CSNbbs

(07-27-2014 11:34 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]Glass houses and all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NC_State_Wo...s_.5B42.5D

Quote:NCAA Sanctions [42]

The NC State men's basketball program is one of the more punished programs in the history of the NCAA.[43] Throughout its history, NC State men's basketball has been placed on probation by the NCAA on four separate occasions (1954–55, 1956–60, 1972–73, and 1989–91) and also sanctioned for multiple players’ roles in a massive point shaving scandal in the early 1960s. The Wolfpack were ineligible for the NCAA tournament in at least one season of each of those occasions.

• Put on probation in 1954-55 and declared ineligible for postseason play due to payments made to player Ronnie Shavlik

• Put on probation from 1956–60 and declared ineligible for postseason play due to payments made to recruit Jackie Moreland

• Point shaving by players Don Gallagher, Anton Muehlbauer, Stan Niewierowski, and Terry Litchfield led to an investigation by the North Carolina SBI, cancellation of the Dixie Classic, scholarship and recruiting limitations, schedule limitations in 1962, and players were forbidden from participating in summer competition. Players from the North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball were also implicated in the scandal, with the school receiving the same penalties.[44]

• Put on probation in 1972-73 and declared ineligible for postseason play due to multiple recruiting violations regarding David Thompson

• Put on probation from 1989–91 and declared ineligible for postseason play due to a lack of institutional control. This investigation originally stemmed from Peter Golenbock’s Personal Fouls - The Broken Promises and Shattered Dreams of Big Money Basketball at Jim Valvano's North Carolina State,[45] which documented alleged multiple instances of drug use, payments to players, and widespread academic misconduct. The NCAA investigation verified claims of players selling complimentary tickets and sneakers provided to them by the school.[46]

Baloney, I thought football was all that mattered?

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_...clemson-33

70-33 the real Clemson legacy

Clemson and the College Rankings

Our response to the controversy over Clemson University's strategy to rise in the college rankings


By Robert Morse June 4, 2009 | 2:17 p.m. EDT + More



Clemson University is facing both controversy and criticism after Catherine Watt, a director of a research center at Clemson, made a presentation this week at the annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research in Atlanta about the aggressive steps the university has taken to meet its goal of rising in the U.S. News America's Best Colleges rankings.

It's no secret that Clemson's goal is to become a top 20 public research university: There's a whole section of the school's website called "Why Top 20" that explains the rationale behind the goal and what the potential benefits would be for students and the university. (Currently, Clemson ranks 22nd in that "best publics" list, up from 38th in 2001.) Yesterday, Clemson responded to Watt's presentation with a prepared statement after both Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle of Higher Education had articles on her presentation.

I was at the conference and attended Watt's presentation. The most controversial parts were some of the techniques she suggested that Clemson has been using to meet its goal and how open Watt was in discussing the university's strategy publicly. According to her presentation, Clemson took precise steps to improve in some U.S. News ranking variables: create more small classes of under 20 students and fewer large classes with 50 or more students, boost the SAT scores and high school class standing of incoming students, increase freshman retention and graduation rates, decrease the student-to-faculty ratio, improve faculty salaries, and more accurately report data. In addition, the presentation implied that Clemson's peer survey respondents gave other universities they compete against a below average rating, though this claim has been vigorously denied by the school.

U.S. News produces the rankings to provide the public—in particular, families of collegebound students—one tool that offers a clear perspective on differences among the options in higher education. We realize we can't control how this information gets used in the higher ed community, but the rankings are not meant to drive the mission or any other strategic goals that a university may be trying to attain. It's up to the Clemson University community to decide whether rising in the college rankings is a goal it ought to pursue.


In terms of the reputation survey, U.S. News has safeguards in place to prevent strategic voting from affecting the results. We subtract a few of the highest and lowest scores from respondents before the results are calculated in order to prevent downgrading or upgrading from altering the results. We are confident that such voting practices by respondents are not affecting the results of the reputation survey in any meaningful statistical way.


To paraphrase the late Groucho Marx "Has Clemson stopped cheating this year?"

(07-27-2014 11:38 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-27-2014 11:34 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]Glass houses and all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NC_State_Wo...s_.5B42.5D

Quote:NCAA Sanctions [42]

The NC State men's basketball program is one of the more punished programs in the history of the NCAA.[43] Throughout its history, NC State men's basketball has been placed on probation by the NCAA on four separate occasions (1954–55, 1956–60, 1972–73, and 1989–91) and also sanctioned for multiple players’ roles in a massive point shaving scandal in the early 1960s. The Wolfpack were ineligible for the NCAA tournament in at least one season of each of those occasions.

• Put on probation in 1954-55 and declared ineligible for postseason play due to payments made to player Ronnie Shavlik

• Put on probation from 1956–60 and declared ineligible for postseason play due to payments made to recruit Jackie Moreland

• Point shaving by players Don Gallagher, Anton Muehlbauer, Stan Niewierowski, and Terry Litchfield led to an investigation by the North Carolina SBI, cancellation of the Dixie Classic, scholarship and recruiting limitations, schedule limitations in 1962, and players were forbidden from participating in summer competition. Players from the North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball were also implicated in the scandal, with the school receiving the same penalties.[44]

• Put on probation in 1972-73 and declared ineligible for postseason play due to multiple recruiting violations regarding David Thompson

• Put on probation from 1989–91 and declared ineligible for postseason play due to a lack of institutional control. This investigation originally stemmed from Peter Golenbock’s Personal Fouls - The Broken Promises and Shattered Dreams of Big Money Basketball at Jim Valvano's North Carolina State,[45] which documented alleged multiple instances of drug use, payments to players, and widespread academic misconduct. The NCAA investigation verified claims of players selling complimentary tickets and sneakers provided to them by the school.[46]

Baloney, I thought football was all that mattered?

It is, but I figured that pointing out the fact that if you started this year and beat Clemson in football every year until you evened the series that a child born on gameday would be able to rent a car without the under 25 surcharge would be overkill since I have used it before.

I guess it would be OK if I started using childish names for you like lumbercrack (since you seem to be on it), or lumberslack (since your though process seems to spin it's wheels a lot) but I'll refrain from that.

(07-27-2014 11:43 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote: [ -> ]Clemson and the College Rankings

Our response to the controversy over Clemson University's strategy to rise in the college rankings


By Robert Morse June 4, 2009 | 2:17 p.m. EDT + More



Clemson University is facing both controversy and criticism after Catherine Watt, a director of a research center at Clemson, made a presentation this week at the annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research in Atlanta about the aggressive steps the university has taken to meet its goal of rising in the U.S. News America's Best Colleges rankings.

It's no secret that Clemson's goal is to become a top 20 public research university: There's a whole section of the school's website called "Why Top 20" that explains the rationale behind the goal and what the potential benefits would be for students and the university. (Currently, Clemson ranks 22nd in that "best publics" list, up from 38th in 2001.) Yesterday, Clemson responded to Watt's presentation with a prepared statement after both Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle of Higher Education had articles on her presentation.

I was at the conference and attended Watt's presentation. The most controversial parts were some of the techniques she suggested that Clemson has been using to meet its goal and how open Watt was in discussing the university's strategy publicly. According to her presentation, Clemson took precise steps to improve in some U.S. News ranking variables: create more small classes of under 20 students and fewer large classes with 50 or more students, boost the SAT scores and high school class standing of incoming students, increase freshman retention and graduation rates, decrease the student-to-faculty ratio, improve faculty salaries, and more accurately report data. In addition, the presentation implied that Clemson's peer survey respondents gave other universities they compete against a below average rating, though this claim has been vigorously denied by the school.

U.S. News produces the rankings to provide the public—in particular, families of collegebound students—one tool that offers a clear perspective on differences among the options in higher education. We realize we can't control how this information gets used in the higher ed community, but the rankings are not meant to drive the mission or any other strategic goals that a university may be trying to attain. It's up to the Clemson University community to decide whether rising in the college rankings is a goal it ought to pursue.


In terms of the reputation survey, U.S. News has safeguards in place to prevent strategic voting from affecting the results. We subtract a few of the highest and lowest scores from respondents before the results are calculated in order to prevent downgrading or upgrading from altering the results. We are confident that such voting practices by respondents are not affecting the results of the reputation survey in any meaningful statistical way.


To paraphrase the late Groucho Marx "Has Clemson stopped cheating this year?"

Whenever someone tied to Clemson berates someone from North Carolina I think about all the things that are special about South Carolina, like Fort Sumter, keeping black kids out of your university 7-8 years longer than NC State, the Confederate flag over your favorite mustard barbeque joint, and mothers who drown their kids in lakes.

Yep, nothing like some Sandlappers.

Whenever someone from NC tries to berate South Carolina I think of all the things that make NC special.

Like being the heart and soul of the tobacco industry and the millions of people that it killed or maimed.

Jesse Helms. Enough said.

John Edwards. Enough said.

The unregulated massive corporate hog farms that pollute one of the true treasures of the South, the Pee Dee River basin.

Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph. North Carolina raised and educated

The 18th century level of deaths in the 1991 Imperial Foods plant fire in Hamlet, NC and the racist fire chief of Hamlet who despite close to 80 victims either dead or injured refused the assistance of a neighboring fire department because they were predominantly black.

The corrupt and incompetent NC SBI, including gross misconduct that the crime lab.

Again, glass houses.

(07-27-2014 12:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]Whenever someone from NC tries to berate South Carolina I think of all the things that make NC special.

Like being the heart and soul of the tobacco industry and the millions of people that it killed or maimed.

Jesse Helms. Enough said.

John Edwards. Enough said.

The unregulated massive corporate hog farms that pollute one of the true treasures of the South, the Pee Dee River basin.

Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph. North Carolina raised and educated

The 18th century level of deaths in the 1991 Imperial Foods plant fire in Hamlet, NC and the racist fire chief of Hamlet who despite close to 80 victims either dead or injured refused the assistance of a neighboring fire department because they were predominantly black.

The corrupt and incompetent NC SBI, including gross misconduct that the crime lab.

Again, glass houses.

John Edwards, unlike Andrew Jackson, was born in South Carolina.
And I saw nothing wrong with Jesse Helms, in fact his constituent services were the best of any member of Congress from North Carolina and they were available to ALL of the citizens of our State.

(07-27-2014 02:13 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-27-2014 12:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]Whenever someone from NC tries to berate South Carolina I think of all the things that make NC special.

Like being the heart and soul of the tobacco industry and the millions of people that it killed or maimed.

Jesse Helms. Enough said.

John Edwards. Enough said.

The unregulated massive corporate hog farms that pollute one of the true treasures of the South, the Pee Dee River basin.

Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph. North Carolina raised and educated

The 18th century level of deaths in the 1991 Imperial Foods plant fire in Hamlet, NC and the racist fire chief of Hamlet who despite close to 80 victims either dead or injured refused the assistance of a neighboring fire department because they were predominantly black.

The corrupt and incompetent NC SBI, including gross misconduct that the crime lab.

Again, glass houses.

John Edwards, unlike Andrew Jackson, was born in South Carolina.

Edwards was fine until he obtained his degrees from NC State and UNC.

what the phuk

(08-06-2014 01:45 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote: [ -> ]what the phuk

Evidently bourbon and Oxycontin don't mix.

(08-06-2014 03:15 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-06-2014 01:45 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote: [ -> ]what the phuk

It iis what he is imply about NC State.

I don't get the point of posting that pic over a week later and how it correlates with the thread at hand.

I deleted ever damn thing! Bunch of thin skinned political correct bull!

There, I hope you are happy.

Thin skinned PC bull... WHAT.... You know I'm no PC Phuk lol

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Your cool, but I am just staying out of this one, because I do not have a dog in the fight.