In Reply to: Re: That is not what I asked. posted by SehornBlew on August 07, 2024 at 06:06:41
Me: "Has there ever been an announcement where a school announced 'we wanted this guy, but his academics aren't up to snuff for us'? or a kid said 'I was inline to go this school but got rejected by admissions.'"
You: "Yes, it happens at Stanford all the time. It happens at ND as well. The reason it doesn’t happen at ucla is because we very rarely turn any kid down. It’s happened twice that I can recall (as i mentioned above) and maybe one other kid people speculated about who wound up at Washington."
Me: "What athletes have publically announced 'I sure wanted to play at Stanford. The football/basketball team wanted me. But, I got rejected by admissions'?"
You: long answer that was not responsive.
Me: "I'm saying they appear to be guys with proven quality academic college track record. The Murphy's, the Crocky J guy, Darius ... those guys definitely do not strike me as being 'waived through' guys.
You: "What do you base that on? Moreover the new edge rusher that was just admitted comes from one of the least rigorous colllesges in the country — FAU OR FIU. UCLA, like almost every single college has given up the ghost. Football and to a lesser extent hoop has just dropped any pretenses anymore.
Me: "Have you heard them interviewed?
As far as FI/AU guy, if you've gotten good grades at even a JC, then you're more likely to succeed than a guy w/ ok grades straight out of HS.
At least, when I was a strapping young buck coming up, that's the way UCLA admissions saw it. I wasn't admitted to UCLA out of HS. Got horrible grades at Pepperdine - iirc, I left w/ below a 2.0. Then got a 3.5 at JC. Cumulative GPA turned out the same as my HS GPA. Got admitted to UCLA as a transfer. Clearly, at that time, UCLA admissions felt like getting the job done (even at Pepperdine, where I didn't get the job done, and JC), was a better predictor of success than getting the job done in HS.
I'm still waiting for your list of players that Stanford has announced that they turned away because of academics, or that announced they couldn't get accepted by Stanford."
You: "Who are the kids who decided icla wasn’t for them after admissions announced? I can think of absolutely ZERO. Thr company line of you guys used to be we had to vet before an offer. Obviously false btw.
The only kids that leave ucla after verballing is when they get offers from better football schools like the RB last year who went to UGA. This happened not because of admissions but because UGA offered and he visited."
Huh? I'm saying UCLA is being picky about admissions for football. We're talking about guys that weren't admitted or offered in the first place. In answer to my question "Has there ever been an announcement where a school announced 'we wanted this guy, but his academics aren't up to snuff for us'? or a kid said 'I was inline to go this school but got rejected by admissions.'"
You said: "It happens all the time"
Were tons of posts down the road. You haven't given me one name. If it happens all the time, surely you can come up with at least a few instances.