I've had this thought on my mind for quite some time. I have helped tutor top athletic talent at the high school level. I have seen first hand the academic qualifications of many athletes. So I make the following comment from that perspective.

I read the grousing about so and so not offered and why don't we have more admits etc., etc.

A thought!!! Assume that less than 20 percent of high school students are eligible for the University of California. Then statistically speaking there is no reason to believe that high school athletes have any different academic credentials than the rest of the high school student body. So that means that only 20% of the five star players, 20 percent of the four star players etc are even eligible for admittance to Berkeley. In view of the NCAA graduation requirements it does not make sense to admit less qualified students even if the NCAA allows. Academically those outside of the 20% generally have difficulty competing with the top 20%. Don't say Stanford does this or Stanford does that. Face it, CAL athletes are not given their degrees like other schools.

I say all of this only to appreciate the top talent that we do get. So when you see us not offer or lose out on certain athletes there may very well be a very good reason for it. They simply may not be a good academic risk.

mdcspe69;841905337 said:

---

I've had this thought on my mind for quite some time. I have helped tutor top athletic talent at the high school level. I have seen first hand the academic qualifications of many athletes. So I make the following comment from that perspective.

I read the grousing about so and so not offered and why don't we have more admits etc., etc.

A thought!!! Assume that less than 20 percent of high school students are eligible for the University of California. Then statistically speaking there is no reason to believe that high school athletes have any different academic credentials than the rest of the high school student body. So that means that only 20% of the five star players, 20 percent of the four star players etc are even eligible for admittance to Berkeley. In view of the NCAA graduation requirements it does not make sense to admit less qualified students even if the NCAA allows. Academically those outside of the 20% generally have difficulty competing with the top 20%. Don't say Stanford does this or Stanford does that. Face it, CAL athletes are not given their degrees like other schools.

I say all of this only to appreciate the top talent that we do get. So when you see us not offer or lose out on certain athletes there may very well be a very good reason for it. They simply may not be a good academic risk.

---

To call this a reach would be an understatement. Let's just agree that we need more wins and all of these recruiting worries disappear instantly.

I know of several Cal football recruits who have been VERY carefully screened for not just their academics (grades), but also for their academic "potential" (ie willingness to work-apply themselves should their grades not show it). Cal recruiters get very intimate with high school counselors and depend on their points of view regarding "potential." Cal recruiters actually set goals (SAT and GPA) with junior recruits so that they can monitor and assist recruits to qualify for admittance. Two very highly recruited football players from the high school where I teach were dropped because they failed to show both grades and/or potential to achieve in the classroom. Cal recruiters are very serious about potential for success in the classroom. One Cal football recruit told me the first thing his position coach asked him for when they met, was his transcripts, which he had to hand off virtually at the airport.

The staff does want to make sure they can stay eligible.

This may limit some, but let's not act like you need to be a genius to get in on football schollie. They don't have to be in the top 20% of all students by a long shot to get onto the team.....just need better than UC system minimums.

I realize that many athletic admits are outside of the top 20 or so percent. But at the same time they must still compete academically with the top 20%.

mdcspe69;841905337 said:

---

I've had this thought on my mind for quite some time. I have helped tutor top athletic talent at the high school level. I have seen first hand the academic qualifications of many athletes. So I make the following comment from that perspective.

I read the grousing about so and so not offered and why don't we have more admits etc., etc.

A thought!!! Assume that less than 20 percent of high school students are eligible for the University of California. Then statistically speaking there is no reason to believe that high school athletes have any different academic credentials than the rest of the high school student body. So that means that only 20% of the five star players, 20 percent of the four star players etc are even eligible for admittance to Berkeley. In view of the NCAA graduation requirements it does not make sense to admit less qualified students even if the NCAA allows. Academically those outside of the 20% generally have difficulty competing with the top 20%. Don't say Stanford does this or Stanford does that. Face it, CAL athletes are not given their degrees like other schools.

I say all of this only to appreciate the top talent that we do get. So when you see us not offer or lose out on certain athletes there may very well be a very good reason for it. They simply may not be a good academic risk.

---

I posted something similar to this in a recent thread and someone posted a link to the academic admission requirements for all the pac-12 schools for football players and it showed that there was not a significant difference between Cal and most other schools. In addition, Cal was 7th in requirments below schools like Oregon. This shocked me and it still seems misleading to me but if I find the link I will edit it in. I think it was near the end of the "We Can't Hire Anyone Better Than Tedford Myth" thread.
Here is that link:
AtlanticJournalChartlink

I posted this on the "Recruiting race with Oregon" thread.

Cal fans get so hung up on our academic superiority. Myself included. Most of us agree that the standards for athletes and the regular student are very different. We shouldn't and cannot compare Cal to UO or even Stanfurd. It's a losing proposition. If we want to have an elite program, we should be emulating Michigan. A fine public university with a strong tradition of on the field excellence.

I can jump over 10 one foot hurdles a lot easier than 3 six foot hurdles.

heartofthebear;841905423 said:

---

I posted something similar to this in a recent thread and someone posted a link to the academic admission requirements for all the pac-12 schools for football players and it showed that there was not a significant difference between Cal and most other schools. In addition, Cal was 7th in requirments below schools like Oregon. This shocked me and it still seems misleading to me but if I find the link I will edit it in. I think it was near the end of the "We Can't Hire Anyone Better Than Tedford Myth" thread.
Here is that link:
AtlanticJournalChartlink

---

So if Cal is seventh in requirements then think how difficult it is for the lower tier academic FB players at Cal. They face a student body that is highly competitive with "survival of the fittest" as it's message to students, not we trust our admissions policy and will coddle you (aka 'furd). Then add that we do not have the numbers and types of "jock" courses that FB factories provide. Yes, we have a number of courses that are deemed easier grades, but not to the extent of many SEC and Big 12 schools. And thirdly, many FB athletes are not "student oriented" but FB oriented, and it leaves you with some of the scores we see lately in spite of our learning center. Throw in the "Barsky factor" with academicians and athletics out of sync, and you further make a FB player's life a potential nightmare at Cal.

Cal is special for all the reasons we are proud of it, but those reasons many times are in conflict with compatibility with good athletes (especially FB and BB). Not meant as excuse, but just a reality over the last sixty years I have been a fan.

A few years ago I tutored some football players at the local high school. Each of them had scored a total of between 400-500 on the old SAT. Through my work with them, I got their scores to between 850 and 925. All of them ended up with football scholarships. One to a D-1 school (Pac-10) and then left for another D-1 school and the other two ended up at D-2 schools. None of the three could have graduated from CAL.

mdcspe69;841905443 said:

---

A few years ago I tutored some football players at the local high school. Each of them had scored a total of between 400-500 on the old SAT. Through my work with them, I got their scores to between 850 and 925. All of them ended up with football scholarships. One to a D-1 school (Pac-10) and then left for another D-1 school and the other two ended up at D-2 schools. None of the three could have graduated from CAL.

---

It's very difficult to graduate from cal, but this is only really a small part of it all. Remember, last year we had commitments from multiple 5 stars and led for at least another. We were on the verge of landing a truly elite class, better even than what UW will get this year. So obviously, there isn't some systematically built in hinderence that is preventing us from doing it again. Unless we raised our admission standards significantly over the course of one year. Furthermore, some of the top guys that have conmitted to SC or UW etc we have also offered, so that seems to go against your theory. Basically, they chose to go in a different direction. Simply, there is little hype compared to last year, and we don't have a head hunter type recruiter.

OdontoBear66;841905438 said:

---

So if Cal is seventh in requirements then think how difficult it is for the lower tier academic FB players at Cal. They face a student body that is highly competitive with "survival of the fittest" as it's message to students, not we trust our admissions policy and will coddle you (aka 'furd). Then add that we do not have the numbers and types of "jock" courses that FB factories provide. Yes, we have a number of courses that are deemed easier grades, but not to the extent of many SEC and Big 12 schools. And thirdly, many FB athletes are not "student oriented" but FB oriented, and it leaves you with some of the scores we see lately in spite of our learning center. Throw in the "Barsky factor" with academicians and athletics out of sync, and you further make a FB player's life a potential nightmare at Cal.

Cal is special for all the reasons we are proud of it, but those reasons many times are in conflict with compatibility with good athletes (especially FB and BB). Not meant as excuse, but just a reality over the last sixty years I have been a fan.

---

As I said before, I'm more or less in agreement with your points, but, when I make them, I keep hearing how much academic support there is for the players. Some of that has come from the players themselves. I also heard that football players take many easy courses at Cal. My only point is that it's hard to know what is true when the information on this board is so varied on the topic. It seems to me that, for whatever reasons, Cal is being out recruited these days. I realize it is only July, and it takes time for word of mouth to spread about the true advantages of the SAHPC, but many locals are choosing other Pac-12 schools despite having visited the new facilities at Cal. I think there is a growing consensus that we really need to be better on the field before there is the type of large scale interest we all expected. Hopefully that is the only hurdle and we are able to jump it.

heartofthebear;841905466 said:

---

I think there is a growing consensus that we really need to be better on the field before there is the type of large scale interest we all expected. Hopefully that is the only hurdle and we are able to jump it.

---

Bingo.

FingeroftheBear;841905476 said:

---

Getting into Cal is the relatively easy part. Survival and graduation is another deal.

---

Not sure it is relatively easy to get into Cal, but I sure agree with your last sentence. It is not for the weak and mild. Graduating Cal gives a good measure of your academic nature. No easy task.

OdontoBear66;841905478 said:

---

Not sure it is relatively easy to get into Cal, but I sure agree with your last sentence. It is not for the weak and mild. Graduating Cal gives a good measure of your academic nature. No easy task.

---

My senior year roommate figured out ..ah...you need a major to actually graduate..So, I sat down with him one spring afternoon and he decided to...count up his units! Bingo, BA in sociology!