MBB: Northwest Conference

[Mr. Ypsi]

While I certainly agree that Wooster has high-caliber academics, they do not come close to approaching Caltech's. Just for a point of argument -- Wooster (as far as I'm aware) has one nobel prize winner in it's entire history, where-as Caltech currently has 5 on staff and 30+ in it's history. 

I think the size argument boils down to more space to put athletes.  At many schools with larger student bodies the admissions standards can be relaxed so that a stellar athlete that would contribute (say a d1 transfer for example) is guaranteed to get in.  This simply doesn't happen at Caltech and no amount of endowment dollars will create spots for athletes here. 

MIT might be a better comparison for Caltech -- they have a nationally ranked basketball program and are essentially the East Coast version of Caltech on steroids: ~5000 student undergrad enrollment. This allows them extra space to put athletes while maintaining their academic prowess.

Think about it this way: at Caltech a roster of 20 players is 2% of the entire student population....and now expand that over 17 sports programs...that would be 34% of Caltech's student body would need relaxed academic standards to build the kind of sports programs at larger schools.

The 'dumb jock' stereotype is alive and well, I see.  Obviously, high admissions standards will cut the pool of potential athletes, but there are still quite a few, and many (they're smart, after all!) will come specifically because of the high academic standards.  Stanford doesn't fare too badly, and (as far as I know) does not cut admissions standards much if at all for athletes.  IMO Caltech is relying on a myth to justify their ineptitude.  I suspect it is more campus culture: 'jocks' may be anathema to many (most?) faculty and many (most?) fellow students.

[Gregory Sager]

Greg, one nit to pick.  Unless my memory is even more shot than I think it is, the d3 median enrollment is a lot closer to 1,200 than 3,000.

You're right, I got it backwards. It's the mean that's closer to 3,000.

While I certainly agree that Wooster has high-caliber academics, they do not come close to approaching Caltech's. Just for a point of argument -- Wooster (as far as I'm aware) has one nobel prize winner in it's entire history, where-as Caltech currently has 5 on staff and 30+ in it's history.

I wasn't comparing Wooster's academics to Caltech's. Plus, as institutions go, they're really apples and oranges in terms of their respective missions.

I think the size argument boils down to more space to put athletes.  At many schools with larger student bodies the admissions standards can be relaxed so that a stellar athlete that would contribute (say a d1 transfer for example) is guaranteed to get in.  This simply doesn't happen at Caltech and no amount of endowment dollars will create spots for athletes here.

Caltech is not a good example to cite in this case, because the prominent role played by faculty members in the admissions process makes it (AFAIK) unique among D3 institutions.

I don't think that enrollment size really enters into the selection process with regard to student-athletes at most schools. If a school is OK with lowering the threshold for an athlete (whether it's a slight lowering or a large lowering), it'll do so regardless of enrollment size, and vice-versa. 

MIT might be a better comparison for Caltech -- they have a nationally ranked basketball program and are essentially the East Coast version of Caltech on steroids: ~5000 student undergrad enrollment. This allows them extra space to put athletes while maintaining their academic prowess.

Again, though, this is a matter of institutional choice. MIT could have an undergrad enrollment as large or as small as it chooses, and so could Caltech. They each have both the money and the academic cachet to call their own tune in that regard. I have to repeat what I said earlier about Caltech: We're talking about an outlier here in terms of the typical profile of D3 institutions. Same goes for MIT, for slightly different reasons.

Think about it this way: at Caltech a roster of 20 players is 2% of the entire student population....and now expand that over 17 sports programs...that would be 34% of Caltech's student body would need relaxed academic standards to build the kind of sports programs at larger schools.

I disagree. Williams has barely 2,000 students. It also sponsors 32 sports, including football, which means that a huge percentage of the student body consists of student-athletes -- and I don't recall anyone saying that Williams has "relaxed academic standards."

The bottom line is that Caltech has both the financial resources and the internationally-renowned academic profile to shape its undergraduate student body in any way that it likes. The fact that it chooses to go small and historically resists even the faintest whiff of jock-friendly policies doesn't translate into the larger question of whether or not enrollment size dictates success in the larger D3 world.

[Gregory Sager]

While I certainly agree that Wooster has high-caliber academics, they do not come close to approaching Caltech's. Just for a point of argument -- Wooster (as far as I'm aware) has one nobel prize winner in it's entire history, where-as Caltech currently has 5 on staff and 30+ in it's history. 

I think the size argument boils down to more space to put athletes.  At many schools with larger student bodies the admissions standards can be relaxed so that a stellar athlete that would contribute (say a d1 transfer for example) is guaranteed to get in.  This simply doesn't happen at Caltech and no amount of endowment dollars will create spots for athletes here. 

MIT might be a better comparison for Caltech -- they have a nationally ranked basketball program and are essentially the East Coast version of Caltech on steroids: ~5000 student undergrad enrollment. This allows them extra space to put athletes while maintaining their academic prowess.

Think about it this way: at Caltech a roster of 20 players is 2% of the entire student population....and now expand that over 17 sports programs...that would be 34% of Caltech's student body would need relaxed academic standards to build the kind of sports programs at larger schools.

The 'dumb jock' stereotype is alive and well, I see.  Obviously, high admissions standards will cut the pool of potential athletes, but there are still quite a few, and many (they're smart, after all!) will come specifically because of the high academic standards.  Stanford doesn't fare too badly, and (as far as I know) does not cut admissions standards much if at all for athletes.  IMO Caltech is relying on a myth to justify their ineptitude.  I suspect it is more campus culture: 'jocks' may be anathema to many (most?) faculty and many (most?) fellow students.

Even more than campus culture, it's the admissions process at Caltech that cuts the pool of potential student-athletes. Caltech faculty members play a prominent role in the analysis of each Caltech applicant, and their veto power in the admissions process represents a hurdle that's very hard to overcome as far as Caltech athletics is concerned. I don't know any Caltech faculty members, so I'd be stereotyping if I said that they were largely anti-jock, but if I was a coach or an athletic director I'd be in despair if my school's professors had the yea or nay on whether or not my recruits were admitted. As a former college educator yourself (even though Eastern Michigan is a vastly different institution than Caltech), I'm sure you're aware of the common perception of athletes among those who teach college students.

[Mr. Ypsi]

While I certainly agree that Wooster has high-caliber academics, they do not come close to approaching Caltech's. Just for a point of argument -- Wooster (as far as I'm aware) has one nobel prize winner in it's entire history, where-as Caltech currently has 5 on staff and 30+ in it's history. 

I think the size argument boils down to more space to put athletes.  At many schools with larger student bodies the admissions standards can be relaxed so that a stellar athlete that would contribute (say a d1 transfer for example) is guaranteed to get in.  This simply doesn't happen at Caltech and no amount of endowment dollars will create spots for athletes here. 

MIT might be a better comparison for Caltech -- they have a nationally ranked basketball program and are essentially the East Coast version of Caltech on steroids: ~5000 student undergrad enrollment. This allows them extra space to put athletes while maintaining their academic prowess.

Think about it this way: at Caltech a roster of 20 players is 2% of the entire student population....and now expand that over 17 sports programs...that would be 34% of Caltech's student body would need relaxed academic standards to build the kind of sports programs at larger schools.

The 'dumb jock' stereotype is alive and well, I see.  Obviously, high admissions standards will cut the pool of potential athletes, but there are still quite a few, and many (they're smart, after all!) will come specifically because of the high academic standards.  Stanford doesn't fare too badly, and (as far as I know) does not cut admissions standards much if at all for athletes.  IMO Caltech is relying on a myth to justify their ineptitude.  I suspect it is more campus culture: 'jocks' may be anathema to many (most?) faculty and many (most?) fellow students.

Even more than campus culture, it's the admissions process at Caltech that cuts the pool of potential student-athletes. Caltech faculty members play a prominent role in the analysis of each Caltech applicant, and their veto power in the admissions process represents a hurdle that's very hard to overcome as far as Caltech athletics is concerned. I don't know any Caltech faculty members, so I'd be stereotyping if I said that they were largely anti-jock, but if I was a coach or an athletic director I'd be in despair if my school's professors had the yea or nay on whether or not my recruits were admitted. As a former college educator yourself (even though Eastern Michigan is a vastly different institution than Caltech), I'm sure you're aware of the common perception of athletes among those who teach college students.

Yes, and while there are a fair number of 'jock-sniffers', I'm pretty sure they were outnumbered by 'dumb jocks' types.  You may recall Rick Telander (wrote for SI for a number of years) - he went 1600 on the SATs then was at least All Big Ten (may have been AA but I can't recall) at Northwestern.  Really smart 'jocks' do exist, though the pool is fairly limited.  Caltech could be competitive if they had the desire, but apparently they don't.  My hunch would be that the Caltech faculty is VERY heavily anti-jock and would see a Rick Telander's athletic skills as a strike against, rather than a plus.

[Gregory Sager]

I have the same hunch about the Caltech faculty.

Telander, by the way, is a Chicago Sun-Times columnist now. Speaking as someone who reads him off and on, I can attest that his writing since he became an employee of the Not-So-Bright-One among the two Windy City dailies is giving former 1600 SAT achievers a bad name.

[WoostAr]

Did you guys watch Revenge of the Nerds and think it was factual?? 

High school clubs, sports and other extra-curriculars are all bonuses in Caltech's admissions process. It just so happens Caltech also requires perfect SAT math and science subject tests to be considered.

[Gregory Sager]

Did you guys watch Revenge of the Nerds and think it was factual??

You mean, it wasn't?

High school clubs, sports and other extra-curriculars are all bonuses in Caltech's admissions process.

I'm sure that they are, on paper. I'm simply skeptical that your typical prof in a school geared towards classroom high-achievers is going to take a sanguine view of the academic potential of a high-school senior who doesn't view a locker room as enemy territory.

[(509)Rat]

[Gregory Sager]

I never give out karma, (509)Rat, but I'm sorely tempted to give you a +1 for that gif.

[playball]

Hey everyone!  Batuik getting less than 5 minutes per game?  On a team that is 1-5?  At least Dotes knew what kind of talent he had!

[A Buc Forever]

Playball,

Time to bring back Doty. He was out coached by the top coaches in the conference but he recruited players capable of competing in at this level. Looks like another long year for you guys.

[TryMeTeam]

Playball:

What are you saying?  It sounds like you are not impressed with the new coach.  Have you seen any of Linfield games? Is Batiuk healthy?  From the stats (I have not seen any of their games, so I may be off base), it looks like they are bringing him back slowly.  His stats are not impressive.  What else is going on?

Wow Buc, what a compliment!  Sounds a lot like "..but she's got a great personality", "...but he sure could recruit".  His last 3 years, they finished 7th, then 8th, then 9th, and you want him back?  Doesn't sound like even average recruiting to me.  Be careful what you wish for!

I would suggest you give this coach a chance for a couple of years until he has all of his own recruits.  He was not left with much returning talent and is in only his 2nd year!

BTW, it is nice to see you back, Playball!

[playball]

Slowly is 5,10,15,20, then 30 a game while ramping up things in practice.  He had one game where he got 10-15 minutes and then boom, zeroes.  He was all conference and now can't sniff the court.  That says either one of two things, linfield got some unreal posts or he isn't on the same page as the coach.  What waste of talent on the bench.

And so far no, I'm not impressed.  Even when we were horrid my senior year we wouldn't ever lose to a team like Portland Bible...

Good to be back!  Someone needs to represent for the cellar dwellers!!   

[Pinecone_Curtain]

...linfield got some unreal posts...

I'm going to say no. Good to have you back playball. Love your insight as a former player.

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

Batiuk can't be healthy.  I asked a person who watches a lot of basketball games at Linfield about Batiuk and he mentioned that his lateral speed isn't there yet. What we need more than anything are some good outside shooters as it doesn't look like we have that. Our size is a lot better than a year ago and the talent looks better... Really young... But better... Still no all conference caliber guys at this point... They sure do execute their sets... Just can't put the ball in the hole...