Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

That spectacular game against Stanford shoudl help somewhat with recruiting.

Madrone wrote:That spectacular game against Stanford shoudl help somewhat with recruiting.

Winning period helps out Oregon. A loss vs USC next week will do just as much to hurt us against recruits as this win does to help us.

But I really don't think recruits make decisions based off of one win or one loss. It's about a body of work, location, the depth chart, facilities, and academics. Winning against Stanford helps, but it's not going to tip some recruit over the edge.

headshottzzzz wrote: Winning period helps out Oregon. A loss vs USC next week will do just as much to hurt us against recruits as this win does to help us.

But I really don't think recruits make decisions based off of one win or one loss. It's about a body of work, location, the depth chart, facilities, and academics. Winning against Stanford helps, but it's not going to tip some recruit over the edge.

This. A guy like Kyle Murphy is going to go to Stanford for the opportunity to get a degree from an elite school. Stanford is also doing a tremendous job developing their offensive lineman.

Hopefully, DJ Foster decides to go to Oregon. ASU is struggling against Wazzu.

DJ Foster has already publicly admitted that if he uses his brain, Oregon is the choice. Choosing Arizona State now, with Erickson's future in doubt, would be even dumber than it would have been when he made that comment. Let's hope DJ's brain is functioning when he makes his choice.

uostudent, I hear you make a lot about education's from certain schools, but the fact is it only matter that you have a degree for 98% of jobs. It's not near as big a deal as you would like to believe. Paulson turned down Stanford for UO, lots of kids turn down Stanford for other schools. Also please show me all of these Stanford olineman in the NFL?

Buckmark is right about most employers not caring where the degree comes from. Though with Stanford, I've heard that alumni really look out for their own, more so than at most schools.

ncduck wrote:Buckmark is right about most employers not caring where the degree comes from. Though with Stanford, I've heard that alumni really look out for their own, more so than at most schools.

Oregon alumni do the same thing...... see: Nike.

buckmarkduck wrote:uostudent, I hear you make a lot about education's from certain schools, but the fact is it only matter that you have a degree for 98% of jobs. It's not near as big a deal as you would like to believe. Paulson turned down Stanford for UO, lots of kids turn down Stanford for other schools. Also please show me all of these Stanford olineman in the NFL?

UO is a good school and has a solid reputation on the West Coast. I have a good job with a degree from UO. However, the Stanford and USC alumni networks are legit. I had a friend graduate from Stanford with a poli sci degree and get a 6 figure investment banking job in SF. That doesn't happen very often at UO. The Pac 12 has some of the best universities in the country. I turned down UW to go to UO, despite UW being ranked higher and I don't regret it at all. I'm not a "prestige whore". I think you're downplaying how great of a school Stanford is. Now that Stanford's football program is respectable, they are going to continue to pull in elite recruits. Look what Vanderbilt is doing under their new coach. They are pulling in some really outstanding recruits. Vandy's coach can point to the major disparity in academics between Vanderbilt and Arkansas, Ole Miss, South Carolina, etc. Not all kids in the South just want to make it the NFL. I definitely don't expect Vanderbilt to have the same type of success that Stanford is having, but wouldn't be surprised if they become a 7-8 win team as long as Franklin is their coach. Academics are definitely a factor in recruiting.

Oregon has to recruit against top 25 schools in Stanford, Cal, UCLA, and USC. Oregon has a lost a lot recruits to Cal because of Tosh's negative recruiting. Cal is the best public school in the country, but a football player who graduates from Cal with mediocre grades and a "social welfare" degree (Cal's most popular major for athletes) probably isn't going to get a cushy job. Do you think any fortunate 500 company would hire DeSean Jackson or Marshawn Lynch (discounting their star power)?

I think (though I'm too young to have first hand experience and really know what I'm talking about) that it also matters what career your looking for. It seems to me that in some careers your degree can be a non-factor, and just having a diploma on the wall is adequate as long as it's not from some online school, but in others where you went to undergrad is important. And of course there are careers where your graduate school is very important, but your undergrad is not.

And I think you can't discount the importance of networks. Yeah, Destroyer, Nike does show preference towards Oregon in some important ways, but that's one company. Stanford and those kinds of schools have connections for their students like that in many companies across many industries. If I wanted a job in sports business, Oregon could give me some great opportunities. But if I was interested in physics, computer science, a Ph.D., and just about every other professional field I can think of, Stanford is obviously the better choice in terms of career prospects.

And finally, like headshotz said, rare is the athlete who makes decisions based on a single win or loss (unless it's a BCS game or something special like that). When you're deciding how to spend four years of your life, I think the box score on Saturday is a pretty insignificant factor. The only time I could imagine it mattering for most kids is when a recruit is on his official visit, because then if the team wins it would probably put a damper on the team, the coaches, and the fans, whereas a big win creates a celebratory atmosphere all over campus.

I'm sure that academics are a factor in recruiting. Though, in a lot of cases, they probably shouldn't be. Going to Stanford isn't going to magically turn a person into a genius. Usually, an employer looks at a degree as a sign that someone had to do a lot of work to get in and through that program. Getting in for being good at catching footballs kind of dispels that reasoning.

you can't really argue against Stanford academically

wheaton4prez wrote:I'm sure that academics are a factor in recruiting. Though, in a lot of cases, they probably shouldn't be. Going to Stanford isn't going to magically turn a person into a genius. Usually, an employer looks at a degree as a sign that someone had to do a lot of work to get in and through that program. Getting in for being good at catching footballs kind of dispels that reasoning.

Are you serious? The average Stanford football scored ~1200 on the SAT (old score). That puts them in the ~80th percentile. That's pretty good for anyone. I scored over 1200 and consider myself to be a pretty smart guy. Chris Owusu is majoring in human biology, Fleener in science, technology and society (engineering + social sciences), David DeCastro (same thing), Jeremy Stewart in mechanical engineering, Andrew Luck in Architecture, etc. You get the idea.

Not saying that the football players at Stanford are geniuses, but they are intelligent and academically inclined kids.

I doubt Legarrette Blount even scored 800 on the SAT. Cliff Harris barely made it onto campus.

I scored over 1200 without studying and having partied and gotten three sheets to the wind the night before. The SAT is a poor barometer of intelligence or academic seriousness. I exhibited neither and still did well.

My point remains that had those players not been good at football, most of them would not be going to Stanford. Therefore, what it means for them to go to Stanford is not the same.

wheaton4prez wrote:I scored over 1200 without studying and having partied and gotten three sheets to the wind the night before. The SAT is a poor barometer of intelligence or academic seriousness. I exhibited neither and still did well.

My point remains that had those players not been good at football, most of them would not be going to Stanford. Therefore, what it means for them to go to Stanford is not the same.

I think it's a better measure than it gets credit for. It's not perfect obviously, but I personally have found a pretty good correlation between how smart I perceive someone to be and how they do on the SAT. Of course, I got a 1500+ (2300+ actually, but that's just because they added a third 800 point section for writing) so maybe I'm saying this because I just want to feel good about myself.

Actually, I'm curious now. Does anyone know if the NCAA factors in the writing portion of the SAT? Because the SAT is no longer out of 1600, it's out of 2400. But most schools care more about the math and reading (used to be called verbal) sections than the writing section, so I could see the NCAA only choosing to care about M+R, making the scores for athletes still out of 1600.

Tray Dub wrote:I think it's a better measure than it gets credit for. It's not perfect obviously, but I personally have found a pretty good correlation between how smart I perceive someone to be and how they do on the SAT. Of course, I got a 1500+ (2300+ actually, but that's just because they added a third 800 point section for writing) so maybe I'm saying this because I just want to feel good about myself.

Hah. That's what I've tended to believe about its defenders. Not to say that you aren't smart. You seem so to me. Just due to your reasoning rather than your familiarity with proper grammar and algebra.

The problem with the SAT is that it's a test of knowledge rather than intelligence. And people from different environments are going to have different knowledge. I think it is a mistake to consider someone smart due to what they have or have not been exposed to.

I scored well on the SAT because I grew up in a white-bread Oregon suburb. Same type of place the authors of the test probably came from. If Blount grew up in the same place that I did, he might do circles around me on the SAT.