it look different. For all I know, a revised method may reveal that Iowa admits even fewer marginal students than the first method showed.

But no, there is no apples-to-apples data available at this point.

 

[Kinnick4Ever]

Back the point of the main post ... that Anderson left UW because of admissions standards. This--after all the success Wisconsin has enjoyed under him and his two predecessors--makes me doubt this was the whole reason. I'm more inclined to think Alvarez's personality was part of the issue--maybe a big part. Two successful coaches have now left abruptly under his watch.

 

[bagdropper]

Originally posted by Kinnick4Ever:
Back the point of the main post ... that Anderson left UW because of admissions standards. This--after all the success Wisconsin has enjoyed under him and his two predecessors--makes me doubt this was the whole reason. I'm more inclined to think Alvarez's personality was part of the issue--maybe a big part. Two successful coaches have now left abruptly under his watch.

I bet many reasons are in play. Wanted to get closer to "home", academic standards, lifestyle, Alvarez, climate...no Gordon on next year's team, saw the depth chart going forward etc...

Those last two I think are bigger than anybody here knows. I'll keep saying it...their offense this year was Gordon and precious little else. And given he's moaning about academics, I'm betting he wasn't getting the players he wanted most for his system - which means they were gonna probably drop big time the next couple years. I think Cryst has got his hands full, and we don't know yet whether he can build it back up.

And a lot of these reasons are why I think Riley is a horrific fit with Nebraska also. The best thing that possibly might have happened to Iowa football the next few years was Pelini getting fired and Anderson runnin' home to momma.

 

[5Fan5]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:
I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

You probably read that here. It is an oft-repeated legend that simply isn't true, and is regularly debunked.

The standards are the same. They are set by the Regents. The individual schools have latitude to reject students who meet the standards.

There has been some confusion lately about what percentage of lower-scoring applicants the schools admit, because it turned out that Iowa was using a different method of determining that information. The Regents asked Iowa to change to a more accurate method, although the Regents did not mandate using the same methods UNI and ISU have been using.

Sometimes one of the schools will admit a student that another of the schools would not. It could be because the student has a special skill or cultural background that the school thinks would be a plus. But the basic admission standards are identical.

Why stop here? Isn't there more to this story?

If, as you erroneously believe, all three of Iowa, UNI and isu are on exactly the same playing field when it comes to student-athlete admissions, should that not carry over into actual classroom achievement/performance? Why then, when looking at say academic progress rates (APR) for each of those three institutions, one is unique in that it never has scores that equal or exceed the other two? Through now at least ten years of reporting and data, only one Iowa institution of higher learning consistently is numero three in the order for football and men's basketball. Why is that if isu is recruiting the same level of student-athlete as Iowa and UNI?

Now, take a look at the big xii versus nearly any other of the 'Power 5' conferences and tell me what you see.

 

[Slappy Pappy]

^ Yeah, good point. Does anyone still have a link to that study that shows that ISU has the lowest graduation rates for African-American athletes in the whole country? Seems the most on-topic point as far as admittance standards go.

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by 5Fan5:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:
I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

You probably read that here. It is an oft-repeated legend that simply isn't true, and is regularly debunked.

The standards are the same. They are set by the Regents. The individual schools have latitude to reject students who meet the standards.

There has been some confusion lately about what percentage of lower-scoring applicants the schools admit, because it turned out that Iowa was using a different method of determining that information. The Regents asked Iowa to change to a more accurate method, although the Regents did not mandate using the same methods UNI and ISU have been using.

Sometimes one of the schools will admit a student that another of the schools would not. It could be because the student has a special skill or cultural background that the school thinks would be a plus. But the basic admission standards are identical.

Why stop here? Isn't there more to this story?

If, as you erroneously believe, all three of Iowa, UNI and isu are on exactly the same playing field when it comes to student-athlete admissions, should that not carry over into actual classroom achievement/performance? Why then, when looking at say academic progress rates (APR) for each of those three institutions, one is unique in that it never has scores that equal or exceed the other two? Through now at least ten years of reporting and data, only one Iowa institution of higher learning consistently is numero three in the order for football and men's basketball. Why is that if isu is recruiting the same level of student-athlete as Iowa and UNI?

Now, take a look at the big xii versus nearly any other of the 'Power 5' conferences and tell me what you see.

That is a stretch, even for you, 5. The APR is more than classroom grades.

So did the self-proclaimed consummate Hawkeye fan that you claim to be miss the wbb game or were you able to scurry over before tip off?

 

[5Fan5]

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by 5Fan5:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:
I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

You probably read that here. It is an oft-repeated legend that simply isn't true, and is regularly debunked.

The standards are the same. They are set by the Regents. The individual schools have latitude to reject students who meet the standards.

There has been some confusion lately about what percentage of lower-scoring applicants the schools admit, because it turned out that Iowa was using a different method of determining that information. The Regents asked Iowa to change to a more accurate method, although the Regents did not mandate using the same methods UNI and ISU have been using.

Sometimes one of the schools will admit a student that another of the schools would not. It could be because the student has a special skill or cultural background that the school thinks would be a plus. But the basic admission standards are identical.

Why stop here? Isn't there more to this story?

If, as you erroneously believe, all three of Iowa, UNI and isu are on exactly the same playing field when it comes to student-athlete admissions, should that not carry over into actual classroom achievement/performance? Why then, when looking at say academic progress rates (APR) for each of those three institutions, one is unique in that it never has scores that equal or exceed the other two? Through now at least ten years of reporting and data, only one Iowa institution of higher learning consistently is numero three in the order for football and men's basketball. Why is that if isu is recruiting the same level of student-athlete as Iowa and UNI?

Now, take a look at the big xii versus nearly any other of the 'Power 5' conferences and tell me what you see.

That is a stretch, even for you, 5. The APR is more than classroom grades.

So did the self-proclaimed consummate Hawkeye fan that you claim to be miss the wbb game or were you able to scurry over before tip off?

Not a stretch at all, Pretender. The APR measures retention and eligibility for student-athletes at each institution. The APR is not tailored to favor any one school over another. After all, it is 'Academic Progress' that is the focus of the measure.

So, now answer the question. If all three of Iowa, UNI and isu admit students according to the exact same standards, why is it that one school has maintained the lowest APR every year for ten years running in football and men's basketball?

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by 5Fan5:

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by 5Fan5:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:
I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

You probably read that here. It is an oft-repeated legend that simply isn't true, and is regularly debunked.

The standards are the same. They are set by the Regents. The individual schools have latitude to reject students who meet the standards.

There has been some confusion lately about what percentage of lower-scoring applicants the schools admit, because it turned out that Iowa was using a different method of determining that information. The Regents asked Iowa to change to a more accurate method, although the Regents did not mandate using the same methods UNI and ISU have been using.

Sometimes one of the schools will admit a student that another of the schools would not. It could be because the student has a special skill or cultural background that the school thinks would be a plus. But the basic admission standards are identical.

Why stop here? Isn't there more to this story?

If, as you erroneously believe, all three of Iowa, UNI and isu are on exactly the same playing field when it comes to student-athlete admissions, should that not carry over into actual classroom achievement/performance? Why then, when looking at say academic progress rates (APR) for each of those three institutions, one is unique in that it never has scores that equal or exceed the other two? Through now at least ten years of reporting and data, only one Iowa institution of higher learning consistently is numero three in the order for football and men's basketball. Why is that if isu is recruiting the same level of student-athlete as Iowa and UNI?

Now, take a look at the big xii versus nearly any other of the 'Power 5' conferences and tell me what you see.

That is a stretch, even for you, 5. The APR is more than classroom grades.

So did the self-proclaimed consummate Hawkeye fan that you claim to be miss the wbb game or were you able to scurry over before tip off?

Not a stretch at all, Pretender. The APR measures retention and eligibility for student-athletes at each institution. The APR is not tailored to favor any one school over another. After all, it is 'Academic Progress' that is the focus of the measure.

So, now answer the question. If all three of Iowa, UNI and isu admit students according to the exact same standards, why is it that one school has maintained the lowest APR every year for ten years running in football and men's basketball?

Players transferring when coaches leave, players leaving early for draft. APR has nothing to do with admission standards.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by 5Fan5:

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by 5Fan5:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:
I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

You probably read that here. It is an oft-repeated legend that simply isn't true, and is regularly debunked.

The standards are the same. They are set by the Regents. The individual schools have latitude to reject students who meet the standards.

There has been some confusion lately about what percentage of lower-scoring applicants the schools admit, because it turned out that Iowa was using a different method of determining that information. The Regents asked Iowa to change to a more accurate method, although the Regents did not mandate using the same methods UNI and ISU have been using.

Sometimes one of the schools will admit a student that another of the schools would not. It could be because the student has a special skill or cultural background that the school thinks would be a plus. But the basic admission standards are identical.

Why stop here? Isn't there more to this story?

If, as you erroneously believe, all three of Iowa, UNI and isu are on exactly the same playing field when it comes to student-athlete admissions, should that not carry over into actual classroom achievement/performance? Why then, when looking at say academic progress rates (APR) for each of those three institutions, one is unique in that it never has scores that equal or exceed the other two? Through now at least ten years of reporting and data, only one Iowa institution of higher learning consistently is numero three in the order for football and men's basketball. Why is that if isu is recruiting the same level of student-athlete as Iowa and UNI?

Now, take a look at the big xii versus nearly any other of the 'Power 5' conferences and tell me what you see.

That is a stretch, even for you, 5. The APR is more than classroom grades.

So did the self-proclaimed consummate Hawkeye fan that you claim to be miss the wbb game or were you able to scurry over before tip off?

Not a stretch at all, Pretender. The APR measures retention and eligibility for student-athletes at each institution. The APR is not tailored to favor any one school over another. After all, it is 'Academic Progress' that is the focus of the measure.

So, now answer the question. If all three of Iowa, UNI and isu admit students according to the exact same standards, why is it that one school has maintained the lowest APR every year for ten years running in football and men's basketball?

Players transferring when coaches leave, players leaving early for draft. APR has nothing to do with admission standards.

The obvious answer is that the course work at ISU is more difficult. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

 

[IamHawkeye]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:
I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

You probably read that here. It is an oft-repeated legend that simply isn't true, and is regularly debunked.

The standards are the same. They are set by the Regents. The individual schools have latitude to reject students who meet the standards.

There has been some confusion lately about what percentage of lower-scoring applicants the schools admit, because it turned out that Iowa was using a different method of determining that information. The Regents asked Iowa to change to a more accurate method, although the Regents did not mandate using the same methods UNI and ISU have been using.

Sometimes one of the schools will admit a student that another of the schools would not. It could be because the student has a special skill or cultural background that the school thinks would be a plus. But the basic admission standards are identical.

I read this in one of the articles are Iowa needing to have more Iowa kids due to the Regents new rules about percentage of all students being Iowa kids affecting the money got from the state.. I will believe it until it is debunked officially. I'm sure both schools have ways to enroll athletes.

This post was edited on 1/24 9:31 PM by IamHawkeye

I think you probably misunderstood the story, or the story was incorrect.

No misunderstanding the article (not a story). And the reporter was using info from the UI. My bad for not having the article right in front of me.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:
I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

You probably read that here. It is an oft-repeated legend that simply isn't true, and is regularly debunked.

The standards are the same. They are set by the Regents. The individual schools have latitude to reject students who meet the standards.

There has been some confusion lately about what percentage of lower-scoring applicants the schools admit, because it turned out that Iowa was using a different method of determining that information. The Regents asked Iowa to change to a more accurate method, although the Regents did not mandate using the same methods UNI and ISU have been using.

Sometimes one of the schools will admit a student that another of the schools would not. It could be because the student has a special skill or cultural background that the school thinks would be a plus. But the basic admission standards are identical.

I read this in one of the articles are Iowa needing to have more Iowa kids due to the Regents new rules about percentage of all students being Iowa kids affecting the money got from the state.. I will believe it until it is debunked officially. I'm sure both schools have ways to enroll athletes.

This post was edited on 1/24 9:31 PM by IamHawkeye

I think you probably misunderstood the story, or the story was incorrect.

No misunderstanding the article (not a story). And the reporter was using info from the UI. My bad for not having the article right in front of me. I
========
In newspaperspeak, an article is a story.

If it said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three, it was wrong in terms of what the Regents dictate. If it said Iowa takes in relatively fewer applicants who are below the Regents guideline, it was probably accurately representing figures from the U of I, but a subsequent story pointed out that Iowa uses a different method of determining that, so the comparison isn't necessarily valid.

Incidentally, if the Des Moines facility can be counted as part of the U of I, then it will be a big boost in terms of the funding formula because a high percentage of students there are native Iowans. On the "down" side, it probably will increase the percentage of students who do not meet the Regents guideline.

 

[5Fan5]

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by 5Fan5:

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by 5Fan5:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:
I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

You probably read that here. It is an oft-repeated legend that simply isn't true, and is regularly debunked.

The standards are the same. They are set by the Regents. The individual schools have latitude to reject students who meet the standards.

There has been some confusion lately about what percentage of lower-scoring applicants the schools admit, because it turned out that Iowa was using a different method of determining that information. The Regents asked Iowa to change to a more accurate method, although the Regents did not mandate using the same methods UNI and ISU have been using.

Sometimes one of the schools will admit a student that another of the schools would not. It could be because the student has a special skill or cultural background that the school thinks would be a plus. But the basic admission standards are identical.

Why stop here? Isn't there more to this story?

If, as you erroneously believe, all three of Iowa, UNI and isu are on exactly the same playing field when it comes to student-athlete admissions, should that not carry over into actual classroom achievement/performance? Why then, when looking at say academic progress rates (APR) for each of those three institutions, one is unique in that it never has scores that equal or exceed the other two? Through now at least ten years of reporting and data, only one Iowa institution of higher learning consistently is numero three in the order for football and men's basketball. Why is that if isu is recruiting the same level of student-athlete as Iowa and UNI?

Now, take a look at the big xii versus nearly any other of the 'Power 5' conferences and tell me what you see.

That is a stretch, even for you, 5. The APR is more than classroom grades.

So did the self-proclaimed consummate Hawkeye fan that you claim to be miss the wbb game or were you able to scurry over before tip off?

Not a stretch at all, Pretender. The APR measures retention and eligibility for student-athletes at each institution. The APR is not tailored to favor any one school over another. After all, it is 'Academic Progress' that is the focus of the measure.

So, now answer the question. If all three of Iowa, UNI and isu admit students according to the exact same standards, why is it that one school has maintained the lowest APR every year for ten years running in football and men's basketball?

Players transferring when coaches leave, players leaving early for draft. APR has nothing to do with admission standards.

Only because you are now futilely trying to use transferring of students to once again argue against anything Iowa in another thread elsewhere on this topic, let's continue down this path....

Tell me/us more about all of the transfers from isu (mostly we have been hearing how the basketball program is thriving due to an import of transfers, not players leaving!)

Even better yet, tell me/us how many players from isu have 'left early for the draft'. In football, for example, do you think that it exceeds the number of players from Iowa and/or UNI that may have left early for the draft?

Now, since your obtuse answer has been debunked, try again to explain why it is that isu, among the three state supported institutions always has had the lowest APR in both football and men's basketball.

(No, LC, it is not because isu coursework is more difficult. Very sorry to have to be the one to tell you that.)

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by 5Fan5:

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by 5Fan5:

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by 5Fan5:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:
I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

You probably read that here. It is an oft-repeated legend that simply isn't true, and is regularly debunked.

The standards are the same. They are set by the Regents. The individual schools have latitude to reject students who meet the standards.

There has been some confusion lately about what percentage of lower-scoring applicants the schools admit, because it turned out that Iowa was using a different method of determining that information. The Regents asked Iowa to change to a more accurate method, although the Regents did not mandate using the same methods UNI and ISU have been using.

Sometimes one of the schools will admit a student that another of the schools would not. It could be because the student has a special skill or cultural background that the school thinks would be a plus. But the basic admission standards are identical.

Why stop here? Isn't there more to this story?

If, as you erroneously believe, all three of Iowa, UNI and isu are on exactly the same playing field when it comes to student-athlete admissions, should that not carry over into actual classroom achievement/performance? Why then, when looking at say academic progress rates (APR) for each of those three institutions, one is unique in that it never has scores that equal or exceed the other two? Through now at least ten years of reporting and data, only one Iowa institution of higher learning consistently is numero three in the order for football and men's basketball. Why is that if isu is recruiting the same level of student-athlete as Iowa and UNI?

Now, take a look at the big xii versus nearly any other of the 'Power 5' conferences and tell me what you see.

That is a stretch, even for you, 5. The APR is more than classroom grades.

So did the self-proclaimed consummate Hawkeye fan that you claim to be miss the wbb game or were you able to scurry over before tip off?

Not a stretch at all, Pretender. The APR measures retention and eligibility for student-athletes at each institution. The APR is not tailored to favor any one school over another. After all, it is 'Academic Progress' that is the focus of the measure.

So, now answer the question. If all three of Iowa, UNI and isu admit students according to the exact same standards, why is it that one school has maintained the lowest APR every year for ten years running in football and men's basketball?

Players transferring when coaches leave, players leaving early for draft. APR has nothing to do with admission standards.

Only because you are now futilely trying to use transferring of students to once again argue against anything Iowa in another thread elsewhere on this topic, let's continue down this path....

Tell me/us more about all of the transfers from isu (mostly we have been hearing how the basketball program is thriving due to an import of transfers, not players leaving!)

Even better yet, tell me/us how many players from isu have 'left early for the draft'. In football, for example, do you think that it exceeds the number of players from Iowa and/or UNI that may have left early for the draft?

Now, since your obtuse answer has been debunked, try again to explain why it is that isu, among the three state supported institutions always has had the lowest APR in both football and men's basketball.

(No, LC, it is not because isu coursework is more difficult. Very sorry to have to be the one to tell you that.)

Short memory? I seem to recall a large # of bb players leaving ISU after Morgan was fired. Isn't that why Hoiberg originally turned to transfers. And my statement is a general statement about what affects APR. The APR has NOTHING to do with admission standards.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by 5Fan5:

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by 5Fan5:

Originally posted by FG86:

Originally posted by 5Fan5:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by IamHawkeye:
I read a story on Iowa that said Iowa's entrance standards are the highest of the three state U's and that said requirement will not be changed. I don't bring this up with reference to Wisky, but with reference to recent posts are ISU and Iowa mainly.

You probably read that here. It is an oft-repeated legend that simply isn't true, and is regularly debunked.

The standards are the same. They are set by the Regents. The individual schools have latitude to reject students who meet the standards.

There has been some confusion lately about what percentage of lower-scoring applicants the schools admit, because it turned out that Iowa was using a different method of determining that information. The Regents asked Iowa to change to a more accurate method, although the Regents did not mandate using the same methods UNI and ISU have been using.

Sometimes one of the schools will admit a student that another of the schools would not. It could be because the student has a special skill or cultural background that the school thinks would be a plus. But the basic admission standards are identical.

Why stop here? Isn't there more to this story?

If, as you erroneously believe, all three of Iowa, UNI and isu are on exactly the same playing field when it comes to student-athlete admissions, should that not carry over into actual classroom achievement/performance? Why then, when looking at say academic progress rates (APR) for each of those three institutions, one is unique in that it never has scores that equal or exceed the other two? Through now at least ten years of reporting and data, only one Iowa institution of higher learning consistently is numero three in the order for football and men's basketball. Why is that if isu is recruiting the same level of student-athlete as Iowa and UNI?

Now, take a look at the big xii versus nearly any other of the 'Power 5' conferences and tell me what you see.

That is a stretch, even for you, 5. The APR is more than classroom grades.

So did the self-proclaimed consummate Hawkeye fan that you claim to be miss the wbb game or were you able to scurry over before tip off?

Not a stretch at all, Pretender. The APR measures retention and eligibility for student-athletes at each institution. The APR is not tailored to favor any one school over another. After all, it is 'Academic Progress' that is the focus of the measure.

So, now answer the question. If all three of Iowa, UNI and isu admit students according to the exact same standards, why is it that one school has maintained the lowest APR every year for ten years running in football and men's basketball?

Players transferring when coaches leave, players leaving early for draft. APR has nothing to do with admission standards.

Only because you are now futilely trying to use transferring of students to once again argue against anything Iowa in another thread elsewhere on this topic, let's continue down this path....

Tell me/us more about all of the transfers from isu (mostly we have been hearing how the basketball program is thriving due to an import of transfers, not players leaving!)

Even better yet, tell me/us how many players from isu have 'left early for the draft'. In football, for example, do you think that it exceeds the number of players from Iowa and/or UNI that may have left early for the draft?

Now, since your obtuse answer has been debunked, try again to explain why it is that isu, among the three state supported institutions always has had the lowest APR in both football and men's basketball.

(No, LC, it is not because isu coursework is more difficult. Very sorry to have to be the one to tell you that.)

Short memory? I seem to recall a large # of bb players leaving ISU after Morgan was fired. Isn't that why Hoiberg originally turned to transfers. And my statement is a general statement about what affects APR. The APR has NOTHING to do with admission standards.

Several players left when Morgan was replaced by McDermott, and then McDermott lost a lot of players on his own. When Fred was hired there were only 3 scholarship players on the team.

 

[cidhawkeye]

Couple of things, Fred should have been there long enough that his APR should start to be all his in the next year or so and APR doesn't have anything to do with admission standards BUT admission standards do have something to do with APR, in the sense that if each school admits similar students using the same standards the results statisticly should be similar barring any other forces ex Morgan and McDermott. So football APR should be similar at each of the schools and basketball should be getting level.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by cidhawkeye:
Couple of things, Fred should have been there long enough that his APR should start to be all his in the next year or so and APR doesn't have anything to do with admission standards BUT admission standards do have something to do with APR, in the sense that if each school admits similar students using the same standards the results statisticly should be similar barring any other forces ex Morgan and McDermott. So football APR should be similar at each of the schools and basketball should be getting level.

The APR gives students 6 years to graduate. Another problem with it is that if a kid transfers and graduates from the new school, it doesn't count.

Unless the formula has changed (or I misunderstand it), if Uthoff graduates on time from Iowa, he won't count for Iowa's APR one way or another, and he would count against Wisconsin's APR.

As for your statement about the results being the same barring other forces....well, yes, but kidding aside, one of those forces, big-time, is the difficulty of the courses the student-athlete takes. If two applicants with the same test results go to college, the one who goes to Oklahoma is more likely to graduate on time than the one who goes to Harvard.

 

[FG86]

Originally posted by cidhawkeye:
Couple of things, Fred should have been there long enough that his APR should start to be all his in the next year or so and APR doesn't have anything to do with admission standards BUT admission standards do have something to do with APR, in the sense that if each school admits similar students using the same standards the results statisticly should be similar barring any other forces ex Morgan and McDermott. So football APR should be similar at each of the schools and basketball should be getting level.

Look at the APR rates. They have gone up with Fred's players.

Based on your theory, every school should have high APRs because every student-athlete has to pass the NCAA clearinghouse. It has nothing to do with admission standards. We all know what happens when kids go to college. Add on to that if you are a student-athlete learning to balance travel, games and studying. Then kids transfer, leave early, etc. ISU could recruit all 4.0 students and we would all agree that would be an outstanding student. But things happen. Too many variables