Value of GPA - Hoops Dynasty | WhatIfSports.com

Posts: 89 (0)

Hall of Famer

235

Prospect

Have been told that the chief value of a high GPA is that a player learns the offensive and defensive sets faster. Does anyone have a handle on how much faster that might be? Say you have two freshman recruits, each playing maybe 8 minutes per game, and one has a 3.5 GPA compared to the other's 2.5. How much faster will the player with the 3.5 GPA learn the sets?

Other than that--clearly a kid with a high GPA doesn't need as much study hall, so the extra minutes can be used to work on basketball skills. Are there any other benefits to a high GPA?

11/4/2010 10:19 AM

paul0613

Posts: 77 (0)

Hall of Famer

63 13 28

Prospect

No, and only high school GPA counts for the speed in which they learn the O/D for the duration of their college career.

11/4/2010 10:22 AM

pablo_ohio

Posts: 60 (0)

Hall of Famer

48 10 1

Prospect

Regarding how quickly a player learns your offense and defense - playing time doesn't impact that, only the minutes devoted to practicing them. For example, a redshirted player will learn your sets even though he never plays that season so long as you practice them

Some guys here actually have formulas to help them figure out how quickly a player with a certain GPA can learn a set. But my rule of thumb is this - unless I'm going to redshirt a player I want him to have a GPA of at least 3.0 because, as you said, this allows less practice minutes for study hall and more improvement in ratings. I've found that a recruit with a 3.0 GPA will reach an "A" in a given set over four seasons with 20-25 minutes of consistent practice time

11/4/2010 10:29 AM

metsmax

Posts: 1598 (0)

Hall of Famer

5 2 833 2

Pro

GPA is a good thing, I think it can be a tiebreaker in recruiting, but I would not take an inferior player in order to get a better GPA - but then again, Dean Wermer and I have never seen eye to eye on this grades stuff

11/4/2010 11:55 AM

tedlukacs

Posts: 89 (0)

Hall of Famer

235

Prospect

OK, from the few replies thus far, looks like the consensus is that GPA affects only the speed of learning offensive and defensive sets--and, of course, eligibility. As you might have expected, this inquiry doesn't come out of the blue. Have Clayton State DII in Naismith. Since it's in Georgia, looked at all Georgia-based recruits for two seasons ago (39 in all), and maybe 15 Georgia-based DI recruits last season. For the first batch, who just finished their second year, recorded their IQ's at the end of both seasons, and their GPA's both seasons. For the latest batch, recorded their GPA, their IQ at the beginning of their Freshman year, and at the end. I was surprised, but don't want to clutter up the forum with some 50-odd lines of data. Sufficeth to say that I am no longer so sure that GPA affects the learning of the sets as much as believed, and as much as the developer, himself, has stated. Anyone that wishes the results in more detail, please send me a site mail. Will check out the WE's, but doubt it will make much difference. PT doesn't. Hope to hear from a few of you.

11/4/2010 4:50 PM

pablo_ohio

Posts: 60 (0)

Hall of Famer

48 10 1

Prospect

This is hardly concrete data but I have a 86 WE player on my Smith team who is part of a 6 man class, currently 9 games into their junior season, who is still only at B+ in my offensive and defensive sets when 4 of the 6 in his class hit A- in each set before postseason play in their sophomore season. I didn't recruit him as I took over the team while they were freshmen but I remember his HS GPA being sub-2.5

This, along with the results from my own recruits relative to their own GPAs, leads me to believe that work ethic has little to no bearing on learning offense and defense

11/4/2010 9:54 PM

dahsdebater

Posts: 10041 (0)

Hall of Famer

284 290 18

Pro

Posted by pablo_ohio on 11/4/2010 9:54:00 PM (view original):
This is hardly concrete data but I have a 86 WE player on my Smith team who is part of a 6 man class, currently 9 games into their junior season, who is still only at B+ in my offensive and defensive sets when 4 of the 6 in his class hit A- in each set before postseason play in their sophomore season. I didn't recruit him as I took over the team while they were freshmen but I remember his HS GPA being sub-2.5

This, along with the results from my own recruits relative to their own GPAs, leads me to believe that work ethic has little to no bearing on learning offense and defense

You've clearly never recruited a low-WE player. Guys with 1 or 2 WE improve their IQs very, very slowly.

11/4/2010 11:32 PM

tedlukacs

Posts: 89 (0)

Hall of Famer

235

Prospect

OK, looking at aggregate numbers, comparing IQ's between Fr and So seasons: Of the 39 players in my sample, discarded three because their schools ran combo defenses. Of the remining 36, 29 went up two points in defensive IQ and two in offensive IQ.   A point, for example, is from C to C+, or C+ to B-. Of those 29, 15 started their Soph year at B-, B- and moved up to B+, B+; a few others started at C+, B- and moved up to B, B+ (1st number is the offensive IQ; 2nd the defensive IQ). You get the picture. Five moved up one point in offense or defense, and two points in the other set. Two moved up two points in one set and three in the other. Really not much variation. The three guys with the lowest GPA's (2.1, 2.1 and 2.3) were +2, +2. A guy with a 3.8 was +2, +1; his WE was a putrid 1. But another guy, GPA 3.4, with a WE in the 70's was a +2, +1. One of the guys that went +2, +3 had a GPA of 3.2 and a WE in the 40's. The other +2, +3 guy had a 2.7 GPA and a WE in the 70's.   Figure maybe some of the +2, +1 or +1, +2, or +2,+3 might be due to coaches placing more or less points into the sets; no way of telling.

Of the 14 freshmen from the past season's Georgia DI group, 12 ended their year at B- on offense and the remaining two at B; seven ended at B- on defense, five at B, one at C+ and one at D+. The D+ rating may have reflected the time allotted by the coach--the player's offense and defense went up +3, +2, while others went up generally 5 or 6 points.   Again, remarkable consistency in where they ended up, despite a little more variance in their IQ at the start of their freshman year. Again, no apparent connection between GPA and IQ; a guy with a 4.0 was +6, +3 and a guy with a 2.7 was +6, +6.   If there is a connection between GPA and IQ, the numbers of this modest sample don't show it; same for the WE.
     So, people--what now?  Try to get everyone at a solid 2.8-3.0, to avoid bad semesters that threaten to sideline a player, or continue to follow WIS wisdom and build up the IQ of the players, even though there doesn't appear to be any point in raising IQ's beyond that needed to ensure eligibility?  As noted, anyone that wants more detail, player by player, to do your own analysis, let me know via site mail.   Want to get a dialogue going on this and a few other things that are conventional wisdom.

11/4/2010 11:41 PM

jenningss

Posts: 250 (0)

Hall of Famer

2 622 11 27

Rookie

I kind of figured High School GPA only changed the odds of a kid being a fast or slow learner. Once his learning ability was set then that can be changed by WE and practice. Soooo.... All other things being equal, it's possible for a HS GPA 3.0 to be a fast/medium/slow learner but, for a group of players, it will be faster than a 2.0GPA.

But the only thing I know for sure is the use of evals to get the fast/slow info.

11/5/2010 1:47 AM

Iguana1

Posts: 369 (0)

Hall of Famer

69 65

Rookie

the scouting evaluations list 4 responses for grades which is based directly on the high school gpa.
I believe it's something in the area of:

high school gpa
2.0-2.5 = Below average learner
2.5-3.0 = Medicore learner
3.0-3.5 = Above average learner
3.5-4.0 = Excellent learner

11/5/2010 1:42 PM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1109 1

Prospect

@Ig - didn't you post something a long, long time ago about how many minutes of team practice time it took to get to certain grades? Quicker at first, slower later on, with slight modifications, emphasis on slight, for WE and GPA (fast vs slow learner really)

@ted - most of your info falls well within the guidelines of the chart I recall seeing, maybe 8 years ago. A 1 WE , 2.0 GPA kid and a 99 WE, 4.0 GPA kid might have a 2/3 grade of improvement difference by the end of their senior season - i.e. A+ vs A- with the same amount of practice time, but in most cases, at the end of their frosh season, they will look identical.

Ted, I also think practice minutes (20 or 25 or 30) masks any other criteria, when comparing players from other teams.

11/5/2010 1:53 PM

Iguana1

Posts: 369 (0)

Hall of Famer

69 65

Rookie

there is a direct correlation to high school gpa and the rate of increase in IQ. And I'd estimate it's more important than many realize.

these are the numbers I use for an "average learner" IQ improvement

D- > D        60 min
D   > D+    60
D+ > C-      60
C- > C    120
C > C+   120
C+ > B-     160
B- > B       320
B > B+   330
B+ > A-     430
A- > A       670
A > A+      520

which totals to 2850 total minutes for an "average" learner

an average learner is somewhere in the ranges of: 50WE/3.00gpa; 40WE/3.30gpa; 60WE/2.70gpa; 80WE/2.30gpa
fast learners can knock 10%+ off those numbers: 50WE/3.60gpa; 85WE/2.70gpa
faster learners may require 20% less time: 95WE/3.30 gpa
slow learners can take 10% more than the estimated time: 50WE/2.40gpa; 40WE/2.70gpa; 60WE/2.20gpa
or some slower ones require 20% more time: 25WE/3.00gpa
or the rare combo that can add an additional 50% time: 15WE/2.20gpa

The slowest I had was a non-qualifier with a single digit WE. To go from a C+ to a B took 800 minutes rather than the expected 480.
And in the past month I've had a guy do those same two grades in 380 total minutes, or 420 minutes faster than the first guy.

11/5/2010 4:21 PM (edited)

jetwildcat

Posts: 1204 (0)

Hall of Famer

198 3

Prospect

Posted by Iguana1 on 11/5/2010 4:21:00 PM (view original):
there is a direct correlation to high school gpa and the rate of increase in IQ. And I'd estimate it's more important than many realize.

these are the numbers I use for an "average learner" IQ improvement

D- > D        60 min
D   > D+    60
D+ > C-      60
C- > C    120
C > C+   120
C+ > B-     160
B- > B       320
B > B+   330
B+ > A-     430
A- > A       670
A > A+      520

which totals to 2850 total minutes for an "average" learner

an average learner is somewhere in the ranges of: 50WE/3.00gpa; 40WE/3.30gpa; 60WE/2.70gpa; 80WE/2.30gpa
fast learners can knock 10%+ off those numbers: 50WE/3.60gpa; 85WE/2.70gpa
faster learners may require 20% less time:   95WE/3.30 gpa
slow learners can take 10% more than the estimated time: 50WE/2.40gpa; 40WE/2.70gpa; 60WE/2.20gpa
or some slower ones require 20% more time: 25WE/3.00gpa
or the rare combo that can add an additional 50% time:   15WE/2.20gpa

The slowest I had was a non-qualifier with a single digit WE. To go from a C+ to a B took 800 minutes rather than the expected 480.
And in the past month I've had a guy do those same two grades in 380 total minutes, or 420 minutes faster than the first guy.

so, for a baseline, how many minutes does 20 minutes of practice time add up to over a season? is it just 20x#ofGames?

11/5/2010 4:25 PM

emy1013

Posts: 2731 (0)

Hall of Famer

891

Prospect

Posted by tedlukacs on 11/4/2010 4:50:00 PM (view original):
OK, from the few replies thus far, looks like the consensus is that GPA affects only the speed of learning offensive and defensive sets--and, of course, eligibility. As you might have expected, this inquiry doesn't come out of the blue. Have Clayton State DII in Naismith. Since it's in Georgia, looked at all Georgia-based recruits for two seasons ago (39 in all), and maybe 15 Georgia-based DI recruits last season. For the first batch, who just finished their second year, recorded their IQ's at the end of both seasons, and their GPA's both seasons. For the latest batch, recorded their GPA, their IQ at the beginning of their Freshman year, and at the end. I was surprised, but don't want to clutter up the forum with some 50-odd lines of data. Sufficeth to say that I am no longer so sure that GPA affects the learning of the sets as much as believed, and as much as the developer, himself, has stated. Anyone that wishes the results in more detail, please send me a site mail. Will check out the WE's, but doubt it will make much difference. PT doesn't. Hope to hear from a few of you.

There is a secondary effect to having players with a high GPA (and pardon me if someone mentioned it later in the thread). Yes, players with a higher GPA learn the O/D faster, no debating that. What I haven't seen mentioned yet is that players with a high GPA also need less Study Hall time compared to lower GPA players, which in turn allows you to devote more minutes to individual practice plans. As someone did say earlier, I wouldn't recruit an inferior player simply because he has a better GPA, but it could be the tiebreaker between two similar players. Just something to think about......

***Edit*** Damn, just saw that you mentioned it in your opening post. I'm an idiot, nothing else to see here, move along.......

11/5/2010 4:44 PM

oldresorter

Posts: 646 (0)

Hall of Famer

1109 1

Prospect

Iquana - that was the one, thanks for reposting it, newcomers, this is a very helpful chart.

jetcat - yep - 2800 minute by 140 game career would be 20 minutes to get to A+, which assuming 35 practice days, 2 exhib, 29 games, 4 days off equals 35 practice days more or less. Most guys will see B- by the end of the frosh season, B/B+/A- by the end of the soph, A/A- by the end of junior, and A/A+ by the end of the senior season.

11/5/2010 4:56 PM (edited)

Forums

Value of GPA Topic

Search Criteria