|
Post by realism on Apr 23, 2018 14:57:17 GMT -5
You just don't get how massive an overhaul was needed. You think this all gets done in a measly 4 years....after 30-35 years of TOTAL neglect ? You think we're all caught up ? NOT EVEN CLOSE !!! IMO, we're maybe HALF WAY in the process at this moment TO JUST BEING CONSISTANTLY COMPETITIVE ANNUALLY ! .............. BTW, how long before you same people throw Chesney under the bus, eh ? 2 years....3 years ? BULLETIN for you....he'll need a minimum of 4 years, got it ? In case you've missed it, he inherited a cultural and operational mess. Regardless of the actual # of "years of total neglect," rickii's logic begs the question on how we best brace ourselves for the performance in the early years of the Chesney regime ? For context, I'd argue that the big time fb scheduling upticks in 2018-19 is consistent with ADNP's "strength:" marketing allusions externally and internally. The internal marketing might also be dubbed "playing the H.C. alumni/community for fools," desperate for symbols that institutional pride and external respect has been restored. Up-scheduling may in and of itself be a good thing. But, within the 4 and a half years of Pine overseeing the fb program "renaissance," there have been no tangible performance benchmarks reached. Benchmarks that would be consistent with this enormous uptick in competition that ADNP engineered in his first year at the helm ? ( ADNP is a master of buying time--a dangerous game in rickii's scenario ) I agree with rickii that getting to "respectable" is a very looooong road from here for H.C.. Here's a small concession-- there MIGHT be opportunities for the knowledgeable students of the fb game among us to discern crumbs of progress beneath the surface in the early years of the Chesney regime. But, for the majority of Crossrports posters reliant solely on game scores and season records-- strap up for two bloody fb seasons immediately ahead. ADNP's H.C. legacy: his marketing acumen and shrewd ability to sequence the component steps of his pertfotmance enhancement straregy..
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 23, 2018 16:45:07 GMT -5
Under the rubric of the AI, many things are possible.
The average AI score of all recruited athletes has to be within one standard deviation of the school-wide AI. Thus,
1.) A recruited athlete with an AI score that is two standard deviations below the school-wide AI, can be admitted if an offset can be found, i.e., the offset being a recruited athlete whose AI score corresponds to the school-wide AI, or the AI is higher than the schoolwide AI; i.e., a manna from heaven recruit.) If no offset is found for this candidate, he/she is not admitted.
2.) A recruited athlete has an AI score that is one standard deviation below the schoolwide AI, but the school has admitted a recruited athlete with an AI that is two standard deviations below the schoolwide AI and the school desperately needs a recruited athlete whose AI is at the schoolwide AI, thus providing the offset. A recruited student with an AI that is one standard deviation below does not provide the offset.
IMO, if a recruited athlete has an AI score that corresponds to the schoolwide AI, and said athlete is not admitted, the real reason for a rejection is that HC is either unwilling to offer sufficient financial aid, or the position has already been recruited. So blame Ann.
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Apr 23, 2018 17:06:54 GMT -5
If NP had hired Lee Hull as coach 87 wouldn't have staahted dis absurd thread dat we've seen from him and a few others a dozen times.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Apr 24, 2018 11:20:12 GMT -5
Under the rubric of the AI, many things are possible. The average AI score of all recruited athletes has to be within one standard deviation of the school-wide AI. Thus, 1.) A recruited athlete with an AI score that is two standard deviations below the school-wide AI, can be admitted if an offset can be found, i.e., the offset being a recruited athlete whose AI score corresponds to the school-wide AI, or the AI is higher than the schoolwide AI; i.e., a manna from heaven recruit.) If no offset is found for this candidate, he/she is not admitted. 2.) A recruited athlete has an AI score that is one standard deviation below the schoolwide AI, but the school has admitted a recruited athlete with an AI that is two standard deviations below the schoolwide AI and the school desperately needs a recruited athlete whose AI is at the schoolwide AI, thus providing the offset. A recruited student with an AI that is one standard deviation below does not provide the offset. IMO, if a recruited athlete has an AI score that corresponds to the schoolwide AI, and said athlete is not admitted, the real reason for a rejection is that HC is either unwilling to offer sufficient financial aid, or the position has already been recruited. So blame Ann. I'm almost positive that's not how it works. Any admit/reject decision is made independently of financial aid. After a student is admitted, a financial aid package is made. If the student doesn't think the financial aid is sufficient, that student can choose to go elsewhere, but that student is still admitted. If a recruited athlete who corresponds to the schoolwide AI, but doesn't get in, the reason has nothing to do with sufficient financial aid
|
|
|
Post by crusader12 on Apr 24, 2018 11:44:31 GMT -5
How's the turnpike trophy working out? Since the start HC is 9-55!!!!!!! And will only get worse the rest of the year. Stop this madness right now.
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Apr 24, 2018 12:03:42 GMT -5
Also, as far as recruited athletes we don't have any data indicating the number or % of HC student athletes who did not get admitted to other PL/ IVY schools but were accepted to HC. Might their be some? I first heard these tales of student athletes getting admitted to IVY or other top quality schools but refused admission to HC 50+ years ago back in the 60's. I guess some things never change. Draw your own conclusions.. Lafayette, Colgate, and Bucknell - as well as HC - have their stories about athletes who were admitted at one of the other schools and not admitted by their own school. of course you are correct b137 EXCUSES=LOSERS
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 24, 2018 14:44:04 GMT -5
Under the rubric of the AI, many things are possible. The average AI score of all recruited athletes has to be within one standard deviation of the school-wide AI. Thus, 1.) A recruited athlete with an AI score that is two standard deviations below the school-wide AI, can be admitted if an offset can be found, i.e., the offset being a recruited athlete whose AI score corresponds to the school-wide AI, or the AI is higher than the schoolwide AI; i.e., a manna from heaven recruit.) If no offset is found for this candidate, he/she is not admitted. 2.) A recruited athlete has an AI score that is one standard deviation below the schoolwide AI, but the school has admitted a recruited athlete with an AI that is two standard deviations below the schoolwide AI and the school desperately needs a recruited athlete whose AI is at the schoolwide AI, thus providing the offset. A recruited student with an AI that is one standard deviation below does not provide the offset. IMO, if a recruited athlete has an AI score that corresponds to the schoolwide AI, and said athlete is not admitted, the real reason for a rejection is that HC is either unwilling to offer sufficient financial aid, or the position has already been recruited. So blame Ann. I'm almost positive that's not how it works. Any admit/reject decision is made independently of financial aid. After a student is admitted, a financial aid package is made. If the student doesn't think the financial aid is sufficient, that student can choose to go elsewhere, but that student is still admitted. If a recruited athlete who corresponds to the schoolwide AI, but doesn't get in, the reason has nothing to do with sufficient financial aid Tom, in the case of recruited athletes, there often is a cap on the number who can receive merit aid. For example, in FCS football, the nominal number of merit scollies to be newly offered in a year is 15-16 full, or a combination of full and partial not to exceed 21. (I assume all offers are with a caveat that the offer is subject to a final approval (acceptance) from admissions ) If Chesney finds himself with nine full scollies already committed and accepted, and that's the total of full scollies he planned on (and he is also planning on 12 half scollies) --at that point he may withdraw an offer to a recruit who had been offered a full, and 'blame' admissions. That was my illustrative hypothetical, And it may not be true. I assume when HC offers someone who is being recruited by FBS, it offers a full. Otherwise, what's the point? (That assumes the recruit is not being recruited as a preferred walk-on by FBS). Recruiting against other FCS, the calculation becomes more difficult: is the recruit likely to be offered a full (and by whom) or a partial? HC may feel it can beat a full offer from a Sacred Heart with a partial offer, but not beat a full offer from Villanova with a partial. A half full offer from HC would cost parents about $32,000, a half full offer from UNH might cost parents half that amount. HC might feel that to be competitive with UNH, it would have to offer a 75 percent full, to UNH's half scollie.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Apr 24, 2018 15:17:50 GMT -5
Parental income and assets must be huge factors in the equation. I assume schools try to get a gauge on that via home values or employment information. If Dad and/or Mom have a $900,000 crib (yes, I know mortgage balance is important but maybe not as easy to determine) and are corp. VP's they'd be in a better position to urge the son or daughter to spurn the full boat from Sacred Heart and accept the 1/2 ride from HC....
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Apr 24, 2018 19:53:54 GMT -5
Under the rubric of the AI, many things are possible. The average AI score of all recruited athletes has to be within one standard deviation of the school-wide AI. Thus, 1.) A recruited athlete with an AI score that is two standard deviations below the school-wide AI, can be admitted if an offset can be found, i.e., the offset being a recruited athlete whose AI score corresponds to the school-wide AI, or the AI is higher than the schoolwide AI; i.e., a manna from heaven recruit.) If no offset is found for this candidate, he/she is not admitted. 2.) A recruited athlete has an AI score that is one standard deviation below the schoolwide AI, but the school has admitted a recruited athlete with an AI that is two standard deviations below the schoolwide AI and the school desperately needs a recruited athlete whose AI is at the schoolwide AI, thus providing the offset. A recruited student with an AI that is one standard deviation below does not provide the offset. IMO, if a recruited athlete has an AI score that corresponds to the schoolwide AI, and said athlete is not admitted, the real reason for a rejection is that HC is either unwilling to offer sufficient financial aid, or the position has already been recruited. So blame Ann. Curious about the source of the average AI score having to be within one standard deviation of the school-wide AI. That may now be true, but it wasn't about six years ago, and I haven't seen anything about a change. PL policies used to allow average athletes' AI scores worse than one standard deviation below the school average.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Apr 24, 2018 20:00:54 GMT -5
in the case of recruited athletes, there often is a cap on the number who can receive merit aid. For example, in FCS football, the nominal number of merit scollies to be newly offered in a year is 15-16 full, or a combination of full and partial not to exceed 21. (I assume all offers are with a caveat that the offer is subject to a final approval (acceptance) from admissions ) I'm confused. NCAA rules and PL rules allow up to 30 merit scholarships in a year, as long as the school has room under the overall scholarship ceiling - which is 60 for PL purposes (spread among no more than 85 athletes). At a PL school, it is unlikely there would be room for 30 in a year - but with transfers and/or players quitting football, there could well be room for far more than 15-16 full rides in a year or more than 21 full and partials in a year.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 25, 2018 6:30:55 GMT -5
in the case of recruited athletes, there often is a cap on the number who can receive merit aid. For example, in FCS football, the nominal number of merit scollies to be newly offered in a year is 15-16 full, or a combination of full and partial not to exceed 21. (I assume all offers are with a caveat that the offer is subject to a final approval (acceptance) from admissions ) I'm confused. NCAA rules and PL rules allow up to 30 merit scholarships in a year, as long as the school has room under the overall scholarship ceiling - which is 60 for PL purposes (spread among no more than 85 athletes). At a PL school, it is unlikely there would be room for 30 in a year - but with transfers and/or players quitting football, there could well be room for far more than 15-16 full rides in a year or more than 21 full and partials in a year. PL football has a cap of 60 full scollies. The FCS has a cap of 85 counters receiving full or partial aid. (There is no FCS cap if all the aid is entirely need-based.) As you say, with transfers and players dropping the sport the numbers could be higher, but I don't think that is 'far more' slots. And there can be fifth year seniors, who take away slots from an incoming class. Unlike the IL, where one retains one's financial aid whether one continues playing a sport or not, I don't believe there is any similar guarantee in the PL if a full scollie player decides he no longer wants to play football.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 25, 2018 7:17:47 GMT -5
Under the rubric of the AI, many things are possible. The average AI score of all recruited athletes has to be within one standard deviation of the school-wide AI. Thus, 1.) A recruited athlete with an AI score that is two standard deviations below the school-wide AI, can be admitted if an offset can be found, i.e., the offset being a recruited athlete whose AI score corresponds to the school-wide AI, or the AI is higher than the schoolwide AI; i.e., a manna from heaven recruit.) If no offset is found for this candidate, he/she is not admitted. 2.) A recruited athlete has an AI score that is one standard deviation below the schoolwide AI, but the school has admitted a recruited athlete with an AI that is two standard deviations below the schoolwide AI and the school desperately needs a recruited athlete whose AI is at the schoolwide AI, thus providing the offset. A recruited student with an AI that is one standard deviation below does not provide the offset. IMO, if a recruited athlete has an AI score that corresponds to the schoolwide AI, and said athlete is not admitted, the real reason for a rejection is that HC is either unwilling to offer sufficient financial aid, or the position has already been recruited. So blame Ann. Curious about the source of the average AI score having to be within one standard deviation of the school-wide AI. That may now be true, but it wasn't about six years ago, and I haven't seen anything about a change. PL policies used to allow average athletes' AI scores worse than one standard deviation below the school average. The PL application of the AI is more of a black box than the IL, where, for the IL, the NY Times will send investigative reporters out trying to make sense of it, and the student newspapers will engage in journalistic sleuthing. See: www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/5/30/harvard-academic-index-explanation/paw.princeton.edu/article/extra-point-recruited-athletes-and-other-unmentionablesIn sum, the inner workings of the black box are treated as a state secret of the highest order.. Some of the curtain was pulled away with Harvard firing Sullivan and hiring Amaker. Sullivan's former assistants observed [complained] that when Sullivan recruited players, the players had to have AI scores that were within one standard deviation of the school-wide AI. But when Amaker recruited, as the complaint went, he was allowed to recruit players whose AI was more than one standard deviation below the school-wide AI, with the Harvard athletic department and admissions offsetting such a recruit with a recruit in another sport who had a high AI score. In the IL, the within one standard deviation rule applies as the average of all recruited athletes in all conference varsity sports. (There is uncertainty whether the AI is applied to non-conference sports, e.g., ice hockey. skiing, sprint football.) If there is no similar rule in the PL, what then is the purpose of the AI, other than the floor? The bands in football are based on how many players one can recruit with AI scores below one standard deviation. And as I have noted previously on more than a few occasions, the PL introduced bands for basketball. No one -- even Eric -- has provided an explanation for how bands might work in hoops. The only way I can conceive of about how such bands might work is for the bands to be applied to the entire roster, not just an incoming class; e.g., only one player on the roster at any one time whose AI is 2.5 standard deviations below the school-wide AI. The PL has a recruiting advantage vis-a-vis the IL, in that the school-wide average AI of all PL schools (except perhaps Colgate) is very likely to be one standard deviation lower than the school-wide AIs for the IL.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Apr 25, 2018 8:59:07 GMT -5
And yet another cogent example of why hiring Nate Pine as AD was a mistake, right? When I was a youngen, my '42 Dad introduced my brother and me to the term a "bull session" at Holy Cross. Crossports is nothing, if not an on-line bull session that starts on one subject and meanders off into subjects only tangentially related to the original subject. Threads like this one brings back memories of my late, great father and also when someone, usually me, takes a position opposite of what I personally believe to play the "Devil's Advocate." Lastly, Professor Kingsfield's use of the Socratic Method had nothing on Dad. He could have taught him that. Such was the great education and critical thinking for which Holy Cross is justifiably famous.
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Apr 25, 2018 9:21:47 GMT -5
Do you see players 10-14 on the end of the bench for HYP et al?
They played JV on their Prep school teams and have 800 in Verbal and 790 in math.
All so the world can marvel at the AVERAGE SAT score for Harvard basketball players.
Extrapolate that to every sport.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Apr 25, 2018 9:52:25 GMT -5
Gee, I wonder if Harvard has any low band athletes on its varsity intercollegiate fencing, sailing, or squash teams?
As Pak Phreek noted: "But when Amaker recruited, as the complaint went, he was allowed to recruit players whose AI was more than one standard deviation below the school-wide AI, with the Harvard athletic department and admissions offsetting such a recruit with a recruit in another sport who had a high AI score."
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Apr 25, 2018 11:19:16 GMT -5
EVERY sport and EVERY Ivy League team
There is hypocrisy and the there is Ivy League hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 25, 2018 13:57:37 GMT -5
Do you see players 10-14 on the end of the bench for HYP et al? They played JV on their Prep school teams and have 800 in Verbal and 790 in math. All so the world can marvel at the AVERAGE SAT score for Harvard basketball players. Extrapolate that to every sport. That's not quite right. When Scott was HC at Princeton, he rostered 20+ in men's hoops, so it is players 18-22. Harvard once had JV basketball, which played prep schools, and which allowed early evaluation of talent at schools like NMH. JV basketball and JV ice hockey were discontinued when Harvard became illiquid with the onset of the Great Recession _________________________ I should add that I believe the JV squads were unrecruited walk-ons, and, as such, were not subject to the AI. However, JV players could move up to the varsity, and varsity players could and did play on the JVs if they were coming back from a significant injury. Sort of like baseball having a pitcher coming off the disabled list pitch a game or two in AAA. .
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Apr 26, 2018 9:58:21 GMT -5
My point stands.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Apr 26, 2018 10:13:24 GMT -5
Curious about the source of the average AI score having to be within one standard deviation of the school-wide AI. That may now be true, but it wasn't about six years ago, and I haven't seen anything about a change. PL policies used to allow average athletes' AI scores worse than one standard deviation below the school average. In the IL, the within one standard deviation rule applies as the average of all recruited athletes in all conference varsity sports. (There is uncertainty whether the AI is applied to non-conference sports, e.g., ice hockey. skiing, sprint football.) If there is no similar rule in the PL, what then is the purpose of the AI, other than the floor? The bands in football are based on how many players one can recruit with AI scores below one standard deviation. There is definitely a similar rule. I just am not sure the range is one standard deviation. It definitely used to be somewhat larger than that. No idea if it has changed, but I've never seen anything to indicate it had. Btw, one of those who studied it and said the range was larger than one standard deviation was Eric.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Apr 26, 2018 10:15:08 GMT -5
Gee, I wonder if Harvard has any low band athletes on its varsity intercollegiate fencing, sailing, or squash teams? As Pak Phreek noted: "But when Amaker recruited, as the complaint went, he was allowed to recruit players whose AI was more than one standard deviation below the school-wide AI, with the Harvard athletic department and admissions offsetting such a recruit with a recruit in another sport who had a high AI score." We need to remember, however, that the lowest band player at Harvard would easily be admissible at any PL school, including HC.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Apr 26, 2018 14:56:41 GMT -5
I'm not sure if Max Kenyi would have been accepted at HC.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 26, 2018 15:20:45 GMT -5
I'm not sure if Max Kenyi would have been accepted at HC. I was going to bring up MK as an example of someone whose AI score was quite possibly lower than one standard deviation, but didn't. Assuming the Harvard average schoolwide AI was 223 at the time, one standard deviation would be about 208-209. That would be higher than the HC average schoolwide AI, which was probably generously about 203, and may have been a bit lower. One standard deviation for HC would be probably be 190-191. For Harvard, two standard deviations would be about 195-196. Highly unlikely Kenyi was considered good enough to be admitted with an AI that was two standard deviations or more below the Harvard schoolwide AI. Kenyi's grades at Harvard for 3? 4? semesters were good enough that he could transfer to Georgetown He lasted at most a year at Georgetown before transferring to a no name school in WV.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Apr 26, 2018 15:33:39 GMT -5
I don’t believe Kenyi ever played for Georgetown. After Harvard he sat out two years then played two years for D-2 Seton Hill University in PA.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 26, 2018 15:37:13 GMT -5
In the IL, the within one standard deviation rule applies as the average of all recruited athletes in all conference varsity sports. (There is uncertainty whether the AI is applied to non-conference sports, e.g., ice hockey. skiing, sprint football.) If there is no similar rule in the PL, what then is the purpose of the AI, other than the floor? The bands in football are based on how many players one can recruit with AI scores below one standard deviation. There is definitely a similar rule. I just am not sure the range is one standard deviation. It definitely used to be somewhat larger than that. No idea if it has changed, but I've never seen anything to indicate it had. Btw, one of those who studied it and said the range was larger than one standard deviation was Eric. There could indeed be some flexibility with the one standard deviation rule. DFWHoya, IIRC, made the observation that if GU were to leave PL football, GU could recruit football players that it can't recruit because of the PL AI. GU's school-wide AI probably approaches the lowest of the Ivies (Cornell?) and if the football team average AI had to be within one standard deviation of the GU schoolwide AI, one standard deviation at GU would be higher than the schoolwide AI for the other PL football schools, except perhaps Colgate. I could readily see GU having gotten relief. Columbia football was given relief under the AI by the rest of the IL. The relief was given for two or three years to help make Columbia more competitive. It didn't help.
|
|
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 26, 2018 17:39:54 GMT -5
I'm not sure if Max Kenyi would have been accepted at HC. Kenyi's grades at Harvard for 3? 4? semesters were good enough that he could transfer to Georgetown He lasted at most a year at Georgetown before transferring to a no name school in WV. Kenyi did not transfer to Georgetown for basketball,and I don't believe he even enrolled as a student. The story was he took a year off from Harvard, then changed his mind on going back and enrolled at Seton Hill (not Seton Hall), an NAIA school in Greensburg, PA. He averaged 12.3 ppg. in two seasons. basketball.realgm.com/player/Max-Kenyi/Summary/12552
|
|