|
Post by biotec on Jan 20, 2014 6:16:01 GMT -8
I am floored that this has got so much attention. I just don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jan 20, 2014 6:19:35 GMT -8
off topic... and the 49ers have need overrated the whole season. Unfortunately, you can't speak correct English, either.
Did you by any chance go to Stanford?
If my iPhone auto-corrected a word, it must be correct. I think those Stanford engineers know how to program a phone...
|
|
|
Post by 12414 on Jan 20, 2014 7:10:02 GMT -8
Off the top of my head, can't think of a university where every athlete that graduated was a model citizen. My apologies if this statement is not grammatically correct.
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Jan 20, 2014 7:18:45 GMT -8
Puh-leeze. He's a football player who went to Stanford, ergo, he's smart? What a crock. There are admissions standards for athletes and there are admissions standards for everyone else. I'll put my SAT scores and SDSU degrees up against this knucklehead anytime.
|
|
|
Post by Sdsu4life on Jan 20, 2014 7:30:49 GMT -8
Fowl is no doubt a troll. Doesn't matter how many posts he has or how long he has been on here. Just go back and look at his post history. He doesn't participate in discussion. He makes ignorant, discriminating and cynical threads one after the other. He never intends to participate in a discussion, he just makes this pathetic threads and disappears like a coward. But this is by far the worst thread I've seen. Racist, Discriminating and just flat out idiotic since Sherman is a very well educated person and has the accolades to prove it. It is sad there are people like fowl in this world. I feel bad for him that there is something in his brain that prevents him from seeing reality and the facts.
But regardless, Mods need to step up and bad this guy. You need to set an example and have zero tolerance. Especially when it comes to racism and ignorant discriminating.
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jan 20, 2014 7:56:05 GMT -8
Sherman did create huge numbers of Denver fans with his actions. I have watched Playoffs and Super bowls for 40 years and that is the first time I have ever seen the "choke" sign made at the other team after the game was over. Guy looked like he was in a "Roid Rage". Seattle fans throwing food at Navarro Bowman being carted off the filed after what was obviously a career threatening injury was bush as well. Understand hatred of successful organizations when you have never won, but Seattle became the "bad" guy overnight. Too bad because they have lots of classy players like Wilson etc.
|
|
|
Post by azson on Jan 20, 2014 8:05:05 GMT -8
Sherman did create huge numbers of Denver fans with his actions. I have watched Playoffs and Super bowls for 40 years and that is the first time I have ever seen the "choke" sign made at the other team after the game was over. Guy looked like he was in a "Roid Rage". Seattle fans throwing food at Navarro Bowman being carted off the filed after what was obviously a career threatening injury was bush as well. Understand hatred of successful organizations when you have never won, but Seattle became the "bad" guy overnight. Too bad because they have lots of classy players like Wilson etc. Never thought I'd find myself rooting for the Broncs in a non-Raider game, much less the SB. Never underestimate the power of a D-Bag.
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Jan 28, 2014 10:56:07 GMT -8
Sherman did create huge numbers of Denver fans with his actions. I have watched Playoffs and Super bowls for 40 years and that is the first time I have ever seen the "choke" sign made at the other team after the game was over. Guy looked like he was in a "Roid Rage". Seattle fans throwing food at Navarro Bowman being carted off the filed after what was obviously a career threatening injury was bush as well. Understand hatred of successful organizations when you have never won, but Seattle became the "bad" guy overnight. Too bad because they have lots of classy players like Wilson etc. The game will be interesting to watch. From the officiating crew it looks like the back judge is 1 that will allow the Seasquawks to freely mug the bronco receivers so look for lots of complaints from the bronco sideline.
|
|
|
Post by azson on Jan 31, 2014 10:45:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by oskiaztec on Jan 31, 2014 11:37:51 GMT -8
Puh-leeze. He's a football player who went to Stanford, ergo, he's smart? What a crock. There are admissions standards for athletes and there are admissions standards for everyone else. I'll put my SAT scores and SDSU degrees up against this knucklehead anytime. I've had the pleasure of speaking with Sherman while he was playing at Stanford. I can assure you, he is very intelligent. Unlike most football schools, Stanford does have rather strict admission standards for its football players. The standards might not be as high as for the general campus population, but they are still higher than the standards for any other D1 FBS school.
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Feb 1, 2014 7:27:08 GMT -8
Puh-leeze. He's a football player who went to Stanford, ergo, he's smart? What a crock. There are admissions standards for athletes and there are admissions standards for everyone else. I'll put my SAT scores and SDSU degrees up against this knucklehead anytime. I've had the pleasure of speaking with Sherman while he was playing at Stanford. I can assure you, he is very intelligent. Unlike most football schools, Stanford does have rather strict admission standards for its football players. The standards might not be as high as for the general campus population, but they are still higher than the standards for any other D1 FBS school. Fine. But to smugly assume, as the author did, that "Hey, he went to Stanford, so he's smarter than you," is asinine. And to say Stanford has higher admission standards for football players than other FBS schools is like saying they're the tallest midget at the midget convention. Compared to the serious academic students, they're not in the ballpark. Most football players at Stanford would have a hard time getting a standard admission at SDSU or UCSD. Seriously. My son had a 2300 on his SAT (out of 2400) and a 3.9 GPA. He didn't get into Stanford. Got into some other very prestigious schools, but not Stanford. Were it not for their athleticism, 98% of the football team wouldn't be admitted on their own merits. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that the vast majority of the football players at Stanford are fine kids and reasonably smart. But don't confuse them for a second with the world-class intellectuals that really make places like Harvard, MIT, Yale, University of Chicago, and Stanford, tick. They're not in the same ballpark.
|
|
|
Post by oskiaztec on Feb 1, 2014 8:11:37 GMT -8
I've had the pleasure of speaking with Sherman while he was playing at Stanford. I can assure you, he is very intelligent. Unlike most football schools, Stanford does have rather strict admission standards for its football players. The standards might not be as high as for the general campus population, but they are still higher than the standards for any other D1 FBS school. Fine. But to smugly assume, as the author did, that "Hey, he went to Stanford, so he's smarter than you," is asinine. And to say Stanford has higher admission standards for football players than other FBS schools is like saying they're the tallest midget at the midget convention. Compared to the serious academic students, they're not in the ballpark. Most football players at Stanford would have a hard time getting a standard admission at SDSU or UCSD. Seriously. My son had a 2300 on his SAT (out of 2400) and a 3.9 GPA. He didn't get into Stanford. Got into some other very prestigious schools, but not Stanford. Were it not for their athleticism, 98% of the football team wouldn't be admitted on their own merits. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that the vast majority of the football players at Stanford are fine kids and reasonably smart. But don't confuse them for a second with the world-class intellectuals that really make places like Harvard, MIT, Yale, University of Chicago, and Stanford, tick. They're not in the same ballpark. Maybe I got the wrong impression from you calling him a knucklehead. He did graduate from Stanford in three years, while playing football, and in his fourth year started his masters. Tallest midget... I'd say give Stanford credit for actually recruiting kids who can succeed while playing football. Look at those 'public ivies' UCLA and UNC... many of those kids couldn't get into SDSU.
|
|
|
Post by oskiaztec on Feb 1, 2014 9:43:41 GMT -8
I've had the pleasure of speaking with Sherman while he was playing at Stanford. I can assure you, he is very intelligent. Unlike most football schools, Stanford does have rather strict admission standards for its football players. The standards might not be as high as for the general campus population, but they are still higher than the standards for any other D1 FBS school. LOL, yeah...maybe (and I said "maybe") when they were going 2-9 every year. Even if this were the case when they were losing, I can assure you that their "standards" have evolved just a bit over the last ten years or so. I don't dispute that this guy is bright and well-educated, but the rest of your statement is patent nonsense. Private schools can do ANYTHING they want to make their academic profile look better. Stanford's approach to recruiting changed. They started to sell the academics to recruits that would normally have gone to UCLA, Notre Dame, Harvard and Yale. 'Why do you want to go to UCLA when you can be a part of the Stanford brand?" .... "Why go to Harvard, we're equivalent academically and you get to play FBS, BCS football?" This is something that Northwestern and Cal are trying to replicated, though with far less success. Unlike schools like Notre Dame or Duke, where the public knows of them as much for sports as school, Stanford doesn't need sports to attract donor money and top students. It doesn't rely on successful athletics to fund its athletics department. It has the largest athletics endowment in the country, completely dwarfing what schools like USC and Texas have. The only reason it invests so heavily in sports is to attract students and away from the Ivies.
|
|
|
Post by oskiaztec on Feb 1, 2014 10:45:53 GMT -8
Stanford's approach to recruiting changed. They started to sell the academics to recruits that would normally have gone to UCLA, Notre Dame, Harvard and Yale. 'Why do you want to go to UCLA when you can be a part of the Stanford brand?" .... "Why go to Harvard, we're equivalent academically and you get to play FBS, BCS football?" This is something that Northwestern and Cal are trying to replicated, though with far less success. Unlike schools like Notre Dame or Duke, where the public knows of them as much for sports as school, Stanford doesn't need sports to attract donor money and top students. It doesn't rely on successful athletics to fund its athletics department. It has the largest athletics endowment in the country, completely dwarfing what schools like USC and Texas have. The only reason it invests so heavily in sports is to attract students and away from the Ivies. Duke is a top-notch academic institution with or without sports. What brings you to our forum? Duke is not in Stanford's realm, it is good not top-notch. This from a person that hates Stanford. I have connections to SDSU and live in the community. Didn't know being an alumnus was a requirement for posting on this board.
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Feb 1, 2014 13:00:17 GMT -8
Duke is a top-notch academic institution with or without sports. What brings you to our forum? Duke is not in Stanford's realm, it is good not top-notch. This from a person that hates Stanford. I have connections to SDSU and live in the community. Didn't know being an alumnus was a requirement for posting on this board. It's not. Welcome to the board.. Duke alums, btw, think they are in Stanford's peer group. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Feb 1, 2014 15:39:40 GMT -8
Stanford's approach to recruiting changed. They started to sell the academics to recruits that would normally have gone to UCLA, Notre Dame, Harvard and Yale. 'Why do you want to go to UCLA when you can be a part of the Stanford brand?" .... "Why go to Harvard, we're equivalent academically and you get to play FBS, BCS football?" This is something that Northwestern and Cal are trying to replicated, though with far less success. Unlike schools like Notre Dame or Duke, where the public knows of them as much for sports as school, Stanford doesn't need sports to attract donor money and top students. It doesn't rely on successful athletics to fund its athletics department. It has the largest athletics endowment in the country, completely dwarfing what schools like USC and Texas have. The only reason it invests so heavily in sports is to attract students and away from the Ivies. There are so many problems with your facts and logic that I'm not sure where to start. So I'll just start hacking away in no particular order: * First, I happen to know a lot about the Ivies + MIT + Stanford + UChicago + Northwestern + Cal Tech. (All other schools are a tier below, whether they want to admit it or not.) I did a ton of research prior to my son applying to many of these schools. Additionally, I worked with my son through the application process (which is a completely overblown cluster**k, BTW.) Additionally, I have a few of cousins, nieces, and nephews who've attended Harvard, Stanford and MIT. * There isn't a single player on the Harvard or Yale football team that Stanford would even take a sniff at. Those schools play at least three or four tiers beneath Stanford's top-tier, National Championship-contender status. The Ivy League plays only 10 games per year. Teams are I-AA, but don't participate in the FCS playoffs due to academic concerns. * UCLA, Cal and Notre Dame are another matter. Those are fine academic institutions, but I'm sure that Stanford bludgeons potential recruits over the head with their world-class academic reputation, which is a notch above the aforementioned. * As for Stanford's endowment, it is indeed huge. At $17b, it's larger than most state budgets. It is only surpassed by Harvard's $30b and Yale's $19b. Texas has an $18b endowment, but some of it is spread among some of the other UT campuses outside of Austin. But to say that Stanford doesn't need sports to attract donor money and top students is nonsense. Publicity, marketing, fundraising and alumni engagement are probably the main reasons they invest in sports. While touring Stanford with my son, I heard Stanford administrators say at least a dozen times: "Stanford athletes won 25 medals at the Beijing Olympics. If they were a country, they would've tied with Japan." They also talked incessantly about the football team. It was part of the academic recruiting script. * There is a trend for sports-only endowments, and Stanford leads the pack. But those endowments are far smaller than the overall endowments -- under which the academic endowments are maintained. Stanford's is about $270m. Texas and USC's are in the $100m+ range. However, many of the facilities costs, etc. for sports come from the overall endowment, not the sports-only endowment. * Regarding your comment about UCLA and UNC recruits not being able to get into SDSU, that's probably true. If they weren't athletes, many would have a hard time getting into Chico State. And, trust me, Stanford's no different. Again, if it weren't for their football prowess, 98% of the players on the football team wouldn't have ever been admitted to Stanford solely on their academic merits.
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Feb 1, 2014 15:49:11 GMT -8
Oh, and for the record, and not that it really matters, when I was applying to colleges back in the Stone Age (late '70s), I was accepted to Cal, UCLA, UCSD, and SDSU. I chose SDSU because UCSD was boring and had co-eds who never shaved their armpits. Cal was nice, but I wasn't a big fan of the Bay Area. And UCLA was far too smoggy back then. I really, really wanted to go to Stanford, but there was no way I could pay full boat (assuming I'd have gotten in.)
When I decided to go to biz school, I applied to both SDSU and Stanford. I was accepted to both. Again, I chose SDSU, mostly because it cost less and wouldn't require a complete career interruption.
After rising up through my career, I ended up working with a cadre of execs who had all mostly gone to Ivies or top-tier public Ivies. Whenever I told them I went to SDSU, the condescension in the room was palpable. So, yeah, it bugs me when people say, "He's smarter than you because he went to Stanford. Or Harvard. Or Yale. Or XYZ. There are plenty of kids at SDSU who got perfect scores on their SATs. Doesn't mean the Stanford guys are automatically smarter.
Having said all that, the Stanford/Harvards of the world are fine, fine institutions and national treasures. However, it's important to know that they're national treasures, not for their football players, but for their truly talented and academically gifted authentic students.
|
|
|
Post by oskiaztec on Feb 1, 2014 17:25:28 GMT -8
Stanford's approach to recruiting changed. They started to sell the academics to recruits that would normally have gone to UCLA, Notre Dame, Harvard and Yale. 'Why do you want to go to UCLA when you can be a part of the Stanford brand?" .... "Why go to Harvard, we're equivalent academically and you get to play FBS, BCS football?" This is something that Northwestern and Cal are trying to replicated, though with far less success. Unlike schools like Notre Dame or Duke, where the public knows of them as much for sports as school, Stanford doesn't need sports to attract donor money and top students. It doesn't rely on successful athletics to fund its athletics department. It has the largest athletics endowment in the country, completely dwarfing what schools like USC and Texas have. The only reason it invests so heavily in sports is to attract students and away from the Ivies. There are so many problems with your facts and logic that I'm not sure where to start. So I'll just start hacking away in no particular order: * First, I happen to know a lot about the Ivies + MIT + Stanford + UChicago + Northwestern + Cal Tech. (All other schools are a tier below, whether they want to admit it or not.) I did a ton of research prior to my son applying to many of these schools. Additionally, I worked with my son through the application process (which is a completely overblown cluster**k, BTW.) Additionally, I have a few of cousins, nieces, and nephews who've attended Harvard, Stanford and MIT. * There isn't a single player on the Harvard or Yale football team that Stanford would even take a sniff at. Those schools play at least three or four tiers beneath Stanford's top-tier, National Championship-contender status. The Ivy League plays only 10 games per year. Teams are I-AA, but don't participate in the FCS playoffs due to academic concerns. * UCLA, Cal and Notre Dame are another matter. Those are fine academic institutions, but I'm sure that Stanford bludgeons potential recruits over the head with their world-class academic reputation, which is a notch above the aforementioned. * As for Stanford's endowment, it is indeed huge. At $17b, it's larger than most state budgets. It is only surpassed by Harvard's $30b and Yale's $19b. Texas has an $18b endowment, but some of it is spread among some of the other UT campuses outside of Austin. But to say that Stanford doesn't need sports to attract donor money and top students is nonsense. Publicity, marketing, fundraising and alumni engagement are probably the main reasons they invest in sports. While touring Stanford with my son, I heard Stanford administrators say at least a dozen times: "Stanford athletes won 25 medals at the Beijing Olympics. If they were a country, they would've tied with Japan." They also talked incessantly about the football team. It was part of the academic recruiting script. * There is a trend for sports-only endowments, and Stanford leads the pack. But those endowments are far smaller than the overall endowments -- under which the academic endowments are maintained. Stanford's is about $270m. Texas and USC's are in the $100m+ range. However, many of the facilities costs, etc. for sports come from the overall endowment, not the sports-only endowment. * Regarding your comment about UCLA and UNC recruits not being able to get into SDSU, that's probably true. If they weren't athletes, many would have a hard time getting into Chico State. And, trust me, Stanford's no different. Again, if it weren't for their football prowess, 98% of the players on the football team wouldn't have ever been admitted to Stanford solely on their academic merits. I keep up with Stanford recruiting. The second point is simply not true. Stanford and indeed Cal, UCLA, USC recruit against and lose recruits (2 to 4 a year) to Yale and Harvard and more to those in elite privates a tier below those schools. Regarding the third point, Stanford is more akin to the Ivies in fundraising than it is to the major sports schools. For the last 16 or 17 years it has raised more than Harvard. Stanford is a money making machine. The fact that half the major tech companies were at one point located on Stanford's research campus helps. Many top VC and Law firms are also located on land owned by Stanford. Doesn't hurt to have millionaires and some billionaires on campus. Stanford wants to be the best at everything, that does not mean however, that Stanford would allow its desire for athletic success to reflect negatively on its academics. Stanford has also tapped the Asian markets. Lots of the new money Stanford has been receiving comes from the super rich in Asia. It serves as both a finishing school for the children of these elite or as a symbol of their wealth when they make large donations. This means more to Stanford than athletics. They make more from this than athletics. The Asian super rich don't usually care about college sports in the US. Stanford's athletic endowment is closer to $500m. Payout is anywhere from 20 to 30m a year + annual donations from boosters. Much of Stanford's entire ($19b) endowment is restricted. I agree that probably 70% would not have gotten into Stanford on academics alone. Most people wouldn't be able to. However they are smart enough to get through and graduate without resorting to fake classes like the students at UNC.
|
|
|
Post by oskiaztec on Feb 1, 2014 19:22:01 GMT -8
1. I agree that probably 70% would not have gotten into Stanford on academics alone. 2. However they are smart enough to get through and graduate without resorting to fake classes like the students at UNC. 1. You aren't agreeing. LTB said (I think) that 98% of them wouldn't have gotten in, and IMO* that's closer to true than the 70% you cite. 2. How do you define "fake"? There are football majors at Stanford, just as there are at every DI school. These classes (including the ones at Stanford) are woefully deficient. The difference between North Carolina and almost all the rest is that UNC dispensed with the BS. 3. Similarly, there are GPA recruits for football and basketball at every school including Stanford. It's easy to identify them. Just look at the guys sitting on the bench for entire seasons. I will grant you that most of Stanford's footballers, when interviewed, don't come off as straight-up retarded. That doesn't mean that they're college-ready in the sense that I understand it. *SOURCE: Nephew who played at Stanford in early 2000's. 1. Your opinion is not fact. I was agreeing in general that many would not get in. Your numbers are inflated. You think out of 85 scholarship athletes that only 2 would qualify in any given year? 2. www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-27/university-of-north-carolina-apologizes-for-fake-classes-promises-real-change3. GPAs for Stanford's recruiting class are always near the top for FBS schools. UCLA and Cal have lucked out from having Stanford turn away from academically strong recruits that didn't meet Stanford's qualifications. An example of a good student this year that Stanford turned down. Nifae Lealao. 4-Star. GPA: 3.9/4.0. He did not meet Stanford's standards his senior year and had his offer pulled. 4. Again, they graduate from Stanford while taking the same classes as the smart Stanford students. 5. Your nephew is not evidence. No way to verify. Have him submit an article to the Stanford Daily with what you said and then I'll be more likely to believe it. I love nothing more than to see Stanford admit it's no better than other football schools.
|
|