I had a conversation with a couple of Badger fans Thanksgiving weekend. Vander came up and they started in with:
"Well, you know he would never have been accepted into UW @ Madison".
I responded that Ron Dayne managed to get accepted.....
I never thought of these guys as BadgerNation types, but I guess you need to drink the KoolAid to be in the club.
Its their mantra. If you really want bad on that score, the dookies and Tarheels are even far worse.
Quote from: mu-rara on December 01, 2009, 09:14:40 AM
I had a conversation with a couple of Badger fans Thanksgiving weekend. Vander came up and they started in with:
"Well, you know he would never have been accepted into UW @ Madison".
I responded that Ron Dayne managed to get accepted.....
I never thought of these guys as BadgerNation types, but I guess you need to drink the KoolAid to be in the club.
A better reply would have been: "then why did Bo offer him a scholarship?"
Quote from: The Lens on December 01, 2009, 09:26:25 AM
A better reply would have been: "then why did Bo offer him a scholarship?"
Yeah, that would have been good.....They were also blabbing about what a great coach St. Bo
was (my highlight)
Its obvious Badger fans knew Vander couldn't get accepted. Thats why they didn't care when he chose MU. It really was just expected all along. Obviously not any kind of revisionist thinking
Maybe I'm just too sensitive to recruits, but I initially thought (from the title of the thread) that you were calling VB clueless. I get the play on words, I really do, but perhaps "Badger Blue-lessness" would be better :)
There are just three reasons any highly recruited Wisconsin player does not end up at UW:
1. They aren't smart enough to get into/survive the Harvard of the Midwest.
2. Bo cooled on him.
3. His parents are overbearing troublemakers.
It's funny. They blast the poor kid for not going there and wanting to explore his options, but then they say he couldn't get accepted anyway. Just like Maymon. First it was he won't qualify. Maymon worked his butt off and got qualified, so they change their tune to he can't get accepted at UW-Madison.
Was Bo planning on pulling the scholarship offer to Vander since he couldn't get accepted? When was Bo going to do this? Bo could have saved Vander a lot of grief by pulling the offer, if he knew he couldn't get accepted. Obviously, we all know he would have and could have gotten into UW -Mad, but he choose not to go there. It really is a bad spin job by the UW fan base and maybe Bo. But, I guess some of them can't deal with the truth, that a lot of players don't want to play for Bo and don't want to attend UW-Mad.
The admission standards at MU and UW have no more than a 1 or 2 point difference on the ACT. MU and UW put you in the same exact places when you graduate.
UW is not one of the best schools in the country, it is not one of the best schools in the Midwest, it does not come to mind when you think of the best public schools in the country, and it is not even one of the elite academic schools in the Big Ten. People in Wisconsin have a very inflated view of how good it is academically.
It is a great school, but nothing to brag about in comparison to MU academically, and certainly not one of the top schools in the country.
Quote from: mu-rara on December 01, 2009, 09:14:40 AM
I had a conversation with a couple of Badger fans Thanksgiving weekend. Vander came up and they started in with:
"Well, you know he would never have been accepted into UW @ Madison".
I responded that Ron Dayne managed to get accepted.....
I never thought of these guys as BadgerNation types, but I guess you need to drink the KoolAid to be in the club.
Fans that make comments like that are just looking for a debate.
A guy in my office said something like that.
I just laughed and said "So what? I won't care when he lights the Badgers up."
He didn't have much of a response to that.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 01, 2009, 10:08:26 AM
Maybe I'm just too sensitive to recruits, but I initially thought (from the title of the thread) that you were calling VB clueless. I get the play on words, I really do, but perhaps "Badger Blue-lessness" would be better :)
+1
When I saw the title, I thought "okay what's on facebook or youtube!".
Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 01, 2009, 10:08:26 AM
Maybe I'm just too sensitive to recruits, but I initially thought (from the title of the thread) that you were calling VB clueless. I get the play on words, I really do, but perhaps "Badger Blue-lessness" would be better :)
That's why you have to read the thread (play the game).
I love their logic and think we should use it against them every chance we get.
"ATTENTION ALL HIGHLY-TALENTED, ATHLETIC RECRUITS... BADGER FANS THINK YOU ARE DUMB!"
Quote from: HoopsMalone on December 01, 2009, 10:11:14 AM
The admission standards at MU and UW have no more than a 1 or 2 point difference on the ACT. MU and UW put you in the same exact places when you graduate.
UW is not one of the best schools in the country, it is not one of the best schools in the Midwest, it does not come to mind when you think of the best public schools in the country, and it is not even one of the elite academic schools in the Big Ten. People in Wisconsin have a very inflated view of how good it is academically.
It is a great school, but nothing to brag about in comparison to MU academically, and certainly not one of the top schools in the country.
In all fairness, UW is one of the best schools in the country. It is one of the best public schools in the country, and is a great school anyway you cut it.
Quote from: KipsBayEagle on December 01, 2009, 11:39:42 AM
In all fairness, UW is one of the best schools in the country. It is one of the best public schools in the country, and is a great school anyway you cut it.
Well this is a completely subjective post. What qualifies it as "one of the best"? Is it a top-10, 20, 50, 100? In what areas? Research?
No doubt, it is a great school, but when I think "best in the country", not one of the first 20 to come to mind.
Quote from: KipsBayEagle on December 01, 2009, 11:39:42 AM
In all fairness, UW is one of the best schools in the country. It is one of the best public schools in the country, and is a great school anyway you cut it.
Then someone needs to tell the rest of the country because I can guarantee you that if I were to walk around my office here in CO and our offices in VA (that happen to be full of college grads with advanced degrees from across the country)...not one single person would bring up UW.
Further, if I invited them to pick between Marquette and UW...MU would win 99% of the time. I'm not saying UW is not a good school, it is a great school and I think most of the MU grads on this board would agree with that. However, this inflated sense that UW has this national reputation as a top academic institution is pure fantasy.
Also, it's totally irrelevant in this context because most scholarship athletes at UW (and likely at MU) are "special admits." Bottom line, UW's academic reputation is only visible in the upper mid-west and likely has little impact on the athletes recruited (particularly for basketball and football). Go ahead and take a step outside of Wisconsin, you'll see what I'm talking about.
Quote from: MUinCO on December 01, 2009, 12:15:20 PM
Then someone needs to tell the rest of the country because I can guarantee you that if I were to walk around my office here in CO and our offices in VA (that happen to be full of college grads with advanced degrees from across the country)...not one single person would bring up UW.
Further, if I invited them to pick between Marquette and UW...MU would win 99% of the time. I'm not saying UW is not a good school, it is a great school and I think most of the MU grads on this board would agree with that. However, this inflated sense that UW has this national reputation as a top academic institution is pure fantasy.
Also, it's totally irrelevant in this context because most scholarship athletes at UW (and likely at MU) are "special admits." Bottom line, UW's academic reputation is only visible in the upper mid-west and likely has little impact on the athletes recruited (particularly for basketball and football). Go ahead and take a step outside of Wisconsin, you'll see what I'm talking about.
This is mostly wrong. UW is a great school, and is consistantly ranked as one of the top public schools in the nation. Simply because the people you talk to don't agree does not make it so. MU on the other hand... when I would travel and people would ask me where I go/went to college many of them think that Marquette is in Michigan or something and is a state school.
UW has a lot of great kids that attend. Their admission standards are higher than MU's whether you wish to believe it or not. I understand they get a lot of applicants and that is why their rejection rate is higher. BUT that doesn't change their standards.
But one point I will agree with you on is that it is no harder for athletes to get into UW than it is for them to get in to MU.
Quote from: MUinCO on December 01, 2009, 12:15:20 PM
However, this inflated sense that UW has this national reputation as a top academic institution is pure fantasy.
No, the notion that it doesn't have that reputation is a fantasy cooked up mostly by MU grads who get upset when people from UW try to downplay their education.
The reality is that UW is one of the top schools in the country, public or private and nearly every objective measure reflects that. There's a reason they continually get ranked among the best schools in the country and in some programs the world....because they are. To argue otherwise is foolish at best.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on December 01, 2009, 12:28:24 PM
This is mostly wrong. UW is a great school, and is consistantly ranked as one of the top public schools in the nation. Simply because the people you talk to don't agree does not make it so. MU on the other hand... when I would travel and people would ask me where I go/went to college many of them think that Marquette is in Michigan or something and is a state school.
UW has a lot of great kids that attend. Their admission standards are higher than MU's whether you wish to believe it or not. I understand they get a lot of applicants and that is why their rejection rate is higher. BUT that doesn't change their standards.
But one point I will agree with you on is that it is no harder for athletes to get into UW than it is for them to get in to MU.
The admission standards are higher for Wisconsin residents. Out of state applicants have an easier time. High taxpayer subsidy means UW@ Madison needs out of state $$ to balance their budget.
UW is a fine school. To say that VB could'nt get into UW but could get into MU is ridiculous.
Quote from: MUinCO on December 01, 2009, 12:15:20 PM
Then someone needs to tell the rest of the country because I can guarantee you that if I were to walk around my office here in CO and our offices in VA (that happen to be full of college grads with advanced degrees from across the country)...not one single person would bring up UW.
Further, if I invited them to pick between Marquette and UW...MU would win 99% of the time. I'm not saying UW is not a good school, it is a great school and I think most of the MU grads on this board would agree with that. However, this inflated sense that UW has this national reputation as a top academic institution is pure fantasy.
Also, it's totally irrelevant in this context because most scholarship athletes at UW (and likely at MU) are "special admits." Bottom line, UW's academic reputation is only visible in the upper mid-west and likely has little impact on the athletes recruited (particularly for basketball and football). Go ahead and take a step outside of Wisconsin, you'll see what I'm talking about.
I hate UW a lot, but they do have more CEO's of Fortune 500 companies than any other university. They also are tops in a lot of their programs. All schools have their strong points, but to bash their academics is plain silly. It is a pretty darn good school, just like Marquette.
Quote from: mu-rara on December 01, 2009, 12:38:27 PM
The admission standards are higher for Wisconsin residents. Out of state applicants have an easier time. High taxpayer subsidy means UW@ Madison needs out of state $$ to balance their budget.
UW is a fine school. To say that VB could'nt get into UW but could get into MU is ridiculous.
This is completely correct.
Quote from: bma725 on December 01, 2009, 12:37:11 PM
No, the notion that it doesn't have that reputation is a fantasy cooked up mostly by MU grads who get upset when people from UW try to downplay their education.
The reality is that UW is one of the top schools in the country, public or private and nearly every objective measure reflects that. There's a reason they continually get ranked among the best schools in the country and in some programs the world....because they are. To argue otherwise is foolish at best.
Much of UW's high ranking is due to research and the number of graduate programs they offer. In many ways, comparing UW to MU is apples and oranges. MU is a small, Jesuit, Liberal Arts university with a lot of emphasis on undergraduate work. UW puts much more emphasis on grad programs.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on December 01, 2009, 12:28:24 PM
UW has a lot of great kids that attend. Their admission standards are higher than MU's whether you wish to believe it or not. I understand they get a lot of applicants and that is why their rejection rate is higher. BUT that doesn't change their standards.
That's interesting. I think one reason UW has higher admission standards then an OSU or MSU is UW uses it to exclude in-state admits - as out of state students cost just as much to educate, but pay 2-3 x more in tuition then an in-state admission. (Doh! mu-rara beat me to it!)
And yes, MU and UW are both excellent institutions filling different needs of the education process.
Quote from: bma725 on December 01, 2009, 12:37:11 PM
No, the notion that it doesn't have that reputation is a fantasy cooked up mostly by MU grads who get upset when people from UW try to downplay their education.
The reality is that UW is one of the top schools in the country, public or private and nearly every objective measure reflects that. There's a reason they continually get ranked among the best schools in the country and in some programs the world....because they are. To argue otherwise is foolish at best.
UW is an excellent university. No argument there.
But before deeming them "one of the top schools in the country" I guess we better establish what it means to be "one of the top." Top 20? Top 50? Top 100?
Just using the US News rankings as a measure, UW was in a very respectable 39th place tie this year, including tied for 3rd best among the Big Televen schools and 9th among large state schools. That's terrific.
That said, if UW hoops finishes the year with enough AP poll votes to rank 39th, nobody would be calling them "one of the top teams in the country" and the "North Carolina of the Midwest" when it comes to basketball. At least not with a straight face.
I think that's what gets in people's craw. Not that UW isn't an excellent school. Nobody denies that. But rather than a) it's some kind of elite university that ranks right up there with Harvard, Princeton, MIT and Stanford and b) it's academic standards are so rigorous that only the brightest athletes can hope for admittance.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 01, 2009, 02:00:44 PM
UW is an excellent university. No argument there.
But before deeming them "one of the top schools in the country" I guess we better establish what it means to be "one of the top." Top 20? Top 50? Top 100?
Just using the US News rankings as a measure, UW was in a very respectable 39th place tie this year, including tied for 3rd best among the Big Televen schools and 9th among large state schools. That's terrific.
That said, if UW hoops finishes the year with enough AP poll votes to rank 39th, nobody would be calling them "one of the top teams in the country" and the "North Carolina of the Midwest" when it comes to basketball. At least not with a straight face.
I think that's what gets in people's craw. Not that UW isn't an excellent school. Nobody denies that. But rather than a) it's some kind of elite university that ranks right up there with Harvard, Princeton, MIT and Stanford and b) it's academic standards are so rigorous that only the brightest athletes can hope for admittance.
+1,0000
That is what drives me crazy as well. As someone who lives out of state, I had no idea that Wisconisn was considered the Havard of the Midwest until I started reading this board really.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 01, 2009, 02:00:44 PM
UW is an excellent university. No argument there.
But before deeming them "one of the top schools in the country" I guess we better establish what it means to be "one of the top." Top 20? Top 50? Top 100?
Just using the US News rankings as a measure, UW was in a very respectable 39th place tie this year, including tied for 3rd best among the Big Televen schools and 9th among large state schools. That's terrific.
That said, if UW hoops finishes the year with enough AP poll votes to rank 39th, nobody would be calling them "one of the top teams in the country" and the "North Carolina of the Midwest" when it comes to basketball. At least not with a straight face.
Not a valid comparison. There are around 350 D1 basketball programs. There are nearly 2500 4 year colleges.
Quote from: lurch91 on December 01, 2009, 01:07:32 PM
That's interesting. I think one reason UW has higher admission standards then an OSU or MSU is UW uses it to exclude in-state admits - as out of state students cost just as much to educate, but pay 2-3 x more in tuition then an in-state admission. (Doh! mu-rara beat me to it!)
And yes, MU and UW are both excellent institutions filling different needs of the education process.
By law, all UW schools are not allowed to enroll more than 25% out of state students. (Minnesota counts as in-state since they pay in-state tuition.) They have always been around 20-22%. Generally out of state students don't squeeze many in state students.
Quote from: bma725 on December 01, 2009, 02:14:54 PM
Not a valid comparison. There are around 350 D1 basketball programs. There are nearly 2500 4 year colleges.
Except the vast majority of those 2,500 four-year colleges don't qualify for the US News rankings of national universities. Only about 270 of them qualify. So, in fact, there are fewer national universities - at least by that particular publication's standards - than there are D1 basketball programs.
Again, I don't think anybody is discounting the quality of a UW education. Just pointing out that they're not what some of the faithful think they are.
Both Madison and Marquette are great educational institutions, but I would not say that either are among the top in the nation or world. Maybe a few of their programs rank highly, but to me there is no way UW Madison or Marquette for that matter fit into a conversation with Harvard, Standford, MIT, Berkley, etc.
There are different levels of institutions and universities and both MU and UW Madison are very good, but I do think that both sets of alumni and students tend to think they are a little better than what they truly are in all honesty.
Just pure hypocracy.....
Very few institutions stick to their academic standards when it comes to athletes. Look at where it has gotten the Notre Dame football program.....NO WHERE!
At the end of the day these kids produce a lot for our university and every thing should be done to get them a quality education but no one should be fooled......they come for sports first and academics second.
Quote from: CAINMUTINY on December 01, 2009, 02:56:24 PM
Just pure hypocracy.....
Very few institutions stick to their academic standards when it comes to athletes. Look at where it has gotten the Notre Dame football program.....NO WHERE!
At the end of the day these kids produce a lot for our university and every thing should be done to get them a quality education but no one should be fooled......they come for sports first and academics second.
The only ones I can think of outside of the Ivy and Colonial schools are Stanford, ND, Northwestern and maybe Vandy and Rice.
Perhaps. However, the Marquette approach of ensuring players go to class, accompanied by a high graduation rate, is something I've always been proud of. St Al McGuire said he wanted every player to come out of Marquette better equipped for life than he came in. (or words to that effect)
Contrast our approach with that of Cincinnati under Huggins and I'm very proud to be an MU alum.
I do want to just restate that I do believe UW is a great school, with a very good reputation. Might even be better than Marquette (though personally I would consider it equal), but equal to an Ivy League school, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, ND, BC, MIT, Cal, etc., etc.? Come on, statements like "Harvard of the mid-west" and top academic school in the nation are just not true and everyone here knows it. I remember a Michigan alum telling me they were superior academically to Harvard...so you're telling me if you had a free ride to Wisconsin and a free ride to Harvard sitting on the table anyone in the country would naturally pick Wisconsin?
And all this talk is with respect to scholarship athletes who don't even fall under regular admission standards in either institution (UW/MU).
Again, I mean no disrespect to UW...an outstanding public university.
UW-Madison is a good school. It's not the "Harvard of the midwest." Whatever that means. It's not in the same league as UChicago, Northwestern, Washington University or even Notre Dame in the midwest. It's not even close to the top private schools on the coasts (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, CalTech, Stanford, MIT).
When people outside of Wisconsin name top public schools they say "Michigan/Virginia/Berkley/UCLA" and that's it. Wisconsin isn't even in the discussion.
You could also substitute "Marquette" for UW-Madison in the first paragraph. Also, Marquette is not in the discussion for "top" catholic schools--Georgetown/Notre Dame/BC.
They are both good schools, but neither are top in the midwest nor the best in their respective "niche" be it Public or Catholic.
It's also laughable to say that either school would reject an athlete who was academically eligible to play.
Quote from: Chili on December 01, 2009, 03:16:01 PM
The only ones I can think of outside of the Ivy and Colonial schools are Stanford, ND, Northwestern and maybe Vandy and Rice.
No and no.
Neither school admits academic slouches, but both have plenty of athletes who wouldn't stand a snowball's chance at admission if they couldn't run fast/jump high/throw far/hit jumpers.
Quote from: CrazyEcho on December 01, 2009, 03:38:33 PM
UW-Madison is a good school. It's not the "Harvard of the midwest." Whatever that means. It's not in the same league as UChicago, Northwestern, Washington University or even Notre Dame in the midwest. It's not even close to the top private schools on the coasts (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, CalTech, Stanford, MIT).
When people outside of Wisconsin name top public schools they say "Michigan/Virginia/Berkley/UCLA" and that's it. Wisconsin isn't even in the discussion.
You could also substitute "Marquette" for UW-Madison in the first paragraph. Also, Marquette is not in the discussion for "top" catholic schools--Georgetown/Notre Dame/BC.
They are both good schools, but neither are top in the midwest nor the best in their respective "niche" be it Public or Catholic.
It's also laughable to say that either school would reject an athlete who was academically eligible to play.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 01, 2009, 03:44:23 PM
No and no.
Neither school admits academic slouches, but both have plenty of athletes who wouldn't stand a snowball's chance at admission if they couldn't run fast/jump high/throw far/hit jumpers.
+1 no argument here.
Quote from: CrazyEcho on December 01, 2009, 03:38:33 PM
UW-Madison is a good school. It's not the "Harvard of the midwest." Whatever that means. It's not in the same league as UChicago, Northwestern, Washington University or even Notre Dame in the midwest. It's not even close to the top private schools on the coasts (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, CalTech, Stanford, MIT).
When people outside of Wisconsin name top public schools they say "Michigan/Virginia/Berkley/UCLA" and that's it. Wisconsin isn't even in the discussion.
You could also substitute "Marquette" for UW-Madison in the first paragraph. Also, Marquette is not in the discussion for "top" catholic schools--Georgetown/Notre Dame/BC.
They are both good schools, but neither are top in the midwest nor the best in their respective "niche" be it Public or Catholic.
It's also laughable to say that either school would reject an athlete who was academically eligible to play.
Could not have put it better than this.
Marq is no Notre Dame, Georgetown, or BC and Wisco is no Michigan, Berkely, or UVA. I would be very proud if my kid chose either MU or Wisco. Or Illinois, Loyola or whatever. Neither school is all that prestigious outside of the Midwest (and admittedly not everyone knows where MU even is). But to try to bash on relatively equal academic institutions is a joke.
If a Northwestern recruit ends up picking Wisco for football, does that mean he is not smart? That is basically their logic. If you choose a school that is ranked lower than yours in US News, you can infer that it was because of academics. I personally think that is pretty poor logic.
Being proud of your school is different than having an inflated view of it.
Circling back to the whole point of talking about Wisco's academics is the Vander Blue talking point. Let them continue to embarass themselves I guess... We will just enjoy having talented and humble players on Marquette's team.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 01, 2009, 03:44:23 PM
No and no.
Neither school admits academic slouches, but both have plenty of athletes who wouldn't stand a snowball's chance at admission if they couldn't run fast/jump high/throw far/hit jumpers.
Even at ivies and ivy-equivalent (Stanford/Johns Hopkins), it's a totally different standard for admitting athletes.
This thread stopped being about Vander and MU basketball many posts ago. Perhaps the conversation should be continued under a different title and/or in another forum.
Quote from: Benny B on December 01, 2009, 04:12:01 PM
This thread stopped being about Vander and MU basketball many posts ago. Perhaps the conversation should be continued under a different title and/or in another forum.
I have never seen such rigid adherence to the compartmentalization of posts as I do on this message board. (OMG is this post not on a Marquette Basketball topic and directly related to the thread in which it is posted?!?!?! we better move it!?!?!?!)
This thread was about UW-Madison alums arguing that Vander Blue could not get into UW-Madison academically and instead went to Marquette because it has less demanding admissions criteria. Next, we discussed the relative merits of the two schools academically. It's not directly related to Marquette basketball, but a logical off-shoot.
Quote from: Benny B on December 01, 2009, 04:12:01 PM
This thread stopped being about Vander and MU basketball many posts ago. Perhaps the conversation should be continued under a different title and/or in another forum.
It was never about Vander and MU basketball...it was about a discussion between a MU alum and some UW alums...maybe you should just stop reading it.
Thread moved. In my face.
To that group of 4 publics, I would argue UNC belongs.
Quote from: reinko on December 01, 2009, 05:13:36 PM
To that group of 4 publics, I would argue UNC belongs.
Reinko =
Quote from: MUinCO on December 01, 2009, 03:31:55 PM
I do want to just restate that I do believe UW is a great school, with a very good reputation. Might even be better than Marquette (though personally I would consider it equal), but equal to an Ivy League school, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, ND, BC, MIT, Cal, etc., etc.? Come on, statements like "Harvard of the mid-west" and top academic school in the nation are just not true and everyone here knows it. I remember a Michigan alum telling me they were superior academically to Harvard...so you're telling me if you had a free ride to Wisconsin and a free ride to Harvard sitting on the table anyone in the country would naturally pick Wisconsin?
Kids pick schools for all sorts of reasons not just because one is ranked higher than another. I work at a public University in Indiana. We have kids all the time that chose us over IU and Purdue for all sorts of reasons - even when they have equal scholarship offers.
A kid from Texas may very well chose UW over Harvard for all sorts of reasons - maybe he liked the campus more. Maybe he likes the big time athletics. Maybe he had a good interaction with a professor on his campus visit. Maybe his girlfriend goes there too.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on December 02, 2009, 11:46:18 AM
A kid from Texas may very well chose UW over Harvard for all sorts of reasons - maybe he liked the campus more. Maybe he likes the big time athletics. Maybe he had a good interaction with a professor on his campus visit. Maybe his girlfriend goes there too.
Maybe he has a warrant for his arrest in Mass.