MBB: Skyline Conference

[Rhodes Scholar]

Congrats to Cal Tech!

What will become of the social order if the smart kids start winning at athletics, too???

These aren't just smart kids, they're exceptionally bright kids. And exceptionally bright kids tend not to be the greatest athletes. Unless Cal Tech seriously compromises their academic integrity, I would expect long losing, rather than long winning streaks to be the norm.

[Raptormania!]

Yes, this would explain the irrevocable compromising in academic standards by that noted athlete factory and 2003 champ Williams College (average SAT score range 1320-1520) or 2006 Final Four qualifier and ground zero of dumb-jockdom Amherst College (average SAT range 1330-1530).

You can't seriously expect me to accept that Cal Tech, Williams, or any other school will do poorly in athletics because they have exceptionally bright kids. The academics complicate a task, no question, since by definition the pool you are choosing from is smaller. But we have ample evidence that it can be done without compromising academic integrity.

[Rhodes Scholar]

Yes, this would explain the irrevocable compromising in academic standards by that noted athlete factory and 2003 champ Williams College (average SAT score range 1320-1520) or 2006 Final Four qualifier and ground zero of dumb-jockdom Amherst College (average SAT range 1330-1530).

You can't seriously expect me to accept that Cal Tech, Williams, or any other school will do poorly in athletics because they have exceptionally bright kids. The academics complicate a task, no question, since by definition the pool you are choosing from is smaller. But we have ample evidence that it can be done without compromising academic integrity.

I am under the impression--perhaps mistakenly--that the academic standards at Cal Tech are clearly higher than Williams and Amherst, and that the athletes must meet all of the academic requirements of the student body as a whole. If it's the case that the athletes at Cal Tech must have 1500+ SAT scores and there are no special admits then they're not going to be competitive any time soon.

Amherst and Williams both have solid athletic traditions. Cal Tech does not. Amherst and Williams are both liberal arts schools. Cal Tech is an engineering/science school. Amherst and Williams accept special admits. Cal Tech does not. Amherst and Williams are both excellent academic schools but they're still not as rigorously demanding as Cal Tech. These are some of the reasons why they have very good athletics programs and Cal Tech does not.

Students with 1500+ SAT scores tend to be less physically fit than the rest of the student body. They are not nearly as strong or well conditioned, and they have slower hand-eye coordination and reaction times. Plus they're less inclined to be into sports and, if they are, they have far less time to devote to sports than the student body as a whole.

[Raptormania!]

"Students with 1500+ SAT scores tend to be less physically fit than the rest of the student body. They are not nearly as strong or well conditioned, and they have slower hand-eye coordination and reaction times. Plus they're less inclined to be into sports and, if they are, they have far less time to devote to sports than the student body as a whole."

Is this based upon any study, or just something you made up?

The obvious reason a high-academic school would have more trouble finding top athletes isn't because once you hit 1500 SAT, you can only helplessly complain while basketballs bounce off your head. It is that the pool of people with SAT scores that high is much smaller than a school which demands, say, 900 or higher. Julliard has the same problem- because their school is limited to exceptionally talented musicians, not because violinists are terrible at basketball.

I'd be curious if Cal Tech didn't try to add a wide variety of students, with athletic prowess counting for a student's app the way a talent in music, or other areas, also count. And the tradition for athletic excellence works for Williams and against Cal Tech- but obviously, has nothing to do with the quality of the school. Plenty of good, average, and poor schools with traditions of athletic excellence do well for that reason, while plenty of good, average and poor schools without said tradition struggle to create one.

[Rhodes Scholar]

The relationship between 1500+ SAT scores and athletic prowess was my own observation--it was not based upon any study.  I'm sorry that you find such a statement to be outlandish or controversial. I find it to be obviously true.

And while it's true that the pool of 1500+ SAT students is far smaller than those with 900 SATs, it doesn't follow that the percentage of students within those two pools who are athletically talented is identical. I would imagine that a far higher percentage of students with 900 SATs would be more physically fit than those with 1500+ SATs.

 

[Raptormania!]

Forgive me if I don't accept your word for it. Outlandish or controversial? Not so much. Empty of any meaning beyond one man's unsupported opinion? Yes.

Can you provide any logical reason for believing this to be so? Why would the percentage of athletic talent be higher at 900 than at 1500? It strikes me as likely that, absent any evidence to the contrary, the athletic talent at 900+ SAT and 1500 SAT would be exactly the same- but the 1500 SAT group of athletic talent would be better able to convert that talent into results on the basketball court, given the large mental component of the game. However, that edge is unlikely to overcome the enormous difference in the number of players available in the 900+ SAT pool.

That any negative relationship between intelligence and athletics exists because you "would imagine it to be so" is circular reasoning, at best.

[Rhodes Scholar]

First of all, there is no "large mental component" in basketball. Basketball is a relatively simple game. Second, the mental component of the game doesn't require 1500+ SATs or a genius IQ.  It requires--at most--average intelligence, but probably less. Basketball is a game of quickness, strength, hand-eye coordination and mental toughness. It has nothing to do with abstract reasoning ability or strong language skills. Basketball is not organic chemistry or nuclear physics. Even a "thinking man's player" usually has only average or slightly higher intelligence.

[Raptormania!]

We can argue over semantics- but we'll agree to disagree that there isn't a large mental component to basketball.

That said, we do agree that there is a far larger physical component to the game. So why exactly is it that someone intelligent isn't capable of excelling at that part as well? Is your argument that knowledge will get in the way of physical gifts? This is unclear-as is your ability to back this up in any way.

[Knightstalker]

Howie, the majority of students who achieve a perfect or near perfect score on their SAT probably do not have the time to be both an exceptional athlete and and exceptional scholar.  They most likely do not have the time to devote to both working out and studying.  That being said there are some that are both, although I would venture to guess that one or the other came to the individual naturally.  Also I would say that the majority of student athletes fall in between the extremes.  Most are average students and average athletes usually leaning more to one side or the other.

MIT sports while better than Cal Techs are still not that great, same thing applies.  I have a cousin that was an outstanding swimmer in high school.  She was accepted at MIT, Stevens and NJIT, she chose MIT and had to let swimming go, she just did not have the time to dedicate to both.

Your Julliard example is not a good one.  Most musicians that make it to Julliard had to give up sports in Jr or Sr high school.  They did not have the time to dedicate to two masters.  I did not play football at NJCU although several coaches and players repeatedly asked me too.  I was a classical guitar major and could not possibly devote time to football, guitar, classes and still sleep an hour or two. 

I don't think I could have pulled a load like Dana John is pulling.  Plus I did not want to bust up my hands, and playing o-line would have done that.

[Raptormania!]

But this seems to indicate that students performing at the 900 SAT level, for instance, aren't just as burdened by extremely difficult schoolwork. Why should that student have an easier time balancing school and athletics than a 1500 SAT student at a more difficult school? This doesn't make sense- both require choosing, taking a portion of time to devote to athletics and the rest to academics- on a relative scale.

Given the same difficulty of material, the 1500 SAT student would conceivably have a huge edge over the 900 when it came to athletics, as the amount of time it took to complete schoolwork would be greatly reduced.

And of course the majority of student athletes fall in the middle, with the student-athletes at the far edge of the spectrum much rarer. This reinforces a mirroring between the overall college student body and those who play sports. It flies in the face of your contention that high-intelligence students can't play sports.

[Knightstalker]

Howie, show me where anyone said they couldn't.  Rhodes stated they were less likely to and less likely to be good at both.

[Ralph Turner]

Howard Gardner would probably say that basketball is bodily-kinesthetic and spatial intelligence and that Bard critically distinguishes between linguistic and logical-mathematical (and musical) intelligences in their admissions processes.   

[Raptormania!]

"Rhodes stated they were less likely to and less likely to be good at both."

And obviously, I was summarizing. His point was that they were less likely to be good at both. I made the point that there is no evidence to support this, that in fact, a higher intelligence would help to complete schoolwork more quickly, leaving more time for athletics or other pursuits.

[D3HOOPSCOOP]

has anyone checked out Polytechnic University? Yeah they aren't great as of yet. But they are ten times better than any teams they have had in the past. And they have a young, exciting team. Two impressive players to note are Arjun Ohri ( # 13) , a 6'3 versataile swingman who can do it all. Also, Anthony Mottola ( # 33). A 6'3 power forward. Mottola posses unique strength and speed for his position, he is able to overpower anyone who attempts to guard him, and is usually quicker than those who try as well. Mottola is a unique matchup problem and an impressive prospect.
  Has anyone else seen Polytech play yet?

[Rhodes Scholar]

has anyone checked out Polytechnic University? Yeah they aren't great as of yet. But they are ten times better than any teams they have had in the past. And they have a young, exciting team. Two impressive players to note are Arjun Ohri ( # 13) , a 6'3 versataile swingman who can do it all. Also, Anthony Mottola ( # 33). A 6'3 power forward. Mottola posses unique strength and speed for his position, he is able to overpower anyone who attempts to guard him, and is usually quicker than those who try as well. Mottola is a unique matchup problem and an impressive prospect.
  Has anyone else seen Polytech play yet?

I haven't seen Polytechnic play this year, but from looking over the team's results it doesn't appear that this year's team is "ten times better than any teams they have had in the past." A nine-point loss to lowly Albany Pharmacy is a fair indication that the Jays might not be much improved over previous years.