Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 48

Thread: Can someone OBJECTIVELY explain Zona's recruiting prowess

  1. #16
    I agree with what you've said, but it's also an advantage that admission requirements are lower and that athletes can skate through classes without doing much work if they want to. Those guys are majoring in basketball. That's true to some extent everywhere, but the academic challenges for athletes at many schools are tougher than at Arizona. None of which has much to do with the rest of the student population.

    Quote Originally Posted by dfresh View Post
    You're damn right I am. This has less to do with Arizona's academic reputation and everything to do with people in general sitting on their high, cream colored pedestal of degrees. Not everyone is afforded the same opportunities. Where someone is educated does not ultimately determine who they are or what they are capable of.

  2. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by UrsaMajor View Post
    don't say that to !
    Please don't make me laugh and vomit at the same time!

  3. #18
    Real Bear BeachedBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Havering at Manny's
    Posts
    2,076
    Quote Originally Posted by OldBlue1999 View Post
    I'm confused, who's salty again?
    He got booted from Bear Insider for questioning Shocky's alternate falsehoods and claiming Ben Braun could actually coach his way out of a paper bag (but not a new re-usable shopping bag).

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by dfresh View Post
    A lot of salt in here.

    I was born and raised in the Bay Area. Live here now, and have been very successful in the tech industry since graduating 5 years ago. I'm a big PAC 12 supporter and love Cal/Stanford as well which are some of the reasons I visit this board on occasion. I'm tired of hearing this BS about "not preparing you for the real world". Fact is, the individual make themselves, the institution does not and not every single person is going to be able to, or wants to attend Cal. I have a lot of friends who are Cal grads and not all of them are overwhelmingly successful. I have a lot of friends who are Arizona grads who are successful as well. There are a lot somewhere in between. The education you receive is not the be all, end all, especially at a university that you are treating akin to Trump University, like Arizona.
    The number of Arizona grads at Bay Area tech companies must be pretty miniscule. Don't think I've ever come across one in a technical role, but undoubtedly they exist in sales and marketing type roles where advanced education isn't a precursor to success. Here's a hint though, the school that produces the most tech company employees is located in a city just north of Oakland. But hey, I'm sure you're a shining example of the power of the Arizona diploma.

  5. #20
    Of course to partially answer my own question - today the U of A president declared that Miller would be hired by the ohio state university "over his dead body." Guessing it would be a cold day in hell before a chancellor ever voiced such support for a Cal coach. Not sure I would want them to.

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSouseFamily View Post
    I'll take a stab:

    1). Strong brand from long, sustained history of success (albeit not championship level success)
    2). Zero admissions requirements. Anyone can get in.
    3). "Players program" and a "Players coach"
    4). Shady recruiting (Miller was voted by fellow coaches a few years ago as the shadiest of all when it comes to recruiting)
    5). Long history of direct donor support to players
    6). Playing in front of a full house.
    7). Hot women of marginal intelligence and purity.
    8). Still among the top 10 for schools putting players in the NBA.
    Regarding number 6: if your a male athletic star at any college (even at nerdy Furd) coeds these days are aggressive (being subtle for once). Just because Cal women are intelligent, that doesn't mean they are not competing for male attention, and if you don't believe me, ask player moms, who are appalled. However, when the moms went to school, the ratio of men on campus was much higher. Just saying you don't have to go to UofA to connect (okay, BYU may be a tough place to connect). And from a pure basketball standpoint, UoFA has a lot going for it.

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by NVBear78 View Post
    9.) School is easy-no need to work hard or stress about it (lousy preparation for job competition in the real world but it works for Miller/U of A)
    UofA is better school than we might like to admit, especially in the MIS and business majors side. Employers actually like UofA. In the WSJ's annual ratings by employer recruiters, neither Furd not any Ivy made the top 25 list. But Cal, SC, ASU and Uofar. (BTW, schools that continue at the top are Penn State, Illinois and other state schools with SC and Carnegie Mellon being the only privates making the list). Now all that changes for grad schools admissions and recruiting out of grad school. But how many basketball recruits that were talking about are thinking that far ahead?
    Last edited by wifeisafurd; 06-07-2017 at 12:17 PM.

  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesaxe View Post
    I agree with what you've said, but it's also an advantage that admission requirements are lower and that athletes can skate through classes without doing much work if they want to. Those guys are majoring in basketball. That's true to some extent everywhere, but the academic challenges for athletes at many schools are tougher than at Arizona. None of which has much to do with the rest of the student population.
    Now that I can agree with. We know kids going to UofA and let us just say at least one has said to us a certain star player is dumber than a rock. OTOH, that shouldn't dismiss that UofA is a decent school, and puts out some grads that have done well. I might remind everyone that UCLA has certain majors for jocks (heck, UCLA had a football player who it was discovered couldn't read in his junior year), and with inter-disclinary studies, its easy to to arrange your studies to avoid ballbuster professors or classes at most schools.

  9. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by wifeisafurd View Post
    Now that I can agree with. We know kids going to UofA and let us just say at least one has said to us a certain star player is dumber than a rock. OTOH, that shouldn't dismiss that UofA is a decent school, and puts out some grads that have done well. I might remind everyone that UCLA has certain majors for jocks (heck, UCLA had a football player who it was discovered couldn't read in his junior year), and with inter-disclinary studies, its easy to to arrange your studies to avoid ballbuster professors or classes at most schools.
    Just listen to Tom Tolbert who is a bright guy and could have done well academically if he wanted. His stories were hilarious. I remember a guest on his show saying he majored in sociology. Tolbert said hey that was my major. No wait. It might have been social welfare. Social policy? I dunno there was a "soshe" in there somewhere.

  10. #25
    Golden Bear Strykur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    5,059
    Think of what matters for elite prospects when they will be on a college campus for only 9 to 18 months. A school with a program that has a bunch of tournament runs, championships, and NBA players is the first priority that comes to mind. Second is social life. Third is academics. You can pretty much throw that last one out the window. Our academic reputation matters when recruiting for every other sport, except men's basketball.

  11. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by OaktownBear View Post
    Just listen to Tom Tolbert who is a bright guy and could have done well academically if he wanted. His stories were hilarious. I remember a guest on his show saying he majored in sociology. Tolbert said hey that was my major. No wait. It might have been social welfare. Social policy? I dunno there was a "soshe" in there somewhere.
    Its hard to crap on some of the former players that came out of UofA, including Tolbert, Kerr, Sean Elliott, Jefferson, Miles Simon. They all seemed like super high character guys. But (to my knowledge) they all played under Lute. I don't have the same respect for the current crop of UofA players, nor do I have the same respect for their current coach.

  12. #27
    As for the whole debate about whether you can be successful in life coming out of UofA, of course you can.

    I compare it a lot to football recruiting. The best academic schools get the five star students, the lesser schools get the 2-3 star guys and the occasional 4-5 star (maybe someone who can only afford the local public school). Just like Jaylen Brown, the five star student absolutely has the ability to succeed in life, even if they don't necessarily attend an "elite" academic school. You will also have a couple Alex Macks who through sheer determination and hard work can make it as well. So while you can succeed from anywhere, at the end of the day, Alabama is always going to beat Cal in football.

  13. #28
    No matter where you attend, you're not going to get more out of it than what you put into it. I knew kids at Cal who just weren't going to get all that much out of it because other things seemed more important to them at the time. And even lower rated schools have good programs and good teachers. Education, like sports, isn't all about star ratings.

    Quote Originally Posted by ducky23 View Post
    As for the whole debate about whether you can be successful in life coming out of UofA, of course you can.

    I compare it a lot to football recruiting. The best academic schools get the five star students, the lesser schools get the 2-3 star guys and the occasional 4-5 star (maybe someone who can only afford the local public school). Just like Jaylen Brown, the five star student absolutely has the ability to succeed in life, even if they don't necessarily attend an "elite" academic school. You will also have a couple Alex Macks who through sheer determination and hard work can make it as well. So while you can succeed from anywhere, at the end of the day, Alabama is always going to beat Cal in football.

  14. #29
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    In the land of peach blossoms
    Posts
    2,259
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesaxe View Post
    No matter where you attend, you're not going to get more out of it than what you put into it. I knew kids at Cal who just weren't going to get all that much out of it because other things seemed more important to them at the time. And even lower rated schools have good programs and good teachers. Education, like sports, isn't all about star ratings.
    Case in point: I got a fabulous education at Chico State. The history dept was great, I threw myself into the required readings, the recommended readings and spent so much time in the library that I missed all of the parties. I then went through the teaching program and again got a great education. I had a friend who went to Grinnell and another at UCSB. I figured I got the best education for the money. The real difference is that they had WAY more homework. Would I have put in the same amount of effort at Cal? For sure. Would I have gotten any further ahead by doing so? Not in my profession. I make the same as teachers who graduated from Cal. Chico was a lot more relaxed in terms of atmosphere, which I really benefited from.

    My point is that it is more the person who is learning than the location in which they are learning.

  15. #30
    True Blue Golden Bear NYCGOBEARS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    The Island of Manhattan
    Posts
    24,491
    Quote Originally Posted by parentswerebears View Post
    Case in point: I got a fabulous education at Chico State. The history dept was great, I threw myself into the required readings, the recommended readings and spent so much time in the library that I missed all of the parties. I then went through the teaching program and again got a great education. I had a friend who went to Grinnell and another at UCSB. I figured I got the best education for the money. The real difference is that they had WAY more homework. Would I have put in the same amount of effort at Cal? For sure. Would I have gotten any further ahead by doing so? Not in my profession. I make the same as teachers who graduated from Cal. Chico was a lot more relaxed in terms of atmosphere, which I really benefited from.

    My point is that it is more the person who is learning than the location in which they are learning.
    Take that sh!t to a Chico State board.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •