Check this out-- the fundamental difference between us and them

Obviously not for last year...

I wouldn't consider Maryland in the "academic core" of the ACC either. Maybe he meant Duke?
 
Well, MD is actually a pretty good school, but the real point of that article is that schools and conferences don't account for money the same way. The ACC doesn't show conference and NCAA payouts by sport, they lump it together. The SEC shares it out by sport, so the article is comparing apples and oranges. So we don't in fact lose $31K per player.
 
I have a hard time beleiving Tech losses that much money per player. I'd like to see how these stats were accumulated.
 
Like I said, the tables linked from the article do not say what the writer of the article thinks they say. It's easy enough to follow the link and see all the numbers. The difference is that Tech gets something over $8M from the conference that is listed in a lump sum under "other" revenue. The SEC breaks their payouts out by sport so it falls under football revenue.
 
Typical newspaper analysis - basically worthless to compare individual schools. They also fail to adjust for the over $4.3 million in capital improvements spending by Tech. This is most likely related to stadium expansion. No doubt ugag sells more tickets and gets more donations, but didn't we know that before this 'analysis'?

pw
 
There's winning regardless of the cost (the Cesspool) then there is winning with dignity and the pride that comes from winning while maintaining impossibly high standards.

We might not win as often as they do but our wins are earned and not bought.
 
00Burdell said:
There's winning regardless of the cost (the Cesspool) then there is winning with dignity and the pride that comes from winning while maintaining impossibly high standards.

We might not win as often as they do but our wins are earned and not bought.
Click to expand...


Can we really keep saying this when we let in players as needed using our special admissions criteria?
 
manjano mdudu said:
Can we really keep saying this when we let in players as needed using our special admissions criteria?
Click to expand...

I think even our special admissions criteria warrants one be able to spell his name correctly. Looking at such sterling students as Jasper Sanks, we know this isn't the case in the the east
 
mm42 said:
Who is the "we" in this sentence?
Click to expand...

In genenral I would say our Admissions Dept, or whichever group approves special admissions cases. Do you know who actually handles things like that?
If a player is good enough and meets all of the NCAA requirements for admissions, I think that we, pretty much like everyone else, can take him. Of course we aren't going to overload on riskier players, but if someone can really help our team and meets the NCAA standards, we can probably get him in.
 
The operative word is "can". According to those who know these things, and post here, we have 5 exceptions on the squad. How many does ugag have? So yeah, I'd say there is a huge difference between us and them.
 
manjano mdudu said:
In genenral I would say our Admissions Dept, or whichever group approves special admissions cases. Do you know who actually handles things like that?
If a player is good enough and meets all of the NCAA requirements for admissions, I think that we, pretty much like everyone else, can take him. Of course we aren't going to overload on riskier players, but if someone can really help our team and meets the NCAA standards, we can probably get him in.
Click to expand...

Who is the "we" you keep referring to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top