»
Topic: Coot Fans....
Replies: 90   Last Post: Jul 16, 2013 7:03 AM by: clmsntgr1®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 90  

Coot Fans....

[19]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 8:59 AM
 

.... I could care lesss about your 4 in a row because we as Clemson fans have experienced that type of domination many times over. You see USC has built their name on the SEC and Steve Spurrier not the USC brand (not that there is one) but when you have only 1 championship and it is from 1969 and it isn't even in the conference you are currently affiliated with how can you sell that to a recruit, you can't you have to sell parts of yourselves. When TB resigned and Dabo took over it was pretty much hitting the reset button, Clemson practically had to rebuild and all you have to do is a little research to see that in our recruiting classes. USC should know how that is just go back and look at the first 4 years Spurnut was there. You see as a Clemson fan, I actually felt bad for USC's lack of competitiveness as did some of my Clemson brothers but now ,now there is nothing but hate for your program and fans the lack of class is unreal even your conference foes can't stand your program and they even say they can't stand USC riding their coattails and trying to claim their programs accomplishments. Even though we have lost 4 in a row and we get to hear about it everyday for the past 4 years and we are in the lowly ACC you still can't out recruit us. I think we can all agree that the only reason you get any talent at all is the conference you play in, the Ol' Ball Sack and your lack of education and I think one of your commits said it best when he said "you have to try and fail". I have no problem that you have beat us 4 in a row, well I do but I can't do nothing about it now, but for you guys to think you are going to dominate us for the rest of time is just asinine. You are scared, you know things are about to turn around if you wasn't you wouldn't act like you have never won a football game like you are doing now. You are scared thats why you're the only school that won't vote us into the SEC and I understand you see what we can do in the ACC and you're scared to throw that SEC moniker beside the Clemson brand (there is one of those). You see we are a better program, we are a better brand, we are a better university, we have a better history, we get better recruits, we are just better and after this season not only will we have a better record but we will once again show you we are better on the field....STDB


Re: Coot Fans....

[4]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 9:18 AM
 

Tell us again how you could care less about 4 in a row...


inferior education - inferior stutents


Posted: Jul 9, 2013 12:59 AM
 

http://www.eduers.com/sat/score.htm

school math verbl sat total act
clemson 587 618 1205 26
south carolina 555 569 1124 24


inferior education - inferior stutents


Posted: Jul 9, 2013 1:00 AM
 

http://www.eduers.com/sat/score.htm

school math verbl sat total act
clemson 587 618 1205 26
south carolina 555 569 1124 24


Re: Coot Fans....

[6]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 9:39 AM
 

Wow, so many opportunities, where to start. Well, here we go.

1) no question that the SEC and Steve Spurrier have been a key part of our success. Credit to USC for having the wisdom to seek those affiliations!

2) You might want to read your own blather before you criticize another's education. You might also get your facts right in that until 4 years ago recruits could get into Clemson that could not meet USC's admission requirements. Now both schools have EXACTLY the same admission standards for their athletes.

3) No one has said we will dominate you for the rest of time. That is your own insecurity speaking. Do I think we will win more than we will lose to Clemson? Yes, but I expect a very competitive environment for both schools.

4) You might want to stop relying on the Arden Key comment since everyone has acknowledged it was taken out of context; makes your argument weak when you lie.

5) Our SEC foes don' t hate us, they respect us now. Big difference.

6) You guys recruit great, no argument there. But so do we and based on the Spurrier vs. Dabo comparisons you'd have to agree we coach them better. If we didn't, then how could all your great recruits lose to our bad ones? Can't have it both ways.

7) Interesting you bring up the SEC, sounds like envy to me. But you won't get in because you don't bring anything the SEC doesn't already have.

8) Now the news, we aren't scared. We look forward to the future, you look to the past. And a past that is noticeable only for some of the worst recruiting scandals in NCAA history.

That's all for now. See you in November. By the way, hate is an awfully thing. You will find it consumes you. I suggest you work through it with a trained professional.


i couldn't get past the outright lie at #2.

[14]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 12:19 PM
 

no way to sugarcoat that.

military_donation.jpg

Yes: that is laughable.***


Posted: Jul 7, 2013 12:47 PM
 




Re: i couldn't get past the outright lie at #2.

[2]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 1:29 PM
 

Might want to check the facts, USC admissions committee turned down 2 scholarship players who met NCAA requirements. Find me one, just one, where Clemson did the same thing. Fact is you can't. Other facts, both schools now use NCAA requirements, both schools have Presidential Exeptions. Don't believe me? Call your AD's office and the come back. You will find I am right, and then you can apologize.


Re: i couldn't get past the outright lie at #2.

[5]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 1:36 PM
 

Technically, you are incorrect. I don't want to look it all up again, but there are certain exceptions that the NCAA (and SEC) allows, but that the ACC does not.


Re: i couldn't get past the outright lie at #2.

[2]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 1:58 PM
 

Look it up, that is not the case. Clemson uses the same NCAA provisions that USC does. And the Presidential exemptions cover the rest. The OP claims admission standards for USC football players are lower than those for Clemson, and that is not true. I have no gripe with either school's admissions and would freely admit that Clemson's standards are higher for "regular" students. But football...all the same.


unless the "partial qualifier" rule has been changed,

[4]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 4:31 PM
 

and i am not sure that it has, than i am correct. if you can prove me wrong,and i don't think you can, i'll rescind.

military_donation.jpg

The SEC banned partial qualifiers before the ACC


Posted: Jul 7, 2013 9:37 PM
 

Duane Coleman was a partial qualifier and we couldn't sign them back then.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg

"Smelley, Garcia, and Beecher are going to lead you to 4-8." - york_tiger


Re: The SEC banned partial qualifiers before the ACC

[1]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 9:54 PM
 

maybe but then the SEc just lets ANYONE IN!!no requirements!!

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


Say what you want, but I think when you look at the APR

[2]
Posted: Jul 10, 2013 9:02 AM
 

you really don't have an argument here as a gamecock fan.

http://www.tigernet.com/update/football/Clemson-Football-Program-Has-Nation%E2%80%99s-Fourth-Highest-APR-11329


Re: Say what you want, but I think when you look at the APR


Posted: Jul 10, 2013 11:57 PM
 

> you really don't have an argument here as a gamecock
> fan.
>
> http://www.tigernet.com/update/football/Clemson-Footba
> ll-Program-Has-Nation%E2%80%99s-Fourth-Highest-APR-113
> 29

I'm new to this site and still trying to figure out who/what everyone is responding to. That's why I'm quoting the post I'm responding to at the beginning of my post. If the above post was in reference to one of my previous posts, let me try to explain. I was responding to a post from tokillagamecock about USC athlete (not specifically the football team) GPA'S vs. CU athlete GPA'S... Not the APR.

from tokillagamecock:
>USuC pales in comparison to Clemson's academics. For my freshman class, 2011, Clemson's incoming GPA was higher than Harvard's incoming GPA. Our athletes have higher GPA's overall and have a much higher graduation rate.>

According to reports from each school's own site, USC athlete GPA was higher than CU athlete GPA in Fall 2011. (2011 being the year of tokillagamecock's class)

>Story about GAMECOCK ACADEMICS - from gamecocksonline.com
January 30, 2012

COLUMBIA, S.C. - University of South Carolina student-athletes achieved the highest departmental GPA ever with a 3.202 average during the 2011 fall semester, it was announced today. The strong showing continued a positive trend, which has seen the department post a grade point average above 3.0 for 10 consecutive semesters.>

Clemson Academic Report for Fall Semester 2011 from tigernet.com

>Clemson, SC— The GPA for all student-athletes combined was a 2.94, the second best on record and the best fall semester in history. The 2.97 recorded for the Spring of 2009 is the only semester that is higher.>


Since you brought up the APR, congratulations on the CU football team having such a high score. It is better than USC's football team APR.
However, I decided to dig a little deeper on all athletic team APR's at both schools and here's some of what I found.

From http://www.clemsontigers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=28500&ATCLID=208304760

>Overall, 13 of Clemson's 19 sports had APR scores of 975 or better, tied for the most on record for one academic year (2009-10).  All 19 sports were over the 930 threshold set by the NCAA.

Five Clemson programs had their highest APR scores on record (since 2004-05).  The men's golf program had a 1000 perfect score to tie for the program's best.  The football team's 985, the baseball team's 982, the men's basketball team's 973 and the women's diving program's 989 were also best on record.

The Clemson football program's APR score has improved every year.  The 985 score was second best in the ACC behind Duke (989).  Northwestern had the best in the nation at 996, followed by Boise State at 993.  Clemson was the only program to rank in the top 10 of the final USA Today poll and post an APR score of at least 980 this year.

The 1000 APR score for Larry Penley's golf program was its third perfect score, the only perfect scores for a Clemson program since the APR data began.>

From http://www.gamecocksonline.com/sports/acad/spec-rel/061113aaa.html

>COLUMBIA, S.C. - All 19 of the University of South Carolina's countable intercollegiate sports posted a multi-year score of 950 or better for the second-consecutive year, according to the Academic Progress Rate (APR) statistics that were released today.

Highlighting the South Carolina data is seven teams (men's/women's golf, women's swimming/diving, women's tennis, cross country, men's indoor/outdoor track) with a perfect single-year score (1,000) for the 2011-12 campaign.

(this next part is culled from a chart in the above quoted article)
In the 2011-2012 campaign, 13 of 19 sports teams posted 975 or better (in the 4 year rolling) and 11 of 19 had 975 or better in the single year 2011-2012...(with 4 more teams at 974).>


Congratulations to USC for having 7 teams in one year achieve a perfect 1000 single-year score. (until 2011-2012 only the men's tennis team had ever posted a score of 1000.)

With regard to the football teams... CU has the better APR.
With regard to the total athletic department, I would say there's enough evidence to support an argument on GPA or APR... but then, I'm not looking for an argument.


Re: i couldn't get past the outright lie at #2.

[1]
Posted: Jul 12, 2013 1:29 AM
 

I recall it better now. It goes something like this according to the NCAA:

If a student-athlete does not qualify immediately out of high school, he can still enroll in college. If he attains some threshold of minimum grades and APR, then he can become eligible and play the next year.

The difference is, those athletes are not eligible in the ACC. A non-qualifier, once he enrolls in college, cannot play at an ACC school. The SEC allows 2 per year per NCAA guidelines.

Clemson does not accept student athletes who they believe will not graduate, even when they meet NCAA standards. They actually do not accept any students they believe will not graduate. USC does not have as much of a concern.


Re: i couldn't get past the outright lie at #2.

[1]
Posted: Jul 12, 2013 1:34 AM
 

Yes, it has happened at Clemson. Just use that tool called Google.

The reason it doesn't happen as much now as it did a few years ago is that the football coaches do not offer scholarships to players that they believe the academic committee may reject.


I have just one thing to say about no. 2: Clowney

[4]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 1:41 PM
 

And yes, it is ironic that he IS no. 2, "doo doo" that is.


Re: I have just one thing to say about no. 2: Clowney


Posted: Jul 7, 2013 2:02 PM
 

Hate to disappoint you Billy, Clowney was heavily recruited by Clemson and would have been admitted by Clemson. Hard to have a legitimate debate if you are just going to make stuff up or repeat what someone else made up. Time to give credit where credit is due, as much as it might pain you. Heck I'd think you'd like a rivalry that was a little more competitive.


Re: I have just one thing to say about no. 2: Clowney

[1]
Posted: Jul 10, 2013 2:30 PM
 

Clowney was "heavily recruited" by Clemson because you have to heavily recriut the best player in the state. IMO, he had no intentions of ever coming to Clemson, he just did enought to keep us hanging on.


Re: I have just one thing to say about no. 2: Clowney

[3]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 2:10 PM
 

Wow, welcome to an adult conversation. If you think Clowney would not have gotten into clempson then you need to step away from the orange kool-aid, because you've had way too much.


boy17, clowney had a learning disability INVENTED for

[5]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 4:36 PM
 

him, by the usuc admission dept. in just the timeframe for entrance requirements submission , although throughout 4 years in hs, he never had one.kinda ironic,huh.

military_donation.jpg

Re: boy17, clowney had a learning disability INVENTED for

[3]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 4:58 PM
 

thats the c$$t way.. Watson, Summers... the list of CHEATING is long

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg


Re: boy17, clowney had a learning disability INVENTED for

[1]
Posted: Jul 8, 2013 8:30 AM
 

Do you really think ya'll would not have taken him? Dabo even told the kid he "loved" him, you guys would have bent over backwards to get Clowney in clempson. It really is time to get off the high horse and admit that your staff is really no different than anyone else's.


ask any fan base about your hc ! you are wrong,period.

[1]
Posted: Jul 8, 2013 6:40 PM
 

you will need to retract the staff statement to even have a chance to get any support, including from your own fan base, if y'all even have some honest fans that root for your program!

military_donation.jpg

Re: boy17, clowney had a learning disability INVENTED for

[1]
Posted: Jul 10, 2013 10:41 AM
 

He would have gotten accepted by Clemson but he would have went to Hargrave Academy just like the others that couldn't make the SAT scores to be admitted. Get your facts straight he would have been sitting at Hargrave just like Bryant, Lawson, and Tankersly did.

military_donation.jpg

No matter how much success Carolina has,

[2]
Posted: Jul 9, 2013 1:08 PM
 

their fans will always be insecure for a long list of reasons we all know. The flock of them on an opposing team's athletic website best displays this. If they weren't insecure, their 4 straight wins against us would be enough. But no, they check this religiously to defend their beloved cocks.


Source?***


Posted: Jul 10, 2013 6:31 AM
 




Re: Source?***


Posted: Jul 10, 2013 8:49 AM
 

Source? for what?


Re: I have just one thing to say about no. 2: Clowney


Posted: Jul 12, 2013 1:36 AM
 

The coaches expected him to have to go to prep school for a semester. Those conversations were reported at the time, since the general consensus was that Clowney would not qualify immediately.


Re: Coot Fans....

[1]
Posted: Jul 8, 2013 11:26 PM
 

> Wow, so many opportunities, where to start. Well,
> here we go.
>
> 1) no question that the SEC and Steve Spurrier have
> been a key part of our success. Credit to USC for
> having the wisdom to seek those affiliations!
>
> 2) You might want to read your own blather before you
> criticize another's education. You might also get
> your facts right in that until 4 years ago recruits
> could get into Clemson that could not meet USC's
> admission requirements. Now both schools have EXACTLY
> the same admission standards for their athletes.
>
> 3) No one has said we will dominate you for the rest
> of time. That is your own insecurity speaking. Do I
> think we will win more than we will lose to Clemson?
> Yes, but I expect a very competitive environment for
> r both schools.
>
> 4) You might want to stop relying on the Arden Key
> comment since everyone has acknowledged it was taken
> out of context; makes your argument weak when you
> lie.
>
> 5) Our SEC foes don' t hate us, they respect us now.
> Big difference.
>
> 6) You guys recruit great, no argument there. But so
> do we and based on the Spurrier vs. Dabo comparisons
> you'd have to agree we coach them better. If we
> didn't, then how could all your great recruits lose
> to our bad ones? Can't have it both ways.
>
> 7) Interesting you bring up the SEC, sounds like envy
> to me. But you won't get in because you don't bring
> anything the SEC doesn't already have.
>
> 8) Now the news, we aren't scared. We look forward
> to the future, you look to the past. And a past that
> is noticeable only for some of the worst recruiting
> scandals in NCAA history.
>
> That's all for now. See you in November. By the way,
> hate is an awfully thing. You will find it consumes
> you. I suggest you work through it with a trained
> professional.

Do you drive an 18wheeler?


I dont believe all of your 18 wheels are touching asphalt..

[1]
Posted: Jul 9, 2013 1:48 PM
 

You have lost your mind if even you believe the second point.

Which Clemson grad helped you count all 18 wheels by the way?

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

"They respect us now"?

[2]
Posted: Jul 11, 2013 12:37 AM
 

Hahahaha, really? Which ones? All of my friends that are fans of SEC schools have no respect for you guys. They respect Clowney and that's about it. They all say that you guys are taking advantage of a weak SEC East division and still only once the conference once. Only to then go on and get your ### handed to you by Auburn.


Who's on Probation?***

[1]
Posted: Jul 12, 2013 7:17 AM
 



2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

null


Sweet lord. You "couldn't care less."***

[2]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 10:18 AM
 



2019 student level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

There's something in these hills.


Re: Coot Fans....are worthless /thread***


Posted: Jul 7, 2013 1:17 PM
 




Here's the deal...

[4]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 1:46 PM
 

You have to let them have their due credit for this streak because it's honestly about the best thing that's happened to them in the history of their program. Since 1892 they have one conference title (no, not in the SEC) and one division title (yes, in the SEC, but we all remember how that SEC title game worked out). Also in that time they have 6 bowl wins, and three of those have come under Spurrier. That's over one hundred years of downright futility, so if it makes them feel better about beating one team 4 years in a row, hey, good for them. Ever wonder why a Gamecock fan doesn't want to talk about history and why they always try to keep the conversation on the last 5-6 years? It's because they have historically been one of the worst football programs ever to exist. So, let them have their 4 years. It doesn't make up for a century of ineptitude.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

"Because at the end of the game, everyone knew that they weren’t that much better than us or better than us at all."


Excellent summation. Case closed. The verdict is in. +1.***


Posted: Jul 16, 2013 12:40 AM
 



2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

More USuCk idiocy... I love it... Keep the ignorant rants comin...lol***

[1]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 2:06 PM
 



2019 student level member

Fact is you have sucked for 100 years


Posted: Jul 7, 2013 2:11 PM
 

And 18 wheeler is an appropriate name for a USuCker

2019 student level member

You are so ignorant... Get out of your fantasyland much??***


Posted: Jul 7, 2013 2:13 PM
 



2019 student level member

Hey boy tell us how it went down. And try to not look like a da***


Posted: Jul 7, 2013 2:14 PM
 



2019 student level member

Re: Hey boy tell us how it went down. And try to not look like a da***

[2]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 2:58 PM
 

Okay, lets try this again. Your responses consist of:

1) ignorant rants
2) I/we suck
3) I am ignorant
4) I am a da

Here is the problem, you fail to point out where I am wrong. Generally speaking people resort to personal insults when they don't have the facts on their side. I will ask you again, where am I wrong and give me a fact or two. And I will be right here to listen.

You guys have a good team, no question. But so do we and we are here to stay. To live in the world of denial isn't good.


Re: Hey boy tell us how it went down. And try to not look like a da***

[2]
Posted: Jul 9, 2013 1:07 AM
 

Coot fan on Clemson board............enough said


Re: Coot Fans....

[2]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 2:25 PM
 

let me get this straight. Are you actually saying, yea SC beats us every year. But it doesn't matter because rivals or scout or whoever says the tigers are recruiting better?

Just wow.


This deserves to be a HoF post.


Posted: Jul 7, 2013 4:27 PM
 

Imo

2019 student level member

Re: This deserves to be a HoF post.


Posted: Jul 7, 2013 9:40 PM
 

Is that a compliment for me?


Re: Re: Coot Fans....***

[1]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 5:14 PM
 




Re: Re: Coot Fans....

[3]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 6:05 PM
 

Here are some real facts

1. You have not benefitted from the SEC. The teams that run that conference are Alabama, LSU, an Florida. Georgia is having a normal up period like most teams have. Auburn cheated out the ass. USuC does nothing for the conference. It left the ACC just so they could ride coattails and get by. In fact the reason you left to join the SEC was because the ACC academic standards were TOO HIGH. Spurrier is only there because he wants a paycheck, and he is too worthless to do anything but yell at felons all day. He is a glorified warden. He only wants to be at Florida as he has stated many times, but thats never going to happen. Oh, and what kind of a head coach says he consistently dreams about ditching his current school to run off and coach another school because said other school is "so much better".

2. USuC pales in comparison to Clemson's academics. For my freshman class, 2011, Clemson's incoming GPA was higher than Harvard's incoming GPA. Our athletes have higher GPA's overall and have a much higher graduation rate. Clemson is a top 25 public insitution, while USuC is top 150. Don't even mention your honors college. There are people that don't even apply to USuC that are given admission. One example being my cousin, whose high school grades couldn't get him into Clemson, yet USuC admitted him to your honors college when he never even applied. Your academics have hardly been mediocre. You can't touch us in this field.

3. I've heard otherwise from coot fans. The rivalry will not be competitive for a long time. Your top 50 recruiting classes will bite you in the #### and Clemson will be back on top. When Spurrier leaves in a couple of years, you will be back to the same old mediocrity.

4. Do we really want to go down this road, bringing up the "out of context" and "hypocrisy" cards?
Shut up while you still can.

5. http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/1256378-south-carolina-football-why-the-rest-of-the-sec-hates-the-gamecocks

Come to Alabama and talk to the fans here about how relevant USuC is. They'll laugh at you. I was at a bar the other night where a bunch of drunk Bama fans did nothing but make fun of YOU for an hour. The SEC hates you.

6. A valid point. Spurrier has coached better, but we have been working with young players and coaches coming off of one of the biggest rebuilding eras of Clemson history. So, this argument is weak at best.

7. Accuse us of bringing up te SEC yet its you #### lovers that are always cheering for the conference (which you do NOT contribute too). In no way has USuC ever done anything that makes the SEC what it is. That success was built by LSU, Alabama, and Florida. Georgia is coming along now, and Auburn cheated its way there. You cheering for your conference is like saying your piece of #### rusted 2000 Chevy Malibu is faster than my Ferrari because your car is made by the same company that builds the Corvette. Shut up.


8. I'm sorry, haven't you heard that we are looking at a run at the national championship this seasob? We like to reminisce sometimes because we actually have a history of winning championships, ublike USuC. We are already looking at ticket prices for Pasadena this year, what are you looking at, those free passes to the nobody bowl? Or maybe the tickets to the other big bowls the real SEC teams play in, the whole ride the coattails in the conference bandwagon thing you guys have going on. Do you wipe Bama fans a$$es too when they ask?
I'm not sure what "violations" you're talking about. The only major penalty we had was an ACC imposed bowl ban on Clemson despite the fact the NCAA declared us innocent of all charges after a full investigation.
Unlike the 47 players arrested under Spurrier's tenure and nearly 20 straight years of probation imposed on USuC. You know you almost got your program shut down in the early 1990's, right? Don't talk about violations, you helped write the book on them. I guess that is how USuC contributes to the SEC, helping conpound more and more probation into the conference, go ##### eh?

You will definitely see us in November as we tear down your little "streak" in the cockroach. This "4 bomb" is nothing more that a bottle rocket compared to the nuke Clemson has and will repeatedly drop on you, past, present and future. Its just a small insignificant blip in a much bigger that is dominated by an ORANGE landscape. Woohoo, you finally got serious about football for the first time in 100+ years. Its about time you woke up and joined the rest of D1 football... And D2, and D3, and Semi pro, and high school....

So 18Wheeler, you better get back to focusing on driving that semi to drop off those milk crates at walmart. Thats some great job that USuC toilet paper diploma got you.


Re: Re: Coot Fans....

[1]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 9:28 PM
 

Nice try, but needs work. Here you go:

1) we have benefited from the SEC. Just look at the revenue sharing. Stupid comment on Spurrier, news flash, he doesn't need a paycheck.

2) never said overall academics, I clearly wrote for athletics. And the admission standards for Clemson and USC athletes are the same. Call your AD and Dan will tell you the same.

3) You have heard no such thing from "coot fans". And we have had significantly better than top 50 classes. And by the way, since our recruits are so poor compared to yours, why have we beaten you with them the last 4 years?

4) not wiling to "shut up" as long as you perpetuate a lie.

5) Bleachereport is a blog site for crying out loud. You can't seriously be using that as a proof source are you? Really?

6) we had 1 fewer freshmen and sophomores that the "young Clemson" class. Weak excuse.

7) your second attempt at "shut up". The OP is the one who brought it up, not me.

8) you aren't sure what violations I am talking about? Your credibility just went to zero. Go back and look at the years 1981-84 with your tainted National Championship. 156 violations including paying players and cars. Give me a break.

And finally you resort to name calling and vague swearing, big boy hiding behind a keyboard. Why don't you try a little honest discourse and debate.

Came here for a little good natured discussion and while a few had good comments, yours were a joke. Maybe you will be in Pasadena, that'd be great. Maybe we will, who knows. Either way should be a fun season.


Re: Re: Coot Fans....

[1]
Posted: Jul 12, 2013 7:20 AM
 

Who's on probation now?

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

null


Re: Re: Coot Fans....

[3]
Posted: Jul 8, 2013 12:48 AM
 

Let's see, freshman class 2011. Good, you've got a couple more years to complete your education. That also means you haven't seen Clemson beat Carolina while a student. Could that be why you appear so bitter? 18wheeler, coot or not, has offended no one here and from all appearances has tried to construct an honest debate. Of course that only gets met by sarcasm and name calling by our vastly superior intellectual fan base. Give it a rest folks. The Coots are not pushovers anymore and name calling means you have already lost the argument.


Re: Re: Coot Fans....


Posted: Jul 8, 2013 5:51 AM
 

Thanks


Re: Re: Coot Fans....

[2]
Posted: Jul 8, 2013 2:51 AM
 

V> Here are some real facts

> 2. USuC pales in comparison to Clemson's academics.
> For my freshman class, 2011, Clemson's incoming GPA
> was higher than Harvard's incoming GPA. Our athletes
> have higher GPA's overall and have a much higher
> graduation rate. Clemson is a top 25 public
> insitution, while USuC is top 150. Don't even mention
> your honors college. There are people that don't even
> apply to USuC that are given admission. One example
> being my cousin, whose high school grades couldn't
> get him into Clemson, yet USuC admitted him to your
> honors college when he never even applied. Your
> academics have hardly been mediocre. You can't touch
> us in this field.

Dear "tokillagamecock"
I read your post with interest and searched the Internet to check out some of your "real facts."

"USuC pales in comparison to Clemson's academics...."
Could not find 2011 incoming freshman GPA's online for Harvard or Clemson, but did find recent average SAT and ACT scores from colleges.findthebest.com.

Harvard 2255 (SAT)/ 34 (ACT)
Clemson 1775 (SAT/ 28 (ACT)
USC's ACT was 27, but couldn't find an SAT average.
From colleges.findthebest.com

As far as athlete graduation rates, here's a 2010 story from TigersNow.

While graduation rates for major college football players nationwide have improved to an all-time high, graduation rates for players at Clemson University slipped to below average this year, according to data released Wednesday by the NCAA.

The Graduation Success Rate, or GSR, for the Clemson football team dropped from 67 to 60 percent.

The GSR measures the percentage of student-athletes who graduate within six years of their enrollment. Wednesday’s data was based on freshmen who entered college between 2000 and 2003.

This year’s national average for Football Bowl Subdivision players was 69 percent, an all-time high in six years of GSR monitoring by the NCAA.

Clemson’s football success rate ranked the Tigers 10th in the 12-team Atlantic Coast Conference. Duke had the league’s highest football graduation rate at 95 percent while Georgia Tech was lowest at 49 percent.

“The football score of 60 is a bit below what we have seen for the first six years of the study,” Clemson athletics director Terry Don Phillips said. “But our upcoming three classes – those that entered in 2004, 2005 and 2006 – already all have scores in the mid- to upper-70s, so our scores should go up in the future.”

Phillips said all but two of 17 scholarship seniors on last year’s team have earned their degrees and that coach Dabo Swinney recently was ranked third nationally in APR, a formula that measures the academic progress of student-athletes.

“Our APR scores for football are above the national average,” Phillips said. “Coach Swinney has done an excellent job in this area and puts a strong emphasis on academics.”

Clemson’s 60 percent GSR in football was the lowest among the school’s 15 men’s and women’s sports, with the next lowest being the 71 percent rate by the men’s basketball team. That score, which represented a big jump from last year’s 37 percent rating, ranked the basketball team eighth in the ACC, but still was above the national average of 66 percent. In the ACC, Wake Forest led the way with a 100 score while Maryland was last at 31.

Clemson is making progress, however... Here is a 2012 story from http://stanford.scout.com/2/1183346.

Once again, The Bootleg is taking a hard look at the graduation rates for the three major sports – football, basketball, and baseball – as well as overall graduation rates for student-athletes.

Clemson - 62% (bad, *my comment)
USC - 55% (worse, *my comment)

Story about GAMECOCK ACADEMICS - from gamecocksonline.com
January 30, 2012

COLUMBIA, S.C. - University of South Carolina student-athletes achieved the highest departmental GPA ever with a 3.202 average during the 2011 fall semester, it was announced today. The strong showing continued a positive trend, which has seen the department post a grade point average above 3.0 for 10 consecutive semesters.
"We are very proud of the way our student-athletes have represented the academic mission of the University," said Raymond Harrison, Associate Athletics Director - Academic Services. "They have embraced the understanding that the discipline, focus and work ethic needed for academic success translates directly to the success they experience in athletics and in life."

Three squads - equestrian (3.545), women's swimming and diving (3.618), and men's track and field (3.252) - surpassed its highest GPA on record. Two teams, men's basketball (2.932) and women's soccer (3.493) achieved their second highest GPA on record. Thirteen out of 17 teams scored a 3.0, while 12 teams improved its GPA from the previous semester.

Women's golf (3.664) earned the title of departmental leader for fall 2011. No teams scored below a 2.7 GPA, and the football team (2.704) recorded its third consecutive semester above a 2.7.

Sixty-one student-athletes were named to the President's List with a perfect 4.0 GPA while 181 were named to the Dean's List, and 360 made the Athletics Director's Honor Roll (3.0 GPA).

Sport GPA
Baseball 2.996
Men's Basketball 2.932
Women's Basketball 2.954
Equestrian 3.545
Football 2.704
Men's Golf 3.286
Women's Golf 3.664
Men's Soccer 3.387
Women's Soccer 3.493
Softball 3.370
Men's Swimming & Diving 3.190
Women's Swimming & Diving 3.618
Men's Tennis 3.459
Women's Tennis 3.447
Men's Track and Field 3.252
Women's Track and Field/Cross Country 3.348
Volleyball 3.408

Clemson Academic Report for Fall Semester 2011 from tigernet.com

Clemson, SC—Eight Clemson athletic teams, including the men’s basketball program for the first time on record, scored at least a 3.0 in the first semester according to academic data released by the University’s Office of Institutional Research.

Overall, 51 percent of the student-athletes made the academic honor roll, including 106 who made the Dean’s List and 40 who were on the President’s List. A total of 225 were on the academic honor roll. It was the first time eight different teams had at least a 3.0 since the Spring of 2007. 

The GPA for all student-athletes combined was a 2.94, the second best on record and the best fall semester in history. The 2.97 recorded for the Spring of 2009 is the only semester that is higher.

“We are once again very pleased with this report,” said Clemson Athletic Director Terry Don Phillips. “Becky Bowman and the staff at Vickery Hall are to be commended because we are seeing consistent excellence in this area and it carries over to the APR and graduation rate reports.

“The performance of our men’s basketball team was particularly noteworthy and I commend Coach Brad Brownell and his student-athletes.

The women’s swimming team posted a 3.55 team GPA to lead all of Clemson’s programs, the third straight semester with at least a 3.5 team GPA for Coach Chris IP’s team. It was also the 25th straight semester with at least a 3.0, an all-time record for any sport at Clemson.

The women’s cross country team was close behind with a 3.46 team GPA for the first semester. Other women’s sports with at least a 3.0 were the rowing program (3.23) and the women’s soccer program (3.07).. It was the 23rd straight semester with at least a 3.0 for the women’s soccer program. The rowing team had the most student-athletes on the academic honor roll with 53.

The women’s track program, ranked second in the nation in the latest poll, had 19 student-athletes on the academic honor roll, including All-Americans Kim Ruck, Alyssa Kulik and April Sinkler.

Leading the men’s sports was the basketball team. The program had a 3.13 team GPA for the first semester as nine of the 12 squad members had at least a 3.0. This broke the previous record for team GPA by a Clemson basketball team. The previous best was a 2.96 GPA in the fall semester of 1983 under Bill Foster. The nine team members on the academic honor roll were also a school record.

All four of the seniors (Bryan Narcisse, Catalin Baciu, Tanner Smith and Andre Young) made the academic honor roll, including Baciu and Smith, who made the Dean’s List. Freshmen T.J. Sapp (Dean’s List), Devin Coleman and Bernard Sullivan, all made the academic honor roll as well.


Clemson’s top 20 men’s golf team also had a strong fall in the classroom with a 3.09 GPA, the best for the program in 11 years and the fourth best on record. Freshmen Hayden Garrett and Stephen Behr had perfect 4.0 semesters, while classmate Billy Kennerly also had at least a 3.0. Crawford Reeves made the academic honor roll for the fifth straight semester as well.

The men’s tennis team and the cross country squads also made at least a 3.0 for the fall. The baseball team had a strong 2.94 team GPA and had 19 student-athletes on the academic honor roll.

Clemson’s football team posted a 2.49 team GPA as 27 student-athletes made the academic honor roll. The list of academic honor roll members included Dalton Freeman and Dawson Zimmerman, who both had perfect 4.0.

Other starters on the academic honor roll were first-team All-ACC quarterback Tajh Boyd, second-team kicker Chandler Catanzaro, linebacker Corico Hawkins, and Coty Sensabaugh.

Academic GPAs by Sport
Baseball        2.94
Basketball, Men        3.13
Basketball, Women 2.72
Cross Country, Men 3.11
Cross Country, Women 3.46
Football        2.49
Golf                3.09
Rowing                3.23
Soccer, Men        2.92
Soccer, Women        3.07
Swimming, Men        2.92
Swimming, Women        3.55
Tennis, Men        3.01
Tennis, Women        2.74
Track, Men        2.54
Track, Women        2.64
Volleyball        2.99

So, in graduation rates CU has an adge, but in recent GPA's USC is ahead.

As far as your disdain for the USC Honors College, here are some facts published by publicuniversityhonors.com

"The leading honors programs in HONORS FACTORS only are these:

1. University of South Carolina Honors College
2. University of Michigan LSA Honors Program
3. University of Texas at Austin Plan II Honors Program
4. Arizona State University Barrett Honors College
5. University of Georgia Honors Program

Revised, July 16, 2012." - See more at: http://publicuniversityhonors.com 

Finally, I would like to add that I have a daughter who graduated from CU in nursing and a son who graduated from USC in math/engineering (who took some classes through the Honors College).

I don't believe the evidence supports that USC's academics "pale" in comparison to CU's. Your athletes do have a higher graduation rate, but not higher GPA's. I would say that USC can "touch" CU in the academic "field" and recently they have quite convincingly "touched" CU on the playing field.


Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....

[1]
Posted: Jul 10, 2013 8:05 AM
 

Dear sir,
Your research and copying of articles is fine. But you are comparing eggs to oranges.
Graduation rates for Clemson vs GPAs of both schools.
Why not compare USC GPA to those of Stanford or army or wake forest? They mean not as much BC you do not know the classes taken. UNC would sound good but they give grades for non classes so GPA for them is flawed.

What are the Uscjr graduation rates?
Also compare the arrests and players suspended or caught in trouble?

USC has fine academics for all students.
I have no idea about how they admit or take on athletes.

Clemson has fine academics... I read more closely the opinions of how it accepts football athletes. Under TB there were a few years where fans were in an uproar BC academic standards were too hard. Players were not admitted. The school went back and created a committee to oversee and recommended changes. Players were not admitted to Clemson but got into other Acc/Sec schools.

I do not like Clemson losing to Uscjr 4 years in a row. Hope it ends soon . Last two years we were outcoached. We will see this November.

My question is what has Spurrier really done in his tenure except win one division title and beat Clemson. The last one should not be a feather jn your cap BC USC thinks Clemson plays in a crap conference. And the div title was won during one of the weakest sec east years since there was an sec east.

Last year, USC did not win its division. Usc has not consistently won in the sec when it mattered.

UT will be better soon. Florida is coming back around. uga is always seen as a darling. What does the future really hold for USC? Is it trending upward?


Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....


Posted: Jul 10, 2013 5:21 PM
 

>Dear sir,
Your research and copying of articles is fine. But you are comparing eggs to oranges.
Graduation rates for Clemson vs GPAs of both schools.
Why not compare USC GPA to those of Stanford or army or wake forest? They mean not as much BC you do not know the classes taken. UNC would sound good but they give grades for non classes so GPA for them is flawed.

What are the Uscjr graduation rates?
(usnews.com says general students- USC 51% in 4 years... CU 54% in 4 years)

Also compare the arrests and players suspended or caught in trouble?>
(Don't know how to find this and hard to define/ argumentative for "caught in trouble"... does that include keying a car and getting pulled for drugs?... how about hand-cuffed but not arrested?... or girls on stairs & guys with towel rods?... or "coots" who surely were responsible for damage to Howard's Rock? I'm afraid any attempt to list offenses/ abuses would bring battle cries from both sides about "unfair/that's not how it happened, etc." Certainly, both schools have had students/ athletes/ fans who have not acted wisely. If you have the time do do the research I would surely like to read it.

The reason I included the Harvard/ Clemson #'s was in response to a post from tokillagamecock:

>USuC pales in comparison to Clemson's academics. For my freshman class, 2011, Clemson's incoming GPA was higher than Harvard's incoming GPA. Our athletes have higher GPA's overall and have a much higher graduation rate.>

I couldn't find incoming GPA's listed, so I went with incoming SAT scores.


I compared USC & CU rankings and graduate salaries because of this post from gottigers81:

>Again show me a single ranking service that has Scar anywhere close to Clemson. CU grads earn on average $10,000 more per year than Scar grads.>

I also added more information I found in a later post.

> most of this is from http://www.usnews.com/education
CU acceptance rate 63.3%
USC acceptance rate 63.1%

CU student/faculty ratio 18:1
USC student/faculty ration 17:1

CU 4 year graduation rate 54%
USC 4 year graduation rate 51%

CU retention rate 90.5%
USC retention rate 86.8%

CU undergrad/graduate programs 80/110
USC undergrad/graduate programs 79/270+ (total over 350)

CU average incoming SAT 1246
USC average incoming SAT 1199

from publicuniversityhonors.com
CU Honors College- top 50 (could not find exact # anywhere)
USC Honors College- #1

Hoping these facts/ data meet the "anywhere close" standard.

Now, the part about Clemson graduates making $10,000 more that USC graduates is interesting. If that is true in apples/apples sense (such as CU mechanical engineers/ USC mechanical engineers) then it is awesome for CU.

However the two schools graduate very differernt numbers from some of their degree programs. (according to the most recent info I could find).

For instance, CU has 504 in graduate education and 1317 in graduate engineering programs. USC has 1103 in graduate education and 534 in graduate engineering. So...

(Assumption: I didn't see any actual graduation numbers, so let's say that in a year 25% in each program graduate.)

CU would have 126 education grads & 329 engineering grads.
USC would have 275 education grads & 133 engineering grads.

More Assumptions:
1) The programs and the graduates are equal in quality at both universities and the graduates are going to stay in South Carolina.

2) The average starting teacher salary in SC is @ $31,000.
(according to the sites I found)

3) The average starting engineer salary in SC is @ $55,000. (best I can find/ deduce)

4) All graduates would receive the average starting salaries listed.

If we achieve full employment for our graduates (wouldn't that be great) then these USC graduates' average salary would be $38,823.53 and these CU graduates' average would be $48,353.85... @ your $10,000 difference, even if all the graduates were paid the same for their chosen profession. (If CU graduates were better qualified/ more sought after this number would be even higher.)

Now, I'm not saying this is the reason/ only reason or that it would prove out if we counted all graduates from both institutions, (a lot of work and time I don't have) but I am pretty sure that CU has a lot students in programs that are likely to be higher paying... while those who get education degrees and teach in our schools, or direct a high school band or chorus (regardless of where they went to school) are more likely to make less because of their chosen field. (By the way, 2 of my kids went to CU and 1 went to USC... and my wife has taught both Music & English in public school).

Now, all of this is moot and conjecture if the starting salary of a CU grad mechanical engineer is $60,000 and a USC grad mechanical engineer is $50,000.>

Once again, I'm not suggesting that USC is a Stanford or Harvard... I'm simply responding to these posts and the statement that one's academics pales in comparison to the other.

I did find this information and included it in another later post:

from http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/27/pf/college/college-salary/index.html

The schools with the highest-paid graduates typically fall into one of two categories: They're either engineering schools, since engineering is the highest-paid major, or they're very prestigious, so companies tend to recruit these grads first -- and pay them handsomely -- when making hiring decisions.

Average Salaries for some of ACC/SEC schools.
USC starting 40,500. Mid career 71,500
CU. starting 45,300. Mid career 86,900
Duke starting 53,000. Mid career 102 ,000
GT starting. 59,000. Mid career 102 ,000
Wake starting 46,000. Mid career 103,000
Vandy starting 48,300. Mid career 104,000
NDame starting 53,400. Mid career 111,000

(my thoughts) I also think there is another factor with some of the highest/ most prestigious school graduate salaries... that being "elite" parents who send their children to the prestigious school and have position/ influence/ control in high paying companies/ corporations and can get their children high paying jobs. Such students boost a school's average regardless of the students' academic acumen or where they went to school. (This idea from a conversation with a former Duke registrar.)


About athlete GPA's from both schools. According to reports from each school's own site, USC athlete GPA was higher than CU athlete GPA in Fall 2012.

>Story about GAMECOCK ACADEMICS - from gamecocksonline.com
January 30, 2012

COLUMBIA, S.C. - University of South Carolina student-athletes achieved the highest departmental GPA ever with a 3.202 average during the 2011 fall semester, it was announced today. The strong showing continued a positive trend, which has seen the department post a grade point average above 3.0 for 10 consecutive semesters.>

Clemson Academic Report for Fall Semester 2011 from tigernet.com

Clemson, SC— The GPA for all student-athletes combined was a 2.94, the second best on record and the best fall semester in history. The 2.97 recorded for the Spring of 2009 is the only semester that is higher.

Since you mentiioned UNC in your post I'll include this interesting article on UNC athlete academics from the Charlotte Observer. It seems that even if a school has a solid academic reputation that is no assurance the pressure to win games won't lead to academic shenanigans.

"Amid an academic scandal involving athletics, the remnants of an NCAA investigation and multiple leadership changes, a key measure of academic progress for football and men’s basketball at UNC Chapel Hill has dropped to a new low.

In the latest statistics from the NCAA, the men’s basketball team, at one point the best in the Atlantic Coast Conference with a near perfect score, is in eighth place. The football team never ranked higher than seventh, but it had managed to stay out of the ACC’s cellar until last year, when it had a score so low it is just a few points away from losing postseason eligibility.

Both teams scored their all-time lows on a measure the NCAA launched in 2003 – the Academic Progress Rate – to try to ensure that athletes are getting a meaningful education. The rate is built upon how many athletes on sports scholarships stay in school and remain academically eligible to play. It represents the four most recent years of academic performance and retention.

The new scores for UNC’s revenue-producing teams are not in line with UNC’s profile. It is one of the nation’s top public universities, and officials there have long boasted that its athletes succeed on the field and in the classroom.

UNC Athletic Director Bubba Cunningham and other officials declined to be interviewed."

P.S. I have tried to compare apples/apples, not eggs/oranges but it is hard when we are talking about eggs and oranges... I will leave you with this- I have 2 children who went to Clemson and 1 child who went to USC. I just don't like it when either side says things that are not true or flawed by the color of their glasses, that's all.


Haaahaaa


Posted: Jul 9, 2013 10:53 PM
 

That post says a lot about the GPA of that incoming class you spoke of. Let me guess, you all went to private schools?


A single post vs. a Willy B full of Natty light smelling

[1]
Posted: Jul 13, 2013 2:43 AM
 

toothless knuckle draggers who wear nothing but wife beaters and fragrantly shout and proclaim their love of c0cks...

I think I speak for all of the Clemson fanbase when I say...we winz


You "actually felt bad for USC's lack of competitiveness "?

[2]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 6:36 PM
 

Shame on you. I wallowed in their misery.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....


Posted: Jul 7, 2013 6:41 PM
 

Tokillagamecock,
To say that Clemson has better academics than South Carolina is laughable. Please don't respond to this post with USN&WR rankings because you'll embarrass yourself.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-06-04-clemson-rankings_N.htm

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?pageType=moneywatch&catid=57510906&feed_id=76&videofeed=43


Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....

[1]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 9:43 PM
 

It's laughable? Really? You do not have to look at rankings to know that Clemson is better academically, just look at average SAT score, class rank and GPA and you will know that smarter students go to Clemson. Truth is it is much harder to get into Clemson than it is Scar. Also Forbes rates Clemson 218 out of all schools and Scar 344. Pretty much every ranking out there ranks Clemson considerably higher than Scar that is a fact


Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....

[2]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 10:01 PM
 

Again, I played football at PC and pull for both SC schools. I also have to call it like I see it. Clemson fans love to throw out the lack of conference Championships with out one word of USC not being eligible to win one for 20 years because of being an independent. However they still played a heavy ACC schedule and would have won many Championships in years such as,1975,79,84,87 to name a few coming from a non partisan. I also correct many of things they say that are embellished too. Like I say, I am a South Carolinian first with two dogs in the hunt.

military_donation.jpg

Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....

[2]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 10:12 PM
 

So that means they had 80 years to win a conference championship and failed to. That makes things a lot better. Also Scar never even won a bowl game until 1994 what is your excuse there?


That tigerstripe guy is hilarious.

[6]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 11:29 PM
 

The lame coot should have been banned a long time ago. He's a dumb one for sure.

Hey 1 tainted conference championship in 80 years isn't that bad ;)


Re: That tigerstripe guy is hilarious.

[1]
Posted: Jul 8, 2013 5:48 AM
 

Last comment as the thread has run its course. Why should I be banned and why am I the dumb one? Simply replied to the OP and have raised some issues that neither you or anyone else has rebuffed. So you resort to name calling. Wow, nice work.

Be back another time.


Is one of your other handles tigerstripe?***

[1]
Posted: Jul 9, 2013 1:15 PM
 




two can play that game. from 81-91 and a couple yrs in the

[2]
Posted: Jul 9, 2013 2:39 AM
 

2k's,clemson would have won multiple sec championships. see how easy this is.

military_donation.jpg

Re: Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....

[1]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 9:55 PM
 

These grades/gpa's aren't counted in Clemson's #s. It was created so Clemson could pad their stats to improve their rankings in a magazine. Pay for Clemson and get a technical college education. What a fleecing.

http://www.clemson.edu/admissions/bridge/


Re: Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....

[2]
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 10:09 PM
 

Again show me a single ranking service that has Scar anywhere close to Clemson. CU grads earn on average $10,000 more per year than Scar grads. CU also has one of the highest ROI's of any public school. The bridge program is so kids who did not qualify out of HS have a chance to prove they can handle college and are given a second chance almost all colleges have similar programs. I'll hold my breath while you find that ranking


Re: Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....


Posted: Jul 7, 2013 11:40 PM
 

> Again show me a single ranking service that has Scar
> anywhere close to Clemson. CU grads earn on average
> $10,000 more per year than Scar grads. CU also has
> one of the highest ROI's of any public school. The
> bridge program is so kids who did not qualify out of
> HS have a chance to prove they can handle college and
> are given a second chance almost all colleges have
> similar programs. I'll hold my breath while you find
> that ranking

gottigers81,
Not here to disparage or dispute Clemson academics. My daughter graduated from CU in nursing. However, my oldest son graduated from USC (math/computer engineering) and took some courses in the Honors College there.

"tokillagamecock" has posted disparaging remarks about the Honors College at USC and its admissions. Have no knowledge about his personal experience, but the USC Honors College is very well respected.

You asked for any rankings where USC is close to Clemson, and I don't have one... however, the USC Honors college is ranked #1 in public honors programs by publicuniversityhonors.com

"The leading honors programs in HONORS FACTORS only are these:

1. University of South Carolina Honors College
2. University of Michigan LSA Honors Program
3. University of Texas at Austin Plan II Honors Program
4. Arizona State University Barrett Honors College
5. University of Georgia Honors Program

Revised, July 16, 2012."

- See more at: http://publicuniversityhonors.com


Re: Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....

[2]
Posted: Jul 8, 2013 6:35 PM
 

I don't doubt that some of the programs at Scar are very good my post was in reference to the idiot that said comparing Clemson's academics to Scar's was a joke. That would be like me arguing that Clemson was a better football team than Scar for the last two years. I deal in facts and quantifiable data when making comparisons not assumptions and idiotic ramblings.


you just lost that argument. last year they upset us.

[1]
Posted: Jul 9, 2013 7:33 PM
 

they were not the better team. all the national sports pundits,las vegas,etc. had us favored to win- for a reason. the other few years, i can't argue with,too much.

military_donation.jpg

maybe because our starting QB was questionable?


Posted: Jul 9, 2013 11:04 PM
 

It was painfully clear for Clemson who was the best team in the 4th quarter. Dabo knew it, he gave up and punted.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....


Posted: Jul 9, 2013 7:28 PM
 

from gottigers81
> Again show me a single ranking service that has Scar
> anywhere close to Clemson. CU grads earn on average
> $10,000 more per year than Scar grads. CU also has
> one of the highest ROI's of any public school. The
> bridge program is so kids who did not qualify out of
> HS have a chance to prove they can handle college and
> are given a second chance almost all colleges have
> similar programs. I'll hold my breath while you find
> that ranking

Here's one...
College GuideRankings from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2012/national_university_rank_2nd_page.php

Below are the Washington Monthly's 2012 national universities rankings. We rate schools based on their contribution to the public good in three broad categories: Social Mobility (recruiting and graduating low-income students), Research (producing cutting-edge scholarship and PhDs), and Service (encouraging students to give something back to their country).

#114 University of South Carolina-Columbia (SC) 49 score
#158 Clemson University (SC) 44 score

Clemson's ranking in the other serevices I found is higher than USC.


from gottigers81
>I deal in facts and quantifiable data when making comparisons not assumptions and idiotic ramblings.

While I was looking I found lots of sites with other interesting facts and quantifiable data:

most of this is from http://www.usnews.com/education
CU acceptance rate 63.3%
USC acceptance rate 63.1%

CU student/faculty ratio 18:1
USC student/faculty ration 17:1

CU 4 year graduation rate 54%
USC 4 year graduation rate 51%

CU retention rate 90.5%
USC retention rate 86.8%

CU undergrad/graduate programs 80/110
USC undergrad/graduate programs 79/270+ (total over 350)

CU average incoming SAT 1246
USC average incoming SAT 1199

from publicuniversityhonors.com
CU Honors College- top 50 (could not find exact # anywhere)
USC Honors College- #1

Hoping these facts/ data meet the "anywhere close" standard.

Now, the part about Clemson graduates making $10,000 more that USC graduates is interesting. If that is true in apples/apples sense (such as CU mechanical engineers/ USC mechanical engineers) then it is awesome for CU.

However the two schools graduate very differernt numbers from some of their degree programs. (according to the most recent info I could find).

For instance, CU has 504 in graduate education and 1317 in graduate engineering programs. USC has 1103 in graduate education and 534 in graduate engineering. So...

(Assumption: I didn't see any actual graduation numbers, so let's say that in a year 25% in each program graduate.)

CU would have 126 education grads & 329 engineering grads.
USC would have 275 education grads & 133 engineering grads.

More Assumptions:
1) The programs and the graduates are equal in quality at both universities and the graduates are going to stay in South Carolina.

2) The average starting teacher salary in SC is @ $31,000.
(according to the sites I found)

3) The average starting engineer salary in SC is @ $55,000. (best I can find/ deduce)

4) All graduates would receive the average starting salaries listed.

If we achieve full employment for our graduates (wouldn't that be great) then these USC graduates' average salary would be $38,823.53 and these CU graduates' average would be $48,353.85... @ your $10,000 difference, even if all the graduates were paid the same for their chosen profession. (If CU graduates were better qualified/ more sought after this number would be even higher.)

Now, I'm not saying this is the reason/ only reason or that it would prove out if we counted all graduates from both institutions, (a lot of work and time I don't have) but I am pretty sure that CU has a lot students in programs that are likely to be higher paying... while those who get education degrees and teach in our schools, or direct a high school band or chorus (regardless of where they went to school) are more likely to make less because of their chosen field. (By the way, 2 of my kids went to CU and 1 went to USC... and my wife has taught both Music & English in public school).

Now, all of this is moot and conjecture if the starting salary of a CU grad mechanical engineer is $60,000 and a USC grad mechanical engineer is $50,000.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....

[1]
Posted: Jul 12, 2013 1:55 AM
 

That's a lot of speculation. Here are some facts:

Clemson and USC engineers hired by the same company will get the same starting salary. There are some companies that will choose the Clemson candidate over the USC candidate and vice versa. USC, as mainly a liberal arts school, has a fairly small engineering program, but they have recently added MS and PhD degrees in NE that Clemson does not offer (albeit under the direction of a Clemson grad).


Re: Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....


Posted: Jul 12, 2013 11:01 AM
 

> That's a lot of speculation. Here are some facts:
>
> Clemson and USC engineers hired by the same company
> will get the same starting salary. There are some
> companies that will choose the Clemson candidate over
> the USC candidate and vice versa. USC, as mainly a
> liberal arts school, has a fairly small engineering
> program, but they have recently added MS and PhD
> degrees in NE that Clemson does not offer (albeit
> under the direction of a Clemson grad).

I believe your above post... which is why I got in this discussion.

from gottigers81: >Again show me a single ranking service that has Scar anywhere close to Clemson.>

So, I found one. College GuideRankings from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2012/national_university_rank_2nd_page.php

>Below are the Washington Monthly's 2012 national universities rankings. We rate schools based on their contribution to the public good in three broad categories: Social Mobility (recruiting and graduating low-income students), Research (producing cutting-edge scholarship and PhDs), and Service (encouraging students to give something back to their country).

#114 University of South Carolina-Columbia (SC) 49 score
#158 Clemson University (SC) 44 score>


Again from gottigerscom:
>CU grads earn on average $10,000 more per year than Scar grads.>

His assertion is supported by the following article which I quoted in my previous post.
>from http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/27/pf/college/college-salary/index.html

The schools with the highest-paid graduates typically fall into one of two categories: They're either engineering schools, since engineering is the highest-paid major, or they're very prestigious, so companies tend to recruit these grads first -- and pay them handsomely -- when making hiring decisions.

Average Salaries for some of ACC/SEC schools.
USC starting 40,500. Mid career 71,500
CU. starting 45,300. Mid career 86,900
Duke starting 53,000. Mid career 102 ,000
GT starting. 59,000. Mid career 102 ,000
Wake starting 46,000. Mid career 103,000
Vandy starting 48,300. Mid career 104,000
NDame starting 53,400. Mid career 111,000>

Now you (ArchieOCampbell) say "Clemson and USC engineers hired by the same company will get the same starting salary" (which I believe is true)

So, are CU grads getting hired by higher paying companies?
Are CU grads getting promotions/ raises faster?
Are CU grads getting more jobs in high cost of living areas (where compensation would need to be higher to be worth more)?

Or does CU have a higher % in high paying degree programs (like engineering) than USC? (one of the points of the above quoted money.cnn.com story... also supported by your post)

If so, this would account for overall salaries for CU graduates being higher than USC graduates while all were being compensated similarly for the same jobs.

gottigers81 was using the $10,000 per year difference in pay to assert CU academics are far superior to USC. If CU grads (in the same job/ same location/ same field) are earning $10,000 yearly more than their USC counterparts, then at least from a financial standpoint (assuming a much higher student debt not being incurred by a CU student) the CU degree is superior.

But if grads fom the two schools in the same fields are being compensated the same it would seem that each schools education would be considered similar as well.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....

[1]
Posted: Jul 13, 2013 2:17 AM
 

In SC, the smarter kids choose Clemson instead of USC. That is, if you judge the smarter kids to be the ones who finish #1 or #2 in their high school classes.

So then, suppose that smarter kids actually perform at a higher level in their careers and earn more money. Suppose we actually have a merit-based society. Then come to your own conclusions.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....


Posted: Jul 14, 2013 1:16 AM
 

from ArchieOCampbell:
> In SC, the smarter kids choose Clemson instead of
> USC. That is, if you judge the smarter kids to be the
> ones who finish #1 or #2 in their high school
> classes.
>
> So then, suppose that smarter kids actually perform
> at a higher level in their careers and earn more
> money. Suppose we actually have a merit-based
> society. Then come to your own conclusions.

"Suppose" we re-read some of the "smarter, higher level" posts from this thread.

from Tall_Tiger_Two:
Posted: Jul 13, 2013 2:43 AM
>A single post vs. a Willy B full of Natty light smelling, toothless knuckle draggers who wear nothing but wife beaters and fragrantly shout and proclaim their love of c0cks... I think I speak for all of the Clemson fanbase when I say...we winz >

from cupton:
>Hey boy tell us how it went down. And try to not look like a da*** >
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 2:14 PM

from tokillagamecock:
> For my freshman class, 2011, Clemson's incoming GPA was higher than Harvard's incoming GPA. >

CU 4.23 (weighted)
Harvard (not listed that I can find)

But here is a quote following an acceptance graph from collegeapps.about.com:
>you can see that most students who got into Harvard had 4.0 GPAs, SAT scores (CR+M+W) above 2100, and ACT composite scores above 30. Also realize that there's a lot of red hidden beneath the blue and green in the upper right corner of the graph. Many students with perfect GPAs and test scores in the top 1% still get rejected from Harvard.>

So, Harvard does not use weighted GPA'S and I guess their average to be around 3.9 or so... So, congratulations, Clemson... "You winz!" (see Tall_Tiger_Two post above)

Only thing is, your 4.23 (high as it is) is out of what... 5 or maybe 6?

from tokillagamecock:
>Our athletes have higher GPA's overall and have a much higher graduation rate. (than USC)>

CU Fall 2011 overall student athlete GPA 2.94
USC Fall 2011 overall student athlete GPA 3.2

from the OP of this thread... USuCkHater:
>You are scared, you know things are about to turn around if you wasn't you wouldn't act like you have never won a football game like you are doing now.>

I guess this thread has run its course... so I suppose I will draw my conclusions you suggested.

1) People will say what they want and believe what they choose... often based on the tint of their glasses or what they want to be true. The basketball bounces out of bounds and all 10 players point... but the five in orange will be pointing the opposite direction from the five in garnet.

2) Creatively presenting statistics can really make one look good. I mean, 4.23 is higher than 3.9... (unless the first is weighted and the second is not) It reminds me of the old story about the Russians challenging the Americans to a stock car race. The cars raced and the American car lapped the Russian car... but the creative headline in the Russian paper read, "Russian car finishes second- American car finishes next to last."

3) Now, cupton has the highest TigerPulse from the group I quoted in this thread...

tokillagamecock: 91 TigerPulse
Tall_Tiger_Two: 93 TigerPulse
USuCkHater: 96 TigerPulse
cupton: 98 TigerPulse

... but when I study their posts, I must admit... I'm have trouble deciding between them. Can you help me, ArchieO?
Which one(s) was/were ranked #1 or #2 in his/her class?

Wait! This just in from from Tall_Tiger_Two:
> I think I speak for all of the Clemson fanbase when I say...we winz >


Re: Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....


Posted: Jul 15, 2013 7:53 PM
 

Those are just the facts as I read them. Clemson is the top choice for SC students that are in the top 10% of their high school classes. It's plainly considered a better college.


Re: Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....


Posted: Jul 10, 2013 1:52 AM
 

> Again show me a single ranking service that has Scar
> anywhere close to Clemson. CU grads earn on average
> $10,000 more per year than Scar grads. CU also has
> one of the highest ROI's of any public school. The
> bridge program is so kids who did not qualify out of
> HS have a chance to prove they can handle college and
> are given a second chance almost all colleges have
> similar programs. I'll hold my breath while you find
> that ranking

hey gottigers81,
Found more interesting information.

from http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/27/pf/college/college-salary/index.html

The schools with the highest-paid graduates typically fall into one of two categories: They're either engineering schools, since engineering is the highest-paid major, or they're very prestigious, so companies tend to recruit these grads first -- and pay them handsomely -- when making hiring decisions.

Average Salaries for some of ACC/SEC schools.
USC  starting 40,500.      Mid career 71,500
CU. starting     45,300.     Mid career 86,900
Duke  starting  53,000.    Mid career 102 ,000
GT starting.     59,000.     Mid career  102 ,000
Wake starting 46,000.    Mid career  103,000
Vandy starting 48,300.  Mid career 104,000
NDame starting 53,400.  Mid career 111,000

(my thoughts) I also think there is another factor with some of the highest/ most prestigious school graduate salaries... that being "elite" parents who send their children to the prestigious school and have position/ influence/ control in high paying companies/ corporations and can get their children high paying jobs.  Such students boost a school's average regardless of the students' academic acumen or where they went to school. (This idea from a conversation with a former Duke registrar.)

Also found this interesting article on UNC athlete academics from the Charlotte Observer. It seems that even if a school has a solid academic reputation that is no assurance the pressure to win games won't lead to academic shenanigans.

"Amid an academic scandal involving athletics, the remnants of an NCAA investigation and multiple leadership changes, a key measure of academic progress for football and men’s basketball at UNC Chapel Hill has dropped to a new low.

In the latest statistics from the NCAA, the men’s basketball team, at one point the best in the Atlantic Coast Conference with a near perfect score, is in eighth place. The football team never ranked higher than seventh, but it had managed to stay out of the ACC’s cellar until last year, when it had a score so low it is just a few points away from losing postseason eligibility.

Both teams scored their all-time lows on a measure the NCAA launched in 2003 – the Academic Progress Rate – to try to ensure that athletes are getting a meaningful education. The rate is built upon how many athletes on sports scholarships stay in school and remain academically eligible to play. It represents the four most recent years of academic performance and retention.

The new scores for UNC’s revenue-producing teams are not in line with UNC’s profile. It is one of the nation’s top public universities, and officials there have long boasted that its athletes succeed on the field and in the classroom.

UNC Athletic Director Bubba Cunningham and other officials declined to be interviewed."


Re: Re: Re: Re: Coot Fans....


Posted: Jul 12, 2013 1:58 AM
 

You have to be careful with these surveys. They typically exclude anyone who went on to graduate or professional school.


Futility at its best

[2]
Posted: Jul 9, 2013 12:24 PM
 

1. I know South Carolina is our primary rival, but why do we spend so much time talking about them?

2. Why do CU/USC fans spend so much time trying to convince USC/CU fans that their school is better than their rival's school? We love Clemson; they love South Carolina.

3. Considering that our beloved state of South Carolina is routinely mocked by outsiders, I am glad both schools are enjoying success. We need a strong CU and USC for the betterment of our state.


Re: Futility at its best

[1]
Posted: Jul 10, 2013 3:13 AM
 

> 3. Considering that our beloved state of South
> Carolina is routinely mocked by outsiders, I am glad
> both schools are enjoying success. We need a strong
> CU and USC for the betterment of our state.

This is my sentiment as well.


Re: Coot Fans....

[2]
Posted: Jul 10, 2013 12:03 AM
 

1. It should be "couldnt care less." Clemson education should teach basic meaning of words.

2. Yall only recruit better according to some journalists. If yall are really outrecruiting us like you say then your coaches must really suck.

3. Spurrier has made our job pretty desirable and we have tons of money and resources. All this talk of us fallng off after spurrier is just what yall hope. We will never be a consistently elite power but we are not going anywhere.


Your last line correctly says it all..."Not going anywhere"***


Posted: Jul 16, 2013 12:46 AM
 



2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Coot Fans....

[1]
Posted: Jul 10, 2013 3:06 AM
 

Insert caring Continuum jpeg


Re: Coot Fans....


Posted: Jul 12, 2013 7:18 AM
 

Noticed you are here. You must care - it appears.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

null


SugonCock. Doing it the Nam way?***


Posted: Jul 16, 2013 12:48 AM
 



2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Catolina Cooty


Posted: Jul 14, 2013 1:43 AM
 

nobody cares.
its a bit too much.
use the time you waste spooling meaningless drivel on a rivals site more wisely ( like prepping Clowney on his contract signature homework).
get lost.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

DB23


Re: Coot Fans....


Posted: Jul 16, 2013 12:59 AM
 

Hate threads like this. Hope we break the streak this year and right the ship.


Suck in general***


Posted: Jul 16, 2013 7:03 AM
 



2019 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Water the Point Tree


Replies: 90  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Texas A&M
FOR SALE: CU vs. Texas A&M on Saturday, 9/7 - 4 tickets and a Lot 2 reserved numbered parking pass. Four GREAT...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
8051 people have read this post