- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 13,685
- Reaction score
- 16,169
It's vaguely about Belichick. Or was at one point.
Oh, we're way past that now, buddy!
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.It's vaguely about Belichick. Or was at one point.
Uh oh, I'm going to have to start questioning your literacy skills.
Neither a vague reference to a 'noted deficit of literacy skills' or betting on a hypothetical count as empirical measures.
I'll bet your average o-lineman, the quintessential image of the big dumb jock, is as smart as your average message board user. As a matter of record, o-lineman score pretty high on the Wonderlic. And over the last few years, I've seen some pretty dumb comments from message board users. Present company excluded, of course.
Oh? And why would you say that? First off, I didn't see where he was an editor. He was a reporter.
Secondly, do you know anything about the current free press in Russia? I could send you some very enlightening articles about it.
I think we're talking about two different things and I respect your experience, though I think you shouldn't be shocked, shocked, when I don't know about "data that is out there" for college football, which I don't follow. After all, I'm not a football player, just your average message board poster who presumably would ace the wonderlic.You're wrong. Low SATs, low GPAs, sometimes even illiteracy, are common among college football players. I've been employed by universities since 1992. One of them is considered one of the top 5 football schools in the nation. I've sat on admission committees. It's undeniable that football players get preferential treatment for admission, and that their scores are well south of the average student. This is empirical evidence. The NCAA tracks average SATs and GPAs of football players. The data is out there. I'm actually shocked that you don't know this.
Let me give you one example of how one university gets around the requirements that their players get an education. The U of Miami actually has players sit out the Fall semester academically so that they remain focused on football. Instead, they take intersession classes both before and after the semester to make up the lost credits. Those classes are specifically designed for football players.
Ever hear of Football 101 and Football 201? Granted these kids will never actually qualify for a diploma, but some of these programs deliberately bring in lots of questionable kids KNOWING they are not capable.
Now, you might say the SATs are only measures of book smarts, but I would point you toward the qualifying guidelines. You get 400 points for putting your name on the test. Some of the qualifying scores are in the low 700s. It's possible to do that by answering several questions correctly and simply guessing on the rest.
I think we're talking about two different things and I respect your experience, though I think you shouldn't be shocked, shocked, when I don't know about "data that is out there" for college football, which I don't follow. After all, I'm not a football player, just your average message board poster who presumably would ace the wonderlic.
Speaking of which, would you really want to pit average message board members (Tom Casale was one of them) against football players? How do you think he'd score? That's really what I meant about lacking empirical evidence.
Anyway, I wasn't talking about college football and neither was the article (remember the article? thread's about the article). I was talking about the NFL, which narrowly selects from college football, just as academic colleges narrowly select from high schools. I certainly wouldn't justify a statement about college students by citing statistics on high school dropouts.
We've gone a bit far afield, so I'll leave it at that. Remember to smile, we're having fun here.
I'll give you one more example of how this breaks down: when I worked the court/jail system as a younger man, I would marvel at how felons in the system could calculate instantly how much actual time they would have to do. If they agreed to a plea of 250 days, they would know instantaneously that this meant only 83 days to serve (or whatever). In their world, that's all they needed to know. Just because they had that skill set and form of intelligence does not mean they could move on and learn to master other things. Most of these men were either illiterate or functionally illiterate. The implication I'm drawing is that we all have a certain level of intelligence but that building the skills (in today's world, these are mostly literacy skills) to prosper takes a lot of work, and if you haven't done it at a younger age, it's going to be difficult to catch up. Judging by college football recruitment, most top football players have not built up sufficient literacy and life skills to survive outside the sport.
Just look at that wonderlic.
Now, why would you say that? Did it ever occur to you that the inmates were, in fact intelligent? Although the were illiterate, that doesn't mean that they are idiots. It is very possible that they had horrible childhoods and were out of school very young (not a stretch). There are guys who never finished middle school that can run a drug empire very efficiently. By contrast, I know people with Master's Degrees that don't know their a** from their elbow in the real world.
Did you even bother to read what I wrote?