Like most of you i was born with a Hate notre dame bone in my body, but i hate them because they're notre dame not because of the way that they play.
I'm curious to which teams you can't stand because of their style of play.
for me the list goes
1.) Baylor.
Baylor plays crap clear out ball hog basketball one thing that has always diven me insane. Guys will hold the ball and do a few through the legs dribbles and pull up a contested 25' 3. SH*T basketball.
2.) Wisconsin
Don't get me wrong i hate Wisconsin because they're Wisconsin, but if there wasn't a shot clock in college bball Emperor Bo Palpatine's team would be winning games 4-2 and be thrilled about it. IT'S SOOOOO BORING. Thinking about it the whole big 10 is.
3.) Florida
Ok i don't dislike Florida because of the style they play. My old man could never stand Billy Donovan and that is part of it. I dont like the players that go there. I would have loved Joakim Noah on our team because he busts his hump and has size, but cut your hair and you and paul peirce can get together this offseason and buy a razor and learn to shave.
I'm curious of who my fellow MU fans can't stand. I hate Syracuse's 2-3 because it kills us, and i only notice it because we play them every year. Who's on your list?
I think Buzz figured out how to break the 2-3. Twice in a year is no fluke.
I don't really hate any teams based on their style of play (besides Wisconsin). But I obviously hate the Badgers, Notre Dame, Duke and UNC. Pretty much all the Big 10 (besides Purdue for some reason). And for some reason I really intensely dislike South Florida. We never play well on the road there (probably the Sun Dolls).
A topic that asks people to declare which teams they hate. Can you say embarrassing and infantile.
We are supposed to be educated and enlightened, not morons who proclaim predictable hatred for, hmmmmm, the University of Wisconsin at Madison and for the University of Notre Dame. Maybe Duke University, too.
Some here will write that if I do not like a topic, the answer is to just stay away from it. OK, that is an option.
But I would prefer that the many people who come to this site -- or to any site connected to Marquette University -- not see educated, enlightened Marquette folks wallowing in embarrassing, infantile topics.
I don't see anything wrong with disliking or even hating teams for style of play.
What do people think about Duke? In one way, I hate Duke's style (floor-slapping, whining, flopping, etc). But they play excellent offense, share the ball, etc.
UConn is another team I have mixed emotions about. Sloppy, selfish offensive team reliant totally on the individual talent of their best couple of playmakers to score points. They have an endless stream of athletic bigs, none of whom ever learn to play offense. They play their hearts out on defense, though and are a great hustle team.
I hated Providence's style (like to play against them) because they didn't even pretend to play defense.
Don't like any Big 10 teams because of the slow down grind it out style.
I look at it this way.
I always want Kentucky to lose.
I always want North Carolina to lose, except for when they are playing Kentucky.
The problem I have is with Louisville. I hate them, but I have to root for them in non-conference games. I would always root for them to lose in a Big East matchup.
I really do not care about what style they play. One of the things that makes college basketball great is the different styles.
The one thing I have learned by going to other boards is that as vemonous as the MU-UW rivalry can be, we do not come close to the Louisville/kentucky hatred.
Quote from: MU Avenue on June 27, 2011, 05:58:17 AM
A topic that asks people to declare which teams they hate. Can you say embarrassing and infantile.
We are supposed to be educated and enlightened, not morons who proclaim predictable hatred for, hmmmmm, the University of Wisconsin at Madison and for the University of Notre Dame. Maybe Duke University, too.
Some here will write that if I do not like a topic, the answer is to just stay away from it. OK, that is an option.
But I would prefer that the many people who come to this site -- or to any site connected to Marquette University -- not see educated, enlightened Marquette folks wallowing in embarrassing, infantile topics.
How many hands is your horse today?
Quote from: MU Avenue on June 27, 2011, 05:58:17 AM
A topic that asks people to declare which teams they hate. Can you say embarrassing and infantile.
We are supposed to be educated and enlightened, not morons who proclaim predictable hatred for, hmmmmm, the University of Wisconsin at Madison and for the University of Notre Dame. Maybe Duke University, too.
Some here will write that if I do not like a topic, the answer is to just stay away from it. OK, that is an option.
But I would prefer that the many people who come to this site -- or to any site connected to Marquette University -- not see educated, enlightened Marquette folks wallowing in embarrassing, infantile topics.
(http://www.tiricosuave.com/images/highhorse.jpg)
Quote from: Shanunu on June 27, 2011, 01:32:55 AM
I think Buzz figured out how to break the 2-3. Twice in a year is no fluke.
Ironically, through two of my friends, I have access to both the uconn and syracuse insider scout boards. :D
I would think there would be a big problem if Buzz DIDNT know how to break down a 2-3 zone. The problem for cuse last year was that they had 4 freshmen that all played. When was the last time that happened? Furthermore, the middle of the 2-3 last year was the weakest it has ever been (Flab Melo and Keita were not ready and Jackson's true position was the 4). Their fans are expecting the same problem this year. Hopefully, we get another year of a weak zone and not something that resembled the zone that had Wes Johnson in it.
My hate teams in order-
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Notre Dame
Wisconsin
Louisville
Wisconsin
Whichever one a couple of posters here are fluffing in an attempt to make our program look bad.
Take that out of the equation......1. Notre Dame 2. Wisconsin Everyone else is on a case by case basis.
...." There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch....."
Nigel "Daddy Wasnt There" Powers
Quote from: ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy on June 27, 2011, 12:01:48 PM
How many hands is your horse today?
ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy and Pakuni, you guys are the freakin' balls. Your wit is off the freakin' chart. I mean, that "high horse" gag that you both delivered was freakin' hysterical.
And ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy, you are one freakin' crazy dude, man, the way you slipped a dirty word into your screen name by using an asterisk. Freakin' clever and freakin' hysterical, man.
And Pakuni, that freakin' picture of the freakin' "high" horse with the freakin' long legs. Dude, that is freakin' hysterical.
What's truly amazing is that F*ckin' knew horses are measured in hands. No wonder he graduated "Muchum Come Lousy" from Marquette.
I've got 5 on it, and one that I wished I hated...
1) Wisconsin: Most of their fans are simply elitist d-bags. Amazing how they're the ones that act that way, yet we're the ones that are from the "elitist private school".
2) Louisville: Because they break our hearts in such spectacular ways they edge out the Irish. I remember before this year's UL game telling my girlfriend I wanted us to win the game on a 3 at the buzzer because it'd be divine justice. Then with 6 minutes to play, I said I'd be satisfied with setting a new record loss in their brand-spanking-new building. Then...well, we all know what happened. I hate Loserville.
3) Notre Dame: Mainly because they're Notre Dame.
4) Cincinnati: Ever since the Huggins days, they've been thugs and underhanded. I've never respected the way they play the game or the types of players they have. Honestly, while they aren't my most hated, I have more respect for the Badgers than I do the Bearcats.
5) West Virginia: Just because Thuggins is there.
Dishonorable Mention) DePaul: I wish I hated them, but it's hard to hate a team that's that bad. Hopefully in a few years.
I don't hate anyone or any thing. There are much healthier ways to obtain self-esteem.
I'm sorry i caused such a stir with the word Hate. which team's style of play do you dislike? and yes i know i broke my rules by putting florida on the list for no real reason besides joakim noah and his lack of personal hygiene and billy donovan.
Wisconsin
ND
Louisville
Duke
Kentucky
Syracuse
I'd go with "strong dislike" more than anything
Wisconsin - nothing comes close
Louisville - epic rivalry, with so many painful losses but good wins too
big gap
Georgetown - GU fans are the most condescending fans in the BE. Even the ones that are nice.
Syracuse - This went down a bit because of last year
ND - This might be higher on the list if ND fans actually cared about hoops.
Duke - of course
Quote from: shoothoops on June 27, 2011, 11:04:18 PM
I don't hate anyone or any thing. There are much healthier ways to obtain self-esteem.
I hate this response.
Quote from: MU Avenue on June 27, 2011, 06:01:16 PM
ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy and Pakuni, you guys are the freakin' balls. Your wit is off the freakin' chart. I mean, that "high horse" gag that you both delivered was freakin' hysterical.
And ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy, you are one freakin' crazy dude, man, the way you slipped a dirty word into your screen name by using an asterisk. Freakin' clever and freakin' hysterical, man.
And Pakuni, that freakin' picture of the freakin' "high" horse with the freakin' long legs. Dude, that is freakin' hysterical.
can YOU say embarrassing and infantile?
Quote from: MU Avenue on June 27, 2011, 06:01:16 PM
ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy and Pakuni, you guys are the freakin balls. Your wit is off the freakin chart. I mean, that high horse gag that you both delivered was freakin hysterical.
And ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy, you are one freakin crazy dude, man, the way you slipped a dirty word into your screen name by using an asterisk. Freakin clever and freakin hysterical, man.
And Pakuni, that freakin picture of the freakin high horse with the freakin long legs. Dude, that is freakin hysterical.
You didn't take that very well.
I think favorite team to beat is a better category though it would come out much like the above with UW or ND at the head of the class. Yet somewhere, sometime giving Kansas and UNC a real good whippin' in the tournament would feel just grand. I know pouring it on is not Buzz's style but for those two...it's justice.
Quote from: Cooby Snacks on June 28, 2011, 10:10:24 AM
I hate this response.
I love that you hated this response.
Quote from: MU Avenue on June 27, 2011, 06:01:16 PM
ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy and Pakuni, you guys are the freakin' balls. Your wit is off the freakin' chart. I mean, that "high horse" gag that you both delivered was freakin' hysterical.
And ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy, you are one freakin' crazy dude, man, the way you slipped a dirty word into your screen name by using an asterisk. Freakin' clever and freakin' hysterical, man.
And Pakuni, that freakin' picture of the freakin' "high" horse with the freakin' long legs. Dude, that is freakin' hysterical.
"Pardon my French, but MUAvenue is so tight that if you stuck a lump of coal up his ass, in two weeks you'd have a diamond."---Ferris Bueller.
Indiana is my new crap team since MU got screwed in the NIT against the Hoosiers back in 1985(?) and because Tom Crean mentions positives about everyone else on his twitter page, including Bo Ryan's induction into a Pennsylvania Sports Hall of Fame, yet doesn't say boo about a story like Jimmy Butler's.
As Carnac the Magnificient (Johnny Carson) use to say, "I hope a locker room door hits you in the ass on your way out of the arena".
Quote from: ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy on June 28, 2011, 12:12:09 PM
"Pardon my French, but MUAvenue is so tight that if you stuck a lump of coal up his ass, in two weeks you'd have a diamond."---Ferris Bueller.
A quote from f*ckin' "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"? Holy sh*t, you really unloaded the f*ckin' heavy artillery, ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy.
Let me f*ckin' guess: "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" is your favorite f*ckin' movie. And you especially love that f*ckin' line about a f*ckin' "lump of coal."
F*ckin' hysterical.
Quote from: ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy on June 27, 2011, 12:01:48 PM
How many hands is your horse today?
Apparently you need to step on Yousephs Mbao's shoulders to get on that horse!!
Quote from: MU Avenue on June 28, 2011, 12:46:53 PM
A quote from f*ckin' "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"? Holy sh*t, you really unloaded the f*ckin' heavy artillery, ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy.
Let me f*ckin' guess: "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" is your favorite f*ckin' movie. And you especially love that f*ckin' line about a f*ckin' "lump of coal."
F*ckin' hysterical.
Wow...you're skin's so thin it's translucent!
I def. dont hate anything about college bball, even opposing teams.
HOWEVER, I am kinda sorta starting to warm-up to hate the following:
1) the ncaa's inability to identify cheaters AS they cheat (as opposed to years later when the damage has already been done). I know its a tough job but if the infractions committee can issue the 'lack of institutional control' violation against a school, they should also think to label itself with it.
2) fanbases that shrug off cheating.
3) the nationwide athletic department armsrace. When athletic programs are more funded than degree programs, we have a problem. The Ivy League schools are laughing.
4) fans who think that it takes athletics to stay "relevant." Are these fans 'throwing in the academic towel,' so to speak? A lot of coaches' salaries would recruit a lot of new professors. I always thought universities were for education.
I hate the teams that have a philosophy of foul as much as possible, because they won't call all of them(eventhough they should). Huggins' teams lead the way with Wisconsin right behind.
Quote from: shoothoops on June 27, 2011, 11:04:18 PM
I don't hate anyone or any thing. There are much healthier ways to obtain self-esteem.
For example, some people take things entirely to seriously, act really pompous, and imply that harmless internet message board topics actually mean something and that those who post in them are trying to boost their self-esteem. Or so I've heard...
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 28, 2011, 01:50:10 PM
For example, some people take things entirely to seriously, act really pompous, and imply that harmless internet message board topics actually mean something and that those who post in them are trying to boost their self-esteem. Or so I've heard...
lol lol
Quote from: seakm4 on June 28, 2011, 12:37:40 AM
I'm sorry i caused such a stir with the word Hate. which team's style of play do you dislike? and yes i know i broke my rules by putting florida on the list for no real reason besides joakim noah and his lack of personal hygiene and billy donovan.
Like you, I wouldnt have thought the word choice was so incendiary. It appears "hate" is moving up toward top of the chain of politically incorrect words --- you may have to modify the caption to teams you most like to see fail, ...to slow the tide of the other postings.
I hope you arent restrictive to college teams. I admit to enjoying seeing losses of the Yankees, Cowboys, Duke, UK, and ND. Periodically, another team joins the pantheon. ....oh yes, and I really hate the Dutch.lol
Quote from: houwarrior on June 28, 2011, 02:44:05 PM
and I really hate the Dutch.lol
But I like their islands...
Quote from: muhs03 on June 28, 2011, 01:16:43 PM
I def. dont hate anything about college bball, even opposing teams.
HOWEVER, I am kinda sorta starting to warm-up to hate the following:
1) the ncaa's inability to identify cheaters AS they cheat (as opposed to years later when the damage has already been done). I know its a tough job but if the infractions committee can issue the 'lack of institutional control' violation against a school, they should also think to label itself with it.
2) fanbases that shrug off cheating.
3) the nationwide athletic department armsrace. When athletic programs are more funded than degree programs, we have a problem. The Ivy League schools are laughing.
4) fans who think that it takes athletics to stay "relevant." Are these fans 'throwing in the academic towel,' so to speak? A lot of coaches' salaries would recruit a lot of new professors. I always thought universities were for education.
Priorities and spending are clearly misplaced at many universities. Look at the many schools where the highest-paid employees are coaches -- not presidents, not topnotch professors who motivate students, not brilliant researchers.
At the Division I level, many schools treat athletics as king. Sports are viewed as the means to boosting schools' names and reputations.
Along with the Ivy League schools, there are several outstanding colleges and universities whose names and excellent reputations have been built solidly on their academics. A small sampling: Washington University in St. Louis, Rice University, Emory University, Carnegie Mellon University, the College of William & Mary, New York University, Brandeis University, Case Western Reserve University. ...
I have a friend who works at a prestigious liberal arts college in the Northeast. He told me only days ago that his college is "snapping up" big-name professors from major universities. He said many of these professors have spoken of how their former employers were whacking budgets for academic departments and academic staffing while sports remain sacred and untouchable.
Well, I hate the Packers and every team in Minnesota. In college basketball, I hate coaches more than the teams or schools. Bob Huggins is one, Tom Crean is another. This is probably why I like some teams. i.e. Michigan State and Tom Izzo
Quote from: MU Avenue on June 28, 2011, 04:35:44 PM
Priorities and spending are clearly misplaced at many universities. Look at the many schools where the highest-paid employees are coaches -- not presidents, not topnotch professors who motivate students, not brilliant researchers.
At the Division I level, many schools treat athletics as king. Sports are viewed as the means to boosting schools' names and reputations.
And actors make more money than nurses. Successful athletic programs bring more $ to a university than any president or professor ever could. Coaches not only earn their own salaries - the good ones help pay those poor profs you're so worried about.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 28, 2011, 10:22:23 PM
And actors make more money than nurses. Successful athletic programs bring more $ to a university than any president or professor ever could. Coaches not only earn their own salaries - the good ones help pay those poor profs you're so worried about.
Ridiculous.
Profit-generating athletic programs support non-
revenue generating programs. If, as you claim, there is money left over, are you certain it goes to salaries of professors and administrators? Evidence of that? Furthermore, if athletic departments subsidize their salaries, then why the heck did Villanova's staff vote against moving football up? In fact, the vote was 29-0 - not exactly close...I guess they dont want a pay raise. http://www.thenovablog.com/2010/12/1/1848490/philadelphia-inquirer-villanova-football-upgrade-to-big-east-would-be
Also, were professors at Boston University, Hofstra and Northeastern (all schools that recenty dropped football) picketing an admin building in opposition? I dont think so.
A very startling database that shows what each public school ponied up in student fees, university $$ and state $$ to balance athletic budgets.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-06-23-2011-athletic-department-subsidy-table_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Quote from: Husker4MU on June 28, 2011, 11:19:24 PM
A very startling database that shows what each public school ponied up in student fees, university $$ and state $$ to balance athletic budgets.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-06-23-2011-athletic-department-subsidy-table_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Great pickup.
It had been 4 years since USA ran the last one, and figures were becoming dated. Its a vital tool in conf realignment posts, as it shows the skewing/inaccuracy of just looking at gross income figures. Here, the lesser percentage of subsidy, the stronger the program is , on a stand alone basis.
Example--Rutgers high percentage subsidy of 42% makes it a relative weak sister for those thinking of its joinder with Big Ten, where the subsidy average is near zero%.
Regretably, is also shows the BE teams require the highest subsidy % among the BCS conferences, with the ACC, as next weakest.(its sortable by conference--for easy comparison). Too bad--but as it relies on public info., and FOI act, it lacks most private school coverage.
You would have to go through the list to make those general assumptions. For example, I believe Rutgers recently finished the construction of a new practice facility and player lounge/locker rooms. That isnt a recurring cost and Rutgers likely received state money for it. Some of these numbers could just be bad timing that make some schools to be in worse shape than they are. Nonetheless, the overall picture is ugly.
Quote from: muhs03 on June 28, 2011, 11:45:32 PM
You would have to go through the list to make those general assumptions. For example, I believe Rutgers recently finished the construction of a new practice facility and player lounge/locker rooms. That isnt a recurring cost and Rutgers likely received state money for it. Some of these numbers could just be bad timing that make some schools to be in worse shape than they are. Nonetheless, the overall picture is ugly.
Thanks, I did review the list--maybe you didn't.
Its not really an assumption--Rutgers subsidy % is not temporary or cyclical..in the last -2006-survey, it was at a 49% clip...its worth looking at the link, and figures. Few of the percentages have changed much over the last 4 years, for anyone.
Rutgers currently leads the USA in the $ amount of subsidies. Even with the huge strong BCS boys skewing the analysis, 1 of every 3 dollars in collegiate athletics is from subsidies, which have increased at faster clip than the budgets...see this June 27 article on point:
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20110627/NJNEWS10/306270020/Rutgers-leads-nation-athletics-subsidies
Ok. I asked Mr. Google and he said I am wrong. Rutgers borrowed $102M for facility expansions; the state did not contribute a dime. I figured they would financed some of it.
Quote from: muhs03 on June 29, 2011, 12:22:00 AM
Ok. I asked Mr. Google and he said I am wrong. Rutgers borrowed $102M for facility expansions; the state did not contribute a dime. I figured they would financed some of it.
The statehouse has squirmed at any further athletics subsidy, while its had to cut academic budgets, and layoff peolple at Rutgers. To your point, and possible hope things get better for it: Rutgers did get a one time bump of $6.5 mill for stadium naming rights, its chasing a $100 million fundraising drive and it hopes for bigger checks from the new ESPN TV deal. By BCS standards, though, it remains a weak sister, financially.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 28, 2011, 10:22:23 PM
And actors make more money than nurses. Successful athletic programs bring more $ to a university than any president or professor ever could. Coaches not only earn their own salaries - the good ones help pay those poor profs you're so worried about.
Lennys Tap, while your comment above is bold and delivered with seeming confidence, it is wrong.
You have written, "Successful athletic programs bring more $ to a university than any president or professor ever could."
Really? You have numbers that support this ridiculous claim? Have you any idea how colleges and universities work?
You have written, "Coaches not only earn their own salaries - the good ones help pay those poor profs you're so worried about."
Really? Since you have done the research needed to support this preposterous claim, please tell us the schools where coaches generate such vast amounts of money that all associated with the schools are flush with cash.
Based on what you have written, there must be many schools where sports pay all of the bills and keep "those poor profs" in tweed jackets and sports cars.
Go past your simple assumptions, Lennys Tap, and look at the facts. Those facts only prove that priorities and spending are clearly misplaced at many universities.
Quote from: MU Avenue on June 29, 2011, 05:21:58 AM
Lennys Tap, while your comment above is bold and delivered with seeming confidence, it is wrong.
You have written, "Successful athletic programs bring more $ to a university than any president or professor ever could."
Really? You have numbers that support this ridiculous claim? Have you any idea how colleges and universities work?
You have written, "Coaches not only earn their own salaries - the good ones help pay those poor profs you're so worried about."
Really? Since you have done the research needed to support this preposterous claim, please tell us the schools where coaches generate such vast amounts of money that all associated with the schools are flush with cash.
Based on what you have written, there must be many schools where sports pay all of the bills and keep "those poor profs" in tweed jackets and sports cars.
Go past your simple assumptions, Lennys Tap, and look at the facts. Those facts only prove that priorities and spending are clearly misplaced at many universities.
Interesting that you ask Lenny to support and back up his "facts", yet you provide none yourself.
Quote from: MU Avenue on June 29, 2011, 05:21:58 AM
You have written, Successful athletic programs bring more $ to a university than any president or professor ever could.
Really? You have numbers that support this ridiculous claim? Have you any idea how colleges and universities work?
LOL....do you?
I've worked at five of them. Small privates, large publics and am now at a medium-sized public university. Athletics cannot be viewed in a vacuum. When UW-Madison won their first Rose Bowl in the early 90s, they raised more money that year than any other public university in the country. When MU got to the Final Four, they raised more money *that week* than any other week in the university's history. Hell, even little UW-Whitewater (the wife's alma mater) has seen record enrollment since they've been winning D3 football championships.
Here is an article on VCU's final four appearance and their hopes to benefit like George Mason did a couple of years ago.
http://www.virginiabusiness.com/index.php/opinion/article/vcu-and-richmond-assess-the-value-of-a-moment-in-the-spotlight/
You bring up the elite academic institutions, like the Ivy League. Well, first those are by far the exception to the rule. But second, some at those schools have also decried the emphasis on athletics that those schools have seen lately. Tommy Amaker makes near $1million as basketball coach at Harvard apparently.
The problem is that you do see a lot of schools swing and miss and it ends up costing them a lot of money, but there is no doubt that successful athletic programs benefit the university and if you can get there, are worth the cost.
Do coaches make to much? I would say yes. Do professors make to much? I would say yes also. I went to MU from 1971 to 1975 and my tuition was $1,800 to $2,000 per semester. It is a lot more now. Sure the campus has many new buildings. The cost of education at MU and all the other Universities has far out paced inflation. While I am sure some university athletic programs run deficits, I believe MU's including the Blue & Gold fund runs a surplus. Try to envision what MU would be now, if instead of highering Al McGuire they had decided to drop down to division III back in the 60's.
What do you mean by "too much?" Coaches and professors make what the market says they should make.
And as far as the costs of attending school, private schools are really good at figureing out your price point. While the list might be $40,000, hardly anyone pays that. They will give some students $5,000 per year which basically means "feel free to come here...if you want to spend $35,000 a year." They'll give another $25,000 per year which means "we really want you here and are going to match public school tuition to get you here."
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 29, 2011, 08:46:13 AM
What do you mean by "too much?" Coaches and professors make what the market says they should make.
Wow. I think you would have been pretty much the last person on this board who I would have suspected of acknowledging the economic realities of supply and demand.
Quote from: warrior07 on June 29, 2011, 08:55:39 AM
Wow. I think you would have been pretty much the last person on this board who I would have suspected of acknowledging the economic realities of supply and demand.
Why? What have I said previously that would lead you to that conclusion?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 29, 2011, 07:36:27 AM
When UW-Madison won their first Rose Bowl in the early 90s, they raised more money that year than any other public university in the country. When MU got to the Final Four, they raised more money *that week* than any other week in the university's history. Hell, even little UW-Whitewater (the wife's alma mater) has seen record enrollment since they've been winning D3 football championships.
I've read about the jumps in applications of schools that have a successful seasons. Question: What the heck are these idiots thinking? If thats not one of the dumbest reasons to choose a university then I dont know what is.
I was going to research some more mba programs today but I guess I've narrowed my list down to Auburn and UConn. Sweet. ::)
I don't think people choose a university because of sports teams, but the increased visibility of a school raises applications, campus visits, etc. And the increased donations makes perfect sense with alumni pride and all.
Quote from: bilsu on June 29, 2011, 08:25:27 AM
Do coaches make to much? I would say yes. Do professors make to much? I would say yes also. I went to MU from 1971 to 1975 and my tuition was $1,800 to $2,000 per semester. It is a lot more now. Sure the campus has many new buildings. The cost of education at MU and all the other Universities has far out paced inflation. While I am sure some university athletic programs run deficits, I believe MU's including the Blue & Gold fund runs a surplus. Try to envision what MU would be now, if instead of highering Al McGuire they had decided to drop down to division III back in the 60's.
Do gas station clerks make too much? Thirty years ago I could get a gallon of gas for a little over $1. Today I'm paying $4. Clearly it's the high salaries of the gas station workers that's causing this.
All smarmimess aside, the reason tuitions are so much higher today is because the value and demand of a college education is vastly greater than it was in the early 1970s, or even early 1980s. 30-40 years ago, you didn't need a college education to pursue a well-paying career (in manufacturing, for example), and so lots of people passed on it and went directly into the workforce. As the demand and value of a post-high school education has increased, so has the cost.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 29, 2011, 09:39:18 AM
All smarmimess aside, the reason tuitions are so much higher today is because the value and demand of a college education is vastly greater than it was in the early 1970s, or even early 1980s. 30-40 years ago, you didn't need a college education to pursue a well-paying career (in manufacturing, for example), and so lots of people passed on it and went directly into the workforce. As the demand and value of a post-high school education has increased, so has the cost.
Someone watches the market coverage on CNBC. A guest spoke about this last week. It was argued that unemployment among college educated people is at an all-time high only because more and more kids are pushed to go to college and graduate than ever before. The most ill-prepared graduates today are far less qualified than the most ill-prepared students were a generation or two generations ago.
The unemployment rate for college educated people is about 5%.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on June 29, 2011, 10:01:49 AM
The unemployment rate for college educated people is about 5%.
That's actually true, and it surprised me when I looked it up. It might be higher than the last time I checked (Winter-ish), when it was low 4%.
Of course, part of the problem is that NEW college graduates often aren't counted as unemployed because they are not counted as having entered or as currently being in the labor force.
sorry...meant NEW college grads.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/06/22/137340857/the-value-of-college-in-2-graphs
Quote from: bilsu on June 29, 2011, 08:25:27 AM
Do coaches make to much? I would say yes. Do professors make to much? I would say yes also. I went to MU from 1971 to 1975 and my tuition was $1,800 to $2,000 per semester. It is a lot more now. Sure the campus has many new buildings. The cost of education at MU and all the other Universities has far out paced inflation. While I am sure some university athletic programs run deficits, I believe MU's including the Blue & Gold fund runs a surplus. Try to envision what MU would be now, if instead of highering Al McGuire they had decided to drop down to division III back in the 60's.
I think you paid to much for you're tuition and you should never have been highered after graduating
Are we still talking about teams we hate? if so:
Cinci: Thugs
Syracuse: White thugs
Wisconsin: I hate Bo Ryan
UNC: I hate Roy Williams
Quote from: Ari Gold on June 29, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
Are we still talking about teams we hate? if so:
Cinci: Thugs
Syracuse: White thugs
Hmmm....do you see what you did there? You specificied race with one team and left out specificity with the other. Odd... I could continue but I'll stop.
Quote from: muhs03 on June 29, 2011, 05:01:24 PM
Hmmm....do you see what you did there? You specificied race with one team and left out specificity with the other. Odd... I could continue but I'll stop.
[/quote
odd I made a joke... so weird.
I just really hate eric devendorf... still
Quote from: muhs03 on June 29, 2011, 05:01:24 PM
Hmmm....do you see what you did there? You specificied race with one team and left out specificity with the other. Odd... I could continue but I'll stop.
Or, he said I don't hate Syracuse, but I despise Devendorf ...