Back Of The CAGE (BOTC) BOTC
Fall Season events are IN for Lacrosse players!!! | Join our Lacrosse Forum Community | Advertise & Generate more organic supporters for your business
BOTC GIRLS BOTC BOY BACK OF THE CAGE
BOTC GIRLS BOTC BOY MOST RECENT POSTS
Boys High School
by Anonymous -
BOTC GIRLS BOTC BOY Forum Statistics
Forums20
Topics3,802
Posts400,149
Members2,638
Most Online62,980
Feb 6th, 2020
BOTC GIRLS BOTC BOY FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 46 of 75 1 2 44 45 46 47 48 74 75
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Florida has a shot - will know more after they play MD in a few weeks.
been hearing this for years....


yes they have had great talent for years, and no they have never gotten it done. Fla had that 7 goal second-half lead in the semis against SYR and just kept going to goal like she likes it. maybe the biggest choke job ever really.

Florida a show-me team. Put 'em in a big game against Md / NC on Memorial Day Weekend??? bet the house against them.

BOTC GIRLS BOTC BOY BACK OF THE CAGE SPONSORS

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
anyone have an opinion on a good offensive scheme they have seen (on ESPN webcast, seems like the only way to watch this year) teams run??

I think Penn had a good looking offense, and VaTech also had a creative scheme. on the flip side I think the Duke offense is horrible as was the Georgetown offense, both putting at least one and sometimes 2 attackers inside the 8 looking to catch, turn and shoot. can't imagine what they are trying to accomplish..

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.


While most of that makes sense the problem is generally when people on this site are trying to judge what those wrong reasons are for other peoples kids. Boston College was singled out because some blowhard decided the students graduating from there were automatically better qualified compared to several other universities . There are many variables that go into what school is best for each student .


That's BC mindset in a nutshell, snobbish vineyard vines wearing a-holes from LI, CT, NJ, MD & MA

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Florida has a shot - will know more after they play MD in a few weeks.
been hearing this for years....


yes they have had great talent for years, and no they have never gotten it done. Fla had that 7 goal second-half lead in the semis against SYR and just kept going to goal like she likes it. maybe the biggest choke job ever really.

Florida a show-me team. Put 'em in a big game against Md / NC on Memorial Day Weekend??? bet the house against them.


Coach is overmatched, if there's a way to lose a big game she will find it

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
If Florida falls short (again) they'll get over it... great lax otherwise ... party on Gators!

BOTC GIRLS BOTC BOY Sponsored Links
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.


While most of that makes sense the problem is generally when people on this site are trying to judge what those wrong reasons are for other peoples kids. Boston College was singled out because some blowhard decided the students graduating from there were automatically better qualified compared to several other universities . There are many variables that go into what school is best for each student .


That's BC mindset in a nutshell, snobbish vineyard vines wearing a-holes from LI, CT, NJ, MD & MA


Boston College is a good school with a good lacrosse program. If it is the right place for your daughter then it is a great place. They get some great players and they get some average players (average for a good DI program). Just about all of the girls playing there are pretty darn good and I am sure they are good students as well. That is the same at every school (including Maryland, North Carolina, Florida etc...) not every player at Maryland is better than every player at Boston College.

Many on this site try to justify and or pump up their daughters choice of school by putting down or diminishing other schools or programs. Stony Brook supports trying to tear down Northwestern, Boston College Supporters putting down Maryland, Florida and Penn State. NESCAC supporters touting that they choose DIII because of the academics as if none of the student athletes at Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, Penn, Duke, Hopkins, Dartmouth, Brown, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Vaderbilt, Georgetown, Virginia, Army, Navy etc.... do not focus on academics.


Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.


While most of that makes sense the problem is generally when people on this site are trying to judge what those wrong reasons are for other peoples kids. Boston College was singled out because some blowhard decided the students graduating from there were automatically better qualified compared to several other universities . There are many variables that go into what school is best for each student .


That's BC mindset in a nutshell, snobbish vineyard vines wearing a-holes from LI, CT, NJ, MD & MA


Boston College is a good school with a good lacrosse program. If it is the right place for your daughter then it is a great place. They get some great players and they get some average players (average for a good DI program). Just about all of the girls playing there are pretty darn good and I am sure they are good students as well. That is the same at every school (including Maryland, North Carolina, Florida etc...) not every player at Maryland is better than every player at Boston College.

Many on this site try to justify and or pump up their daughters choice of school by putting down or diminishing other schools or programs. Stony Brook supports trying to tear down Northwestern, Boston College Supporters putting down Maryland, Florida and Penn State. NESCAC supporters touting that they choose DIII because of the academics as if none of the student athletes at Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, Penn, Duke, Hopkins, Dartmouth, Brown, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Vaderbilt, Georgetown, Virginia, Army, Navy etc.... do not focus on academics.



Correction**

*NESCAC supporters touting that they choose DIII because of the academics as if the student athletes at Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, Penn, Duke, Hopkins, Dartmouth, Brown, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Vaderbilt, Georgetown, Virginia, Army, Navy etc.... do not focus on academics.

Be happy that your daughters are healthy. Bitterness, jealousy and hate are not good traits to pass on to your daughter.


Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.

Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!


Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
What's up with ND3x

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Middlebury College is a complete disgrace!

BOTC GIRLS BOTC BOY Sponsored Links
Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
What's up with ND3x

overrated as usual, coaching is horrible

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 886
Back of THE CAGE
Offline
Back of THE CAGE
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 886
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.

Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!



I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school.

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
That's an understatementa

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
for those Duke bashers out there, you should read the commentary from their coach after they got thumped by Penn yesterday... pretty much fell on her sword by saying the scheme they are running is not a good one..

getting very little out of an absurd amount of talent. crazy.

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.

Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!



I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school.

Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.

Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!



I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school.

Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.

Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!



I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school.

Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.

Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!



I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school.


All you have to do is google it. Student protest shuts down free speech and assaults teacher sending her to the hospital. You must watch CNN and MSNBC where they choose not to report on matters unflatterIng to their view of the world.

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
cuse barely squeaks by harvard?

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
McCool = Tewarraton

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Looks like Cornell has as good a chance of landing in the #4 spot championship weekend as anyone. Quality win today vs USC. NU hung with UNC for most of the game, but it got away from them late and its just another L. ND with another horrible loss as well. It's still MD, UNC, FL and everyone else vying for the last spot on championship weekend.

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Agree. Great to see so many teams in the mix. Will be good for the sport.

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Agree. Great to see so many teams in the mix. Will be good for the sport.


Three teams are in the mix...many teams in the mix to their delusional parents.

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
at the end of the day it will be unc or Maryland and the streak will continue into year 26 with only 5 teams ever winning the championship

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
its an unwatchable game. They say it gets better, as they get older. Its horrific when they are small , terrible in high school, and bad in college.I guess thats the progress i have heard much about.

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Can a team 3 games under 500still be ranked in the top 20?

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Can a team 3 games under 500still be ranked in the top 20?


So that is clearly a dig at NU, and clearly if you are asking that seriously you don't know how rankings work. It is not only based on record, it's based on score margins of your games and the games of your opponents, and their rankings and strength of schedule etc.
Same way a 4-3 team can be ranked in the 70s or 80s....that's how. Play it close, play hard games and you will be rewarded with a higher ranking. Get blown out and/or play a weaker schedule and your rankings will suffer. Can we all just put the NU arguments to bed. They are a good team, better than most, not the best anymore. And no my daughter does not play for them, she plays for one of those lower ranked schools where you feel NU should be, but isn't!

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
its an unwatchable game. They say it gets better, as they get older. Its horrific when they are small , terrible in high school, and bad in college.I guess thats the progress i have heard much about.

Originally Posted by Anonymous
its an unwatchable game. They say it gets better, as they get older. Its horrific when they are small , terrible in high school, and bad in college.I guess thats the progress i have heard much about.


Agree to some extent. Too many players crowded in a small area. Too many whistles. Limited pockets make it impossible to have any creativity. No disincentive for constant fouling- actually it's rewarded.. Games a mess.

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Can someone please explain how Elon is ranked #11? And USC is way down at 33?

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
[quote=Anonymous]Can someone please explain how Elon is ranked #11? And USC is way down at 33?

Inside Lacrosse poll has USC #5 and Elon #14 what poll are you looking at?

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Where?

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
So you're saying that a team that barely beat the #29 team lost to the #33 team, lost to a team that was at that time in the 30's, got blown out by the # 10 team, lost to the # 30 team still somehow deserves to be ranked in the top 20. Sorry that's a B.S. system. That is why girls will flock to those same 5 teams that always win because they only play each other and will remain that way. Even if they lose people like you come up with some way to keep them in the mix when they clearly should not be.

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
BC in a week gains one of the best attackers in the game, Apuzzo's numbers will only go up as the team's offense gets stronger. They will be much better in a week. And no im not this person parent nor a BC parent, i just have an opinion. She has 51 points through 9 games, most in the country


Most in the country is realative. She is the first player off the course and in the club house, the Phils and Tigers are still on the front nine.
BC has played 11 games so far, that is a lot compared to many other programs. For comparisons sake, the SBU player has 50 points in 7 games. 5.2 points per game avg for SA and KO has a 7.1 points per game average. Plus a bunch of others have better point averages, just haven't played as many games. If a season were 20 games , SA on course for a 103 point Season and KO on course for 143 point season. And many others on target for higher than 103.
In the end I am a SA and BC fan. But the T award has only ever gone to top players on championship teams or very near championship teams. BC is not that. Someone made the argument that it should go to the best player, that's what this excercise here is about. SA is a great player, that 51 points in 9 games, now 57 in eleven, is not the best in the country.

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
So you're saying that a team that barely beat the #29 team lost to the #33 team, lost to a team that was at that time in the 30's, got blown out by the # 10 team, lost to the # 30 team still somehow deserves to be ranked in the top 20. Sorry that's a B.S. system. That is why girls will flock to those same 5 teams that always win because they only play each other and will remain that way. Even if they lose people like you come up with some way to keep them in the mix when they clearly should not be.


Not my way, just THE way

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
BC in a week gains one of the best attackers in the game, Apuzzo's numbers will only go up as the team's offense gets stronger. They will be much better in a week. And no im not this person parent nor a BC parent, i just have an opinion. She has 51 points through 9 games, most in the country


Most in the country is realative. She is the first player off the course and in the club house, the Phils and Tigers are still on the front nine.
BC has played 11 games so far, that is a lot compared to many other programs. For comparisons sake, the SBU player has 50 points in 7 games. 5.2 points per game avg for SA and KO has a 7.1 points per game average. Plus a bunch of others have better point averages, just haven't played as many games. If a season were 20 games , SA on course for a 103 point Season and KO on course for 143 point season. And many others on target for higher than 103.
In the end I am a SA and BC fan. But the T award has only ever gone to top players on championship teams or very near championship teams. BC is not that. Someone made the argument that it should go to the best player, that's what this excercise here is about. SA is a great player, that 51 points in 9 games, now 57 in eleven, is not the best in the country.


They both are really good players, but to use points per game as the barometer for the T award is short sighted. It should be a factor, But there are so many more aspects to the game. I have a tough time giving it to an attacker who only affects one side of the field. Give me the great 2 way middy any day. I t is silly to just look at points. A great defensive middy who can transition,get draw controls and score in my opinion is way more valuable than the kid with the most points, Especially when the schedules are not balanced. Many of those points could be in garbage time against less competitive teams. This isn't a knock on those 2 players, they are great , but there are kids who do way more on both ends.

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
RPI rankings on LaxPower.

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
BC in a week gains one of the best attackers in the game, Apuzzo's numbers will only go up as the team's offense gets stronger. They will be much better in a week. And no im not this person parent nor a BC parent, i just have an opinion. She has 51 points through 9 games, most in the country


Most in the country is realative. She is the first player off the course and in the club house, the Phils and Tigers are still on the front nine.
BC has played 11 games so far, that is a lot compared to many other programs. For comparisons sake, the SBU player has 50 points in 7 games. 5.2 points per game avg for SA and KO has a 7.1 points per game average. Plus a bunch of others have better point averages, just haven't played as many games. If a season were 20 games , SA on course for a 103 point Season and KO on course for 143 point season. And many others on target for higher than 103.
In the end I am a SA and BC fan. But the T award has only ever gone to top players on championship teams or very near championship teams. BC is not that. Someone made the argument that it should go to the best player, that's what this excercise here is about. SA is a great player, that 51 points in 9 games, now 57 in eleven, is not the best in the country.


They both are really good players, but to use points per game as the barometer for the T award is short sighted. It should be a factor, But there are so many more aspects to the game. I have a tough time giving it to an attacker who only affects one side of the field. Give me the great 2 way middy any day. I t is silly to just look at points. A great defensive middy who can transition,get draw controls and score in my opinion is way more valuable than the kid with the most points, Especially when the schedules are not balanced. Many of those points could be in garbage time against less competitive teams. This isn't a knock on those 2 players, they are great , but there are kids who do way more on both ends.


the argument can be made those other players from the top 3 are playing with way more support than the others its a strange balance

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 886
Back of THE CAGE
Offline
Back of THE CAGE
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 886
IWLCA Poll for Division II, March 20
Rank Team Record Points First Previous
1 Adelphi 4-0 398 18 1
2 Lindenwood 6-0 379 1 2
3 Le Moyne 4-0 362 1 3
4 LIU Post 3-1 328 4
5 Florida Southern 11-2 326 5
6 West Chester 3-0 289 6
7 Rollins 8-2 274 7
8 Limestone 7-1 253 8
9 Queens 6-2 244 9
10 Mercyhurst 2-1 216 10
11 Florida Tech 8-1 194 12
12 New Haven 4-0 188 11
13 Lock Haven 3-1 165 13
14 Pace 2-1 121 17
15 NYIT 6-1 109 15
16 Grand Valley State 1-4 78 14
17 Regis (CO) 6-0 75 19
17 Indiana (PA) 1-2 75 16
19 Bentley 1-3 64 18
20 Stonehill 3-2

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 886
Back of THE CAGE
Offline
Back of THE CAGE
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 886
IWLCA Poll for Division III, March 20
Rank Team Record Points First Previous
1 Middlebury 4-0 398 18 1
2 Gettysburg 6-0 381 2 3
3 College of New Jersey 3-0 346 4
4 Washington & Lee 6-1 320 8
4 Franklin & Marshall 4-1 320 6
6 Cortland 3-1 301 7
7 Trinity (CT) 5-1 283 2
8 [lacrosse] 4-1 255 9
9 Catholic (DC) 3-2 246 5
10 Salisbury 5-2 222 10
11 Messiah 3-2 169 12
12 Brockport 4-0 164 11
13 Ithaca 4-1 127 17
14 St. John Fisher 3-0 123 13
15 Bowdoin 3-1 113 14
16 Mary Washington 5-3 108 16
17 William Smith 4-1 84 19
18 Hamilton 2-3 70 NR
19 Colby 2-2 45 20
19 Amherst 2-2 45 15

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 886
Back of THE CAGE
Offline
Back of THE CAGE
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 886
IWLCA Poll for Division I, March 20
Rank Team Record Points First Previous
1 Maryland 7-0 400 20 1
2 North Carolina 8-1 380 2
3 Florida 7-1 341 3
4 Syracuse 8-2 327 5
5 Princeton 5-0 294 6
6 Colorado 9-0 288 7
7 Stony Brook 6-1 257 8
7 Cornell 5-1 257 11
9 Southern California 6-2 253 4
10 Penn State 8-1 245 9
11 Penn 6-1 216 12
12 Towson 6-3 157 15
13 Denver 7-1 136 14
14 Northwestern 3-5 131 13
15 Notre Dame 8-4 128 10
16 Virginia Tech 10-2 72 18
17 Duke 5-4 65 16
18 Stanford 6-2 61 17
19 Virginia 4-4 52 NR
20 Elon 6-2

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 886
Back of THE CAGE
Offline
Back of THE CAGE
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 886
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.

Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!



I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school.

Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.

Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!



I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school.

Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.

Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!



I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school.

Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.

Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!



I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school.


All you have to do is google it. Student protest shuts down free speech and assaults teacher sending her to the hospital. You must watch CNN and MSNBC where they choose not to report on matters unflatterIng to their view of the world.


Actually a Fox guy. Found an Op Ed from the professor in the New [lacrosse] Times on the matter. He seemed to take the injury in context to the protest better than you did.

All schools are liberal at its base. Yale gave out coloring books and the day off after the election. Princeton brought in puppies. Cal did significant damage during a protest. Don't let the militant minority drive you nuts.

Forbes ranks Middlebury as the 4th best school in terms of tuition cost versus real world earnings.

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
How's the program at SUNY Maritime? They have the best cost/salary ratio in the country!

Re: 2016 Women's College Lacrosse Season
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.

Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!



I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school.

Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.

Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!



I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school.

Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.

Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!



I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school.

Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
There seems to be some dialogue as to "what is a better school". The mixture of sports life, class work and your own student's desire is an almost impossible equation that if you hit on all three I applaud you. But to single out a particluiar school, such as Boston College or Northwestern (NW in particular carries a lot of passion on this board) is ignorant.

In years past large schools were able to recruit below their acceptance levels due too scale. You have a 40,000 student body so recruiting 500 students below the acceptance levels was OK--especially in money sports (men's football and basketball). But it carried over to other sports for "prestige".

The Ivies and Little Ivies were the exception. You still needed to meet the acceptance standards. But not long ago that changed--again in the money sports but for the Ivies it was men's basketball. I'm not saying they reduced the standards like other schools (lets face it, Kentucky has no standards for its basketball program; they only stay a year), but they tweaked it just enough to get a qualit's player (Lin). That network money come tournament time was nice!

So you see t his now through all levels of college sports. The Ivies are still tough, don't get me wrong, but they have a bit of flexibility. NESCAC schools on the D3 level are the same way. You still need to in the top 10 percentile, good test scores, etc.

Jobs! That's why we send our students to the same schools, right? I'm a Villanova graduate and in my day went to Haverford down the road for some parties. Became friendly with a Haverford student who said, with a bit of superiority, "You go to Villanova? You'll work for me someday". Funny thing is I did and it worked out for both of us. Friend to this day.

My point is you have a student that wants to be a doctor, engineer, etc they better be extraordinary to make it as a D1 student. That's why you see a lot of Communication majors in D1. Slide over to D3, and the NESCAC (which I know well) and you have pre-law, pre-med, finance, graduate school candidates--it's a different deal. So if you want your student to have a good job maybe a finance degree from Middlebury will get them that Wall Street job better than a communications degree from Northwestern (just using NW because it's such a target on this thread!).

The worst school is not a school by name but when a student picks a school for all the wrong reasons.

Middlebury? You could have used a better example. That school and students are a total disgrace. And those students as our future is killing this once great country. Snowflakes!



I need examples to your reply. I think you are thinking of a different school.


All you have to do is google it. Student protest shuts down free speech and assaults teacher sending her to the hospital. You must watch CNN and MSNBC where they choose not to report on matters unflatterIng to their view of the world.


Actually a Fox guy. Found an Op Ed from the professor in the New [lacrosse] Times on the matter. He seemed to take the injury in context to the protest better than you did.

All schools are liberal at its base. Yale gave out coloring books and the day off after the election. Princeton brought in puppies. Cal did significant damage during a protest. Don't let the militant minority drive you nuts.

Forbes ranks Middlebury as the 4th best school in terms of tuition cost versus real world earnings.


Perhaps you need to read the op ed again, the professor that was injured is a female. If that is what the 4th best tuition to earnings ratio is giving you in terms of an education they failed. You should read a dozen or so of the reports, gives a broader perspective. The irony is that the injured professor was apparently one of the faculty protesting in the audience preventing the session from occurring in clear violation of school policy. The issue is that students and faculty are all being given a pass from school rules even though they were reinforced by the administration before the speaker took the stage. Middlebury has completely mis-handled this situation because they all wanted to suppress free speech because they do not support what they believe the speaker stands for but could not find a way other than this and still maintain a shred of pretend credibility on the subject.

Page 46 of 75 1 2 44 45 46 47 48 74 75

Link Copied to Clipboard












Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4