Didn't all these clowns come out publicly and say they supported Roy and had absolutely no idea what McCants was talking about when he blew the whistle?

Brooke Pryor @bepryor
Follow
In Dean Smith era, 54 basketball enrollments of AFAM independent studies classes; 17 under Bill Guthridge, 42 under Doherty, 167 under RoyW

ROY DIDN'T KNOW THOUGH

This is a key difference between Roy and Dean Smith. Roy didn't know, but he does now. Dean did know, but he doesn't now.

We pretty much lived in the architecture building we were so busy. But we had a hell of a lot of fun. Our college had a huge 4-level atrium that students once repelled from at 2am. Also could play soccer and wiffle ball on the ground floor after all the faculty left. And lots of sex.

I was awake and working the entire time in studio once for 62 out of 65 hours. Only breaks to walk to Wendy's to get food. Eventually got mono the year after this for same ****.

Dan Wetzel at Yahoo tears UNC to shreds and says death penalty should be an option:


If Emmert, at 61, still has the old fire he started the job with, if he still has the belief that NCAA rules count for something, if he still believes in college sports and the good it can produce, it he still holds the confidence to walk into a fight and throw haymakers, then this is the weakling waiting to be made an example.

Multi-sport postseason bans? Fines? Scholarship reductions? Death penalty? It all should be on the table.

Here’s the chance for the enforcement process to be strong, authoritative and actually applauded.

A school gave up on educating its students in pursuit of athletic glory.

Because if the NCAA doesn’t stand up to that, then why would it and its president stand at all anymore?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-the...160034290.html

Can't say he's wrong.

Get'em

A full course load will hit ~ 15 hours of class on its own. I did math and econ. I was typically able to get Econ problem sets done in one or two clusters amounting to a few hours per week maybe (per class). The math sets tended to require more continuous attention/mental energy in addition to a weekly chunk devoted to actually solving problems so it's harder to gauge how much time I spent doing math per week. Not sure I regularly hit 15 hours per week-- if so it was prob a very skewed distribution-- but I doubt it was uncommon. I did not spend a great deal of time truly "studying" but it's only a couple hours per day.

Edit: also, lol economics. Wish I had stopped after the intermediate level and taken more math electives

grad school is not only or even majority business and law. You're gonna get rekt if you think taking easy classes will look better than hard classes in any other non-lol grad program.

yeah obv if you coast through a weak courseload you will get got in graduate arts/science programs, but i think he's also obv talking about things from the perspective of attending a professional school. i went to yale and knew a number of people who dropped math/physics/etc type majors because they wanted to get into finance, and even coming from a high caliber school finance companies want an excellent gpa regardless of your major (b/c they are interested in the sort of person who will take that tradeoff). but maybe you are calling an mba a lol grad program, in which case i ain't mad atcha

I prefaced it with other for that reason. Both my parents have their MBAs and my bff has a law degree so I can't really be negatively biased towards those. Do find it dumb though that professional schools don't pay attention to classes taken, though obviously their application rates are super high.

Some of you guys who are saying that college is ez, I didn't spend 15 hours a week, etc etc have never talked to, tried to study with, etc these types of kids. I went to USC and probably averaged about 10-15 hours a week in the business school so I know where you're coming from but I had a bunch of scholly football players in my frat who could barely write a paragraph. You don't really realize how stupid these kids are until you have a conversation with them. Of course college is relatively easy at all non-stanford type schools for the kids who used their intelligence to get into them. Now just imagine if you were told you had to go to MIT and study graduate level engineering as a freshman in college. That is the difference in levels of intelligence between these kids who's H.S.'s kept them eligible with 2.2's or whatever and the typical student at a UNC, UCLA, USC, Michigan, etc.

I mean the average SAT/ACT score at USC and UNC are like 1450/32 but we let football and basketball kids in all the time with much much lowers. If they graduate H.S. with a 2.5 they can get in with a Math/Verbal score of 820. If their H.S. props them up even more and they get a 2.8 they only need a 700 to be eligible. Maybe at horrible horrible academic state schools that can pass but of course they won't be able to pass at the better D1 schools without an astonishing amount of "help" and dedication.

What? So...how does that make them victims?

My experience teaching scholarship athletes in obligatory classes of a technical nature is that on average they are better students than the run of the mill student. This is because they are more likely to be hard-working and self-disciplined than the average student because they have been selected for those traits. In general I would happily teach a room full of scholarship athletes were it not for the administrative overhead generated by their constant justified absences and the harassment by the handlers assigned to look after them.

I don't consider them victims at all. I was trying to clarify that my criticism of university athletic program corruption does not extend to the athletes themselves. I think they are well compensated for their activities, and I think those activities should be going on in a minor league farm system, not in the university. However, they are not the problem, and I think it is unrealistic to expect that the "student-athlete" can be anything other than a sham, like the "liberal arts education." There are students and there are athletes (and there are the great majority who are just warm bodies) and there are very few who manage to be both, and that's no surprise to anyone who has been either.

I tutored student athletes at Rutgers.

Most of them showed up for astrology for liberal arts (whatever it was called) to get attendance taken... then tried to sneak past the attendance taker. Some manage that and then fail to show up to check out.

Yes, some of them use the discipline to study hard and get good grades. They had access to private tutors (aka me) via the athletic department. Quite a few athletes took full advantage.

But lol at wanting to teach a roomful of student athletes. A roomful of them that opted into tough (aka, anything not AFAM or Communications for Rutgers) majors maybe, but teaching a roomful of unfiltered student athletes sounds like an absolute nightmare.

The average writing level of a football player was consistent with ESL kids. To a lot of them the written English language might as well be Greek.

pretty sure we aren't talking about the same students as you are talking about.

A quote from Roy, presented without comment

In one sentence you call student-athletes well compensated, and in the next you refer to that compensation as a sham. How does that work?

what other teams got the death hammer? i know blue mountain state did back in the day, but would UNC be the first since then?

From wikipedia:

So you better watch your ass

1450 avg SAT at USC? LOL. They must have changed the scoring since i took it in the early '90s. Citation?

Guessing it's the out of 2400 scoring
Edit: maybe not, unless they changed act too, seems suspect though