<p>You've probably heard the proposals to buy and sell pollution credits. One company installs more anti-pollution devices than required, and sells its "credits" to another company whose facilities are dirtier than required. Similarly, Caltech could make money by selling athletes' excess SAT scores to colleges whose athletes have low scores.</p>
<p>Hahaha. Ellen, that is brilliant.</p>
<p>I really hope this guy is being ironic.</p>
<p>Heh, if not, he's quite the ignoramus. Suggesting that certain schools should sacrifice academics for athletics is quite preposterous.</p>
<p>Why don't people call for similar actions at UT and USC and the like? Cut down on athletics and focus on the important part of the college.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, I think college sports are great and I love pro sports, but that article crosses the line completely.</p>
<p>Of course if it is all in jest, no harm done.</p>
<p>What do I-A, I-AA, and D-III stand for? Apparently, D-III is the bottom and I-A is the top, right? Seeing that MIT and UChicago are D-III. :P</p>
<p>And yeah - universities should have the right not to host football teams if they choose not to do so. Prestige is so overrated.</p>
<p>i don't think the article was meant to be insulting - i found it humorously entertaining :-P</p>
<p>Ben:</p>
<p>You're probably correct; the guys on the team I know tend to be the better ones. </p>
<p>And yes, the ESPN article was an intentional joke, like virtually all their Page 2 content.</p>
<p>Yeah, especially towards the end it becomes an obvious joke.</p>
<p>wow Carlson is 6' 6" 220 lbs.? he must be pretty darn strong</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
"Virtually everyone was decent at the high school or varsity level?"
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I don't think so:</p>
<p>"Only six guys on his roster even played varsity ball in high school. Nobody on the team got an offer to play from any other college."</p>
<p>And:</p>
<p>"In his four seasons Dow has seen it all. One kid closed his eyes when he shot. One didn't know if he was left- or righthanded. One current player puts topspin on his jumpers. "Must be some sort of physics I'm not aware of," Dow says."</p>
<p>Must have been less than amazing high school teams for the six who actually played.</p>
<p>You can't really assume that about the six who did play. They could be really great players for all you know. Just because one kid closes his eyes and another puts topspin doesn't mean they all do that :p</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
They could be really great players for all you know...
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>It seems unlikely, given the team's record.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong; I'm not attacking Tech or the men's bb team in any way. In fact, I think that this is how college sports should be: you get accepted, and if you happen to want to play a sport and can make it onto the squad, then you play. I'm sick of the multi-million dollar "student-athlete" industry, where academics are an afterthought.</p>
<p>Yes, I'd agree with you there, but your logic behind a statement like "Must have been less than amazing high school teams for the six who actually played." is just wrong. In many, many ways. That's the point I was trying to make, you were applying the skills (or lack thereof :p) of a few players to every single other player, and then to those players' schools.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
...but your logic behind a statement like "Must have been less than amazing high school teams for the six who actually played.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>There's no attempt on my part to use logic - just my opinion based on the fact that they haven't won a conference game for 21 yrs.....</p>
<p>Anyway, it wasn't your statement I disagreed with, it was GracieLegend's, which she continued thus:</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
An average basketball enthusiast would have no chance at making the Caltech squad.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I disagree. If many of the squad had not played at the high school level, then I would propose that an 'average basketball enthusiast' would have a good chance of making the team, and I would say that their record backs me up.</p>
<p>Again, no slight intended. I'm a big Div III fan. :-)</p>
<p>temujin:</p>
<p>The men's basketball team this year is probably the best it's ever been in Tech's history. Furthermore, at least four of the six guys that played varsity in high school were on very good teams. (Regional champions and in a few cases state or nationally ranked)</p>
<p>Of course, these guys were not stars on those teams, and in some cases came off the bench, but a few of them could definitely play D2 basketball. </p>
<p>It's pretty funny that you refered to me as a "she".</p>
<p>The Beavers??!!! I thought it was the Cal Tech robots!</p>
<p>Really, what would you want your doctor to know? Basketball? Or Biology?
There’s got to be some sense of priority. Caltech students play sports not because they want to win tournaments, but because they enjoy doing so.</p>
<p>This thread is over three and a half years old. I doubt whomever you are speaking to will be around to answer you.</p>
<p>I’m still around, and was amazed to have this post show up. And I was one of those adult cheerleaders who watched Caltech almost win, and then, late on a Wed nite, actually win. While Caltech may not have cheerleaders, they do have a following from USC who come looking for b/fs. </p>
<p>In no way am I disparaging the female team–they had some good players that year.</p>