|
Barker's vote of confidence
storage
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
|
Replies: 65
| visibility 1
|
MVP [527]
TigerPulse: 75%
Posts: 672
Joined: 12/11/02
|
Barker's vote of confidence
Feb 15, 2007, 12:34 PM
|
|
They shift the argument from the issue of the AARC's absolute control of a student-athlete to how the AARC is in place to help kids... this makes no sense whatsoever. The other thing is that these officials insist on winning with academic integrity... That has never been the issue with TB. It was with Danny Ford.
it is fascinating to see how these officials are working so hard to keep control of the athletic department for reasons of 'academic integrity'. Danny Ford must have held some kind of weight around the Adminstration back in the 1980s. This really is proving to be a power struggle. What's so amazing is that UGA, FL, ND, PSU O-state and SoCal caliber schools are not 'run' by football. My guess is that since clemson is so small...the fear among administrators is greater.
The issue should remain the simple one: Whay can't an athlete who qualifies by the NCAA requirements be sent a LOI. Again, its an issue of 'managing and controlling' CU athletics.
This thing is not about academic integrity... it was with Danny Ford.... since then, it is about control.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [3637]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 7354
Joined: 11/11/01
|
the administration can't answer...
Feb 15, 2007, 12:41 PM
|
|
simple questions and that is why they get criticized.
Question: Why could UNC get D. Jones to sign a LOI and we weren't allowed to?
Answer: We're not at a disadvantage.
Huh?
Question: How does letting a few students who MIGHT not be able to make it through interfere with your goal of being a top 20 University?
Answer: We will win with academic integrity?
Excuse me?
Question: By your own admission, Mr. Barker, you want to win a national championship in football in the next 4 years. Do you not see that putting additional restrictions on recruiters that their peers do not have is in direct conflict with that goal?
Answer: One Clemson
I give up...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [249]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 1624
Joined: 12/12/99
|
Re: the administration can't answer...
Feb 15, 2007, 12:56 PM
|
|
"Question: How does letting a few students who MIGHT not be able to make it through interfere with your goal of being a top 20 University?
Answer: We will win with academic integrity?
Excuse me?"
5 or 6 of the recent class were initially denied by the AARC and were allowed to sign after successful appeals. These recruits might not be able to make it through.
The one that I can't understand is Jo Jo Cox...just wondering what the hidden issues (or non-issues?) are that we're not being made aware of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aficionado [197]
TigerPulse: 12%
Posts: 251
Joined: 10/26/04
|
Maybe it's because UNC already is a top university...
Feb 15, 2007, 1:14 PM
|
|
Albeit Clemson is a very good school, it's not quite on par with the UNCs. I think something has to change for Clemson to get there, so that might be why Barker made the decision he did. UNC has nothing to worry about because they're pretty much the university that they want to be right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
We have one of the best football grad rates around. Making
Feb 15, 2007, 1:18 PM
|
|
the admission standards more difficult and basically irrational will do nothing to push us into the top 20. It's like sticking a piece of gum in the levies surrounding New Orleans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3637]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 7354
Joined: 11/11/01
|
UNC has the same advantage UGA has...
Feb 15, 2007, 1:19 PM
[ in reply to Maybe it's because UNC already is a top university... ] |
|
they are THE school in state. Sure, State puts out a lot of people but the Tar Heels are the... dare I say it... flagship university of the state. UGA is the same way, that state is 98% red and black.
Clemson is in a different situation. Not to start a fray here but our academic standing is higher than South Carolina's, and our performance on the field is usually better BUT it's USC that benefits from being the 'flagship' university in this state. It hampers what Clemson is trying to do when the resources are poured out on another school and we have leftovers. I understand that they're in a difficult position but this isn't the way to go about fixing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [149]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 354
Joined: 10/27/03
|
GT's academic standing is greater than....
Feb 15, 2007, 1:30 PM
|
|
UGA's. Explain that using your logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3637]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 7354
Joined: 11/11/01
|
explain what?
Feb 15, 2007, 1:34 PM
|
|
that GT is a better school than UGA? It just is. We're a better school than USC despite similar discrepancies in support within our own state.
I'm not saying it can't be done at Clemson, I'm saying we have disadvantages that UGA and UNC don't have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [149]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 354
Joined: 10/27/03
|
The disadvantage that we have.....
Feb 15, 2007, 1:46 PM
|
|
has little to do with competition for resources within the state. Both uSC and Clemson are at a disadvantage compared to our neighboring states due to the historical lack of support for public education in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3637]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 7354
Joined: 11/11/01
|
then maybe that's where...
Feb 15, 2007, 1:49 PM
|
|
the admin should be looking to make changes as opposed to keeping the athletic department under their thumb?
I'm not sure where our initial disagreement was... UNC and UGA are what they want to be, they're both at the top of the food chain in their state. Clemson isn't, for whatever reasons that we can debate at length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16071]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 24600
Joined: 5/14/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [249]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 1624
Joined: 12/12/99
|
Re: Maybe it's because UNC already is a top university...
Feb 15, 2007, 1:28 PM
[ in reply to Maybe it's because UNC already is a top university... ] |
|
Who knows...It may even have something to do with D. Jones in-state status at UNC.
According to an article I read...At least one of the Clemson signees who was initially denied by AARC was later accepted because he was from SC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
That's exactly right.The Admin must think people are dumb.
Feb 15, 2007, 1:09 PM
[ in reply to the administration can't answer... ] |
|
They continue to beat around the bush with this political mumbo jumbo when the average fan can plainly see they are not addressing the key issues and questions. I am happy they agree to discuss the issues, but please stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes in the meantime.
Dear Admin,
Please do us a favor and touch on the real issues.
Why are other schools, who are better academic institutions than Clemson, willing to give a chance to players we are not? It's a simple question, and a very important one. Eligibility is not determined in February. Kids have several more chances to improve their acceptance criteria. I hate to break it to them, but our Admin is not smarter than the Admin at UNC or UGA or wherever. Our Admin cannot see into the future, so why are they trying to do so? We should be giving all players the opportunity to get their grades in order, like all the teams we compete against.
I know they said they are not infallible, but why are players meeting eligibility at other schools when we turned them away? Two players enrolled at other schools in January, but we turned them down. Why didn't we give these kids the same opportunity to improve that the other schools did? The other schools apparently understand they can't see into the future.
We should be willing to sign and place just about anyone, just like the schools we compete against. We can still reject or approve that player later. If they can get in per NCAA guidelines, then that should be acceptable. If they don't make the grade and are rejected, how does that hurt our academic status?
How can our Admin boldly lie with a straight face and say this is an "even playing field"? It is 100% clear that they are going beyond the playing field.
They must think people are dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
I think people miss this aspect:
Feb 15, 2007, 12:46 PM
|
|
The committee was created five years following an NCAA certification review.
Most seem of the opinion that this is just something that Clemson did on it's own. It's starting to look like most if not all schools have something like this.
The NCAA us starting to compare student athlete admission to those of the general student population. As I understand it smaller schools have a harder time than do larger schools admitting student athletes. Because the percentage of student athletes is smaller and larger enrollment allows some lower standards in the general population, larger schools do have a edge per NCAA regulations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3637]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 7354
Joined: 11/11/01
|
If the NCAA...
Feb 15, 2007, 12:51 PM
|
|
gets it panties in a collective wad about an extra dessert then it would be hypocritical in the extreme for them to have in place a system that has such a blatant oversight.
I'm not saying they don't, or that it would surprise me if they did... but if you don't take into account that Ohio State allows in anyone with a pulse who drives through the state of Ohio twice in a years time... while the entire school body of Wake Forest could play hide and seek behind one tree in a field... well that's just dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Who's ever said the NCAA is smart?
Feb 15, 2007, 12:57 PM
|
|
And nobody employed by Clemson is going to throw the blame where it belongs. You can't, especially with the exemption given to Ray Ray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16071]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 24600
Joined: 5/14/02
|
The issue isn't having the AARC or not...
Feb 15, 2007, 1:03 PM
[ in reply to I think people miss this aspect: ] |
|
Its why it won't make allowances that UNC, Notre Dame, and UGA do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [2145]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 9677
Joined: 8/15/06
|
Do we not, ever? Are you telling me that no one on campus
Feb 15, 2007, 1:07 PM
|
|
has been turned away by those schools, only to be taken by Clemson?
If it has happened, then in those specific cases Clemson has had an advantage on them. Do they even out or anyone have more advantage than the other?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16071]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 24600
Joined: 5/14/02
|
I'm not sure what your point is...
Feb 15, 2007, 1:11 PM
|
|
I'm talking about Student Athletes.
There are 3 student athletes that we would NOT accept an LOI from that instead signed with Notre Dame, UGA, and UNC. All of which are better academic institutions than our own.
Not allowing this insignificant number of under qualified students isn't going to help us reach our goal of attaining Top 20 Status. It will however SIGNIFICANTLY help our football team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [2145]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 9677
Joined: 8/15/06
|
I'm talking about student athletes as well. We only
Feb 15, 2007, 1:15 PM
|
|
know about the ones that Clemson turned away and went elsewhere because the information as to who was denied entrance was leaked by Clemson and/or the players in question.
My question is this.....the only way to know whether, in general, Clemson is on a "level playing field" in general is to know whether Clemson ever admits kids that were denied entrance into UNC, ND, etc. Meaning, does it even out in the end? There is no arguing what Clemsons recruits, the ones we know about, did after being turned away. But did a number of players, or even one, on Clemson's teams get turned away from others, only to have Clemson accept them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16071]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 24600
Joined: 5/14/02
|
So you're saying we don't know the whole story?...
Feb 15, 2007, 1:22 PM
|
|
I'd say that's a possibility but that would mean that we've recently changed our standards to make it harder to get in. Barker already said that hasn't happened. Its also possible that other institutions have lowered standards since the student athletes were turned down from them before only to be accepted to Clemson. We know for a fact that its tougher for a student athlete to get into Clemson than UNC, UGA, and Notre Dame CURRENTLY. I think that is the major problem that should be addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [2145]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 9677
Joined: 8/15/06
|
That is what I am saying - there are other parts of the
Feb 15, 2007, 1:30 PM
|
|
story that will either tell us whether CLemson is different or similar to our competition (I would put the ACC as our direct competition for comparison purposes).
We all know that for the specific players who info was leaked on, Clemson was at a disadvantage than at least one (and in some cases two) other schools who were offering up LOIs. What we don't know is if those were the only schools willing to give them a chance, or if a different specific player was turned away from their school's AARC equivilant was deemed as a justifiable risk by Clemson.
And while I say this, I don't think there is a shot in hell to get accurate info to ever make this question go away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [249]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 1624
Joined: 12/12/99
|
Re: The issue isn't having the AARC or not...
Feb 15, 2007, 1:16 PM
[ in reply to The issue isn't having the AARC or not... ] |
|
Looks to me like the arguments that the AARC supporters are making ie...1)Every other school has a similar system (including pre-signing day decisions) and 2)other schools, like Clemson, have turned down prospects that are later admitted at other high quality Div. 1 schools ......would be easy to verify or disprove. ex-Check Clemson's roster to find out if some of the players were denied (LOI) offers by the competition.
Maybe (hopefully) the review Barker proposed will be doing just that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [2145]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 9677
Joined: 8/15/06
|
That is the question that can't be answered - the recruits
Feb 15, 2007, 1:20 PM
|
|
themselves would have to tell you. No school will release specific information as to why a kid was not offered a LOI due to confidentiality rules and what is otherwise known as respect and general decency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [249]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 1624
Joined: 12/12/99
|
Re: That is the question that can't be answered - the recruits
Feb 15, 2007, 1:24 PM
|
|
I agree! and like I said...
"Maybe (hopefully) the review Barker proposed will be doing just that".
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [2145]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 9677
Joined: 8/15/06
|
So, they are going to expect each and every kid to offer
Feb 15, 2007, 1:26 PM
|
|
up that info? And, often kids don't know the specific reason why school x didn't offer them......was it academics, talent, character, etc?
You are asking a kid to give his info on why another school didn't want him. Bad, bad idea and misinfo with lead the charge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
justwannaspeculate, why not utilize the information at hand?
Feb 15, 2007, 1:30 PM
|
|
Do you think our coaches are lying when they say we aren't dealing with a level playing field?
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [2145]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 9677
Joined: 8/15/06
|
No. And I don't think President Barker and Administrators
Feb 15, 2007, 1:34 PM
|
|
are lying either. I just don't think its cut and dry as to a "yes" "no" situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3436]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 7938
Joined: 6/24/01
|
I think its cut and dry that Clemson has turned away a kid
Feb 15, 2007, 1:37 PM
|
|
who met NCAA requirements, and also turned away kids who ended up signing LOI's with schools who have higher academics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [2145]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 9677
Joined: 8/15/06
|
Yep, but per a newspaper article today, UNCs AD says they
Feb 15, 2007, 1:39 PM
|
|
have turned away prospective student athletes because of academics, even some that ended up playing and attending school elswhere, as well.
So, what do both our statements say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
That was after not meeting acceptance criteria, which
Feb 15, 2007, 1:49 PM
|
|
is NOT determined in February.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
When Barker says it's an even playing field, that is a lie.
Feb 15, 2007, 1:39 PM
[ in reply to No. And I don't think President Barker and Administrators ] |
|
Otherwise the teams we compete against for recruits would not be signing and even enrolling the players we reject. If you want to speculate beyond that, then that's your prerogative. But please see it as just that, baseless speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
null [2145]
TigerPulse: null%
Posts: 9677
Joined: 8/15/06
|
Yep, just as we aren't playing on a level playing field when
Feb 15, 2007, 1:41 PM
|
|
other coaches call better plays and recruit better players who happen to meet admittance requirements.
That is a fact as well.
Facts are so easy and never tell the whole story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You really need to stop trying so hard.***
Feb 15, 2007, 1:50 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [249]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 1624
Joined: 12/12/99
|
Re: So, they are going to expect each and every kid to offer
Feb 15, 2007, 1:46 PM
[ in reply to So, they are going to expect each and every kid to offer ] |
|
They already have a lot of this information I would think. Baddour AD at UNC implied it in the Raleigh News article today. Another example - R. Mason was denied an offer from UCLA at the last minute. Likelihood to pass admissions review was cited in an article.
Just guessing...
Voluntary and anonymous studies may be possible without violating privacy laws.
How are they supposed to conduct an effective & accurate review re: the AARC and competitive disadvantages without looking at these things? Got any better ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Because my post said that the requirements are different
Feb 15, 2007, 1:21 PM
[ in reply to The issue isn't having the AARC or not... ] |
|
at different schools. The NCAA in their certification review looks for there being some correlation between student athlete and general student admissions. There really is not one NCAA minimum that exists for all schools, larger schools have more leniency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97848]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64957
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Yes, and the administration reacted just like they do to
Feb 15, 2007, 1:10 PM
[ in reply to I think people miss this aspect: ] |
|
every NCAA edict....overkill. All the NCAA said was Clemson had to have an AARC. Every school has something in place like it. Clemson just went into overkill mode just like they did in Gafneygate and after the USC fight in 04.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
I don't doubt that...
Feb 15, 2007, 1:26 PM
|
|
But the NCAA regulations treat schools differently, there is not one minimum for all schools. The NCAA hurts smaller schools with stricter admissions for the general student population. It is easier for OSU to admit student athletes meeting minimum requirements than it is for Clemson, per the NCAA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
If the NCAA certification review demanded such strict regs,
Feb 15, 2007, 1:11 PM
[ in reply to I think people miss this aspect: ] |
|
then they must have missed the schools we compete against.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
I'm not saying that Clemson is not responsible as well.
Feb 15, 2007, 1:29 PM
|
|
I'm saying that Clemson is following the standards set very strictly, others are not.
What still remains to be seen is if the NCAA actually acts in any tangible way, but the NCAA is involved in admissions not just graduation rates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
"Clemson is following the standards set very strictly"
Feb 15, 2007, 1:35 PM
|
|
What does that mean? The standards are the standards. Clemson is obviously going beyond the standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Others are more willing to cross lines...
Feb 15, 2007, 1:43 PM
|
|
Clemson stays back from the line a bit just to be on the safe side.
But the NCAA minimums are not a single standard, they are different at different schools. Other schools are also willing to take more chances with the NCAA then Clemson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
So that would suggest it's not an even playing field, right?***
Feb 15, 2007, 1:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
When some are not following the rules...
Feb 15, 2007, 2:02 PM
|
|
And when the rules are set differently by the NCAA then no.
If SCU calls recruits illegally then it's not an even playing field. When the standards are set differently by the NCAA then it's not an even playing field. When schools are unsure of exactly what the rules really are, or they are enforced differently, then it's not an even playing field.
How hard is it for people to understand that much of what is being done comes from the NCAA, not Clemson?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Whose not following the rules?
Feb 15, 2007, 2:05 PM
|
|
The rules are what they are. UNC and UGA aren't breaking any rules by allowing kids the opportunity to get their grades in order or even enroll after we rejected them. What are you talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Their NCAA standards are different than ours!
Feb 15, 2007, 2:08 PM
|
|
And they may be more willing to operate within the grey area of the standards than we are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Their NCAA standards are different than ours!
Feb 15, 2007, 2:14 PM
|
|
NCAA standards. Those standards may or may not be met by kids like Dwight Jones. That doesn't mean you can't give these players a chance to meet those standards. It's not gray at all. And these are the same standards that allowed our competition to enroll two players we rejected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
But they no longer do...
Feb 15, 2007, 2:36 PM
|
|
Standards are relative to the instition, and specifically to the detriment of smaller schools with higher standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Wrong again. NCAA standards are NCAA Standards.
Feb 15, 2007, 2:41 PM
|
|
Clemson is choosing to go beyond those standards when the competition is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [149]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 354
Joined: 10/27/03
|
I guess you aren't to familiar with the....
Feb 15, 2007, 1:09 PM
|
|
difficulties at UGA...Adams vs. Dooley. Adams won and so will Barker. We can have both academic integrity and winning football, but we ARE NOT going back to the days of DF. Move on people, and consider the big picture!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3496]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 10341
Joined: 12/9/03
|
moving on would be nice***
Feb 15, 2007, 1:10 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16071]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 24600
Joined: 5/14/02
|
It helps that they have been winning 10 games a year...
Feb 15, 2007, 1:12 PM
[ in reply to I guess you aren't to familiar with the.... ] |
|
Had they been winning 6 or 7 a year, Adams would be gone without a 2nd thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rooter [220]
TigerPulse: 65%
Posts: 498
Joined: 3/6/99
|
Point***
Feb 15, 2007, 1:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [149]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 354
Joined: 10/27/03
|
Your logic makes no sense......
Feb 15, 2007, 1:22 PM
[ in reply to It helps that they have been winning 10 games a year... ] |
|
which is part of he problem with the arguments made on this board against Barker.
The better the team...the greater the power. Adams won despite the success of the footbal program and the power it and Dooley yielded.
We have already fought this battle once!
University > Football
I am not totally pleased with how all of this shook out. Barker probably isn't either. But, the job that the AARC does must take place. Hopefully in a smooter way from now on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16071]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 24600
Joined: 5/14/02
|
Ahhh....You missed the point...
Feb 15, 2007, 1:30 PM
|
|
This isn't about Football vs University.
This is about Alumni vs University Admin. The UGA problem was also about Alumni vs University Admin. Difference is the Alumni at UGA were calmed down by the success of the football team, making their original point invalid.
At Clemson, our Alumni are upset and if we don't win big, they will stay that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [149]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 354
Joined: 10/27/03
|
Not really......
Feb 15, 2007, 1:36 PM
|
|
I think the fact that Adams prevailed over Dooley (and UGA Alumni including the UGA foundation...i.e. the BIG money people) is a much greater feat that the possibility of Barker prevailing over the football program (and Clemson alumni). Dooley is "god" in GA. TB ain't!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 395
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Since when is 4 and 5 losses a year winning football?
Feb 15, 2007, 1:23 PM
[ in reply to I guess you aren't to familiar with the.... ] |
|
To me it is mediocre football. Yes, technically it is more wins than losses but when you think about beating teams like Temple and La. Tech we are mediocre at best. They ask us for money for the WEZ, IPTAY, season tickets, and the Clemson fund, but yet they don't do everything possible (legally) to win. If players are cleared by the NCAA then Clemson should let them in school and that's the bottom line! Why give money to an organization that doesn't do everything to win? I'm sick of Barker and the administration's smokescreens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [149]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 354
Joined: 10/27/03
|
If you aren't satisfied with our winning % then maybe......
Feb 15, 2007, 1:27 PM
|
|
you should look elsewhere than the AARC. All you hear on this board is how we had the most talent in the ACC last year. Obviously, according to the opinion of most on this board prior to Feb 7, the AARC and keeping talent off of our football program was not the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3496]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 10341
Joined: 12/9/03
|
I don't think we had the most talent in the ACC but
Feb 15, 2007, 1:29 PM
|
|
we had enough to win. The AARC isn't the problem when it comes to winning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 395
Joined: 11/30/98
|
How do you know? ---Magic 8 Ball???
Feb 15, 2007, 1:37 PM
|
|
How do you know that some of those players that have been turned down the last 5 years wouldn't of made a difference? If you really are a coach then you should know that some players are good enough to change the outcome of games. Va tech game...No, BC loss by 1 maybe, loss to Maryland and S.car maybe. In all those close games it would of been nice to have a player like Dwight Jones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3496]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 10341
Joined: 12/9/03
|
it would always be nice to have better players..............
Feb 15, 2007, 1:41 PM
|
|
but we had good players on the field. The Maryland and SoCar games were examples of us not making good decisions down the stretch. We had the ball at the end of both games and had to settle for FG attempts when we should have had TD's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 395
Joined: 11/30/98
|
That's a great point
Feb 15, 2007, 2:05 PM
|
|
"it's always nice to have better players", This committee has kept better players out of Clemson. I would have no problem with it if those players were not cleared by the NCAA and admitted to other school(unc,UGA,ND,s.car). That's the problem. Other schools can take them b/c they are qualified and Barker will NOT address this FACT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [113]
TigerPulse: 31%
Posts: 188
Joined: 6/28/99
|
Who said we had more talent?
Feb 15, 2007, 1:33 PM
[ in reply to If you aren't satisfied with our winning % then maybe...... ] |
|
Did you see Va. Tech play? FSU has out ranked us in every recruiting poll for 16 years. Why do you want an unlevel playing field? Why do you want qualified athletes turned down at Clemson? Those that want an unlevel playing field does not want the football program to be successful. I'm sorry if it wasn't for the football program no one would of ever heard of Clemson outside of SC. Barker, the BOT, and the committee should be thankful that football put us on the map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [149]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 354
Joined: 10/27/03
|
I was just echoing the prevailing opinion on this board....
Feb 15, 2007, 1:40 PM
|
|
prior to Feb 7.
I don't want qualified prospects rejected. I don't even want marginally qualified prospects rejected. I do want grossly unqualified prospects rejected when by the best guess that can be made, it is clear that the prospect has little chance of ever graduating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [130]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 212
Joined: 8/22/04
|
Re: Barker's vote of confidence
Feb 15, 2007, 1:23 PM
|
|
PSU's status is not what it appears. I lived not far from happy valley and I found out that the average student can not get into PSU as a freshman. They only take freshman that are the elite directly into PSU. They force the aveage student to go to a JC or a small school and then transfer in after their second or third year. That's why they are listed where they are. They have a pick the best system in place and then come join us later if you are good enough. Barker isn't telling everyone the full story on those top twenty schools. This info came directly from a PSU grad that had to go that route.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 65
| visibility 1
|
|
|
|
50
