[metsjetsfan]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-pointless

If you are a recruit who cares about getting a good education, how could you go to a school knowing that your potential teammates have Cardale Jones' perspective and could care less about academics?

[metsjetsfan]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-pointless

If you are a recruit who cares about getting a good education, how could you go to a school knowing that your potential teammates have Cardale Jones' perspective and could care less about academics?

[oman]

Every kid who plays on a team knows there are a few kids who don't care about classes.

I don't think this is that big a deal.

I personally think it would work fine if scholarship athletes had four years of eligibiity but were guarantted three extra years of room and board and tuition.  So that they really didn't have to worry about classes until they knew they were not going to get drafted.

[oman]

Every kid who plays on a team knows there are a few kids who don't care about classes.

I don't think this is that big a deal.

I personally think it would work fine if scholarship athletes had four years of eligibiity but were guarantted three extra years of room and board and tuition.  So that they really didn't have to worry about classes until they knew they were not going to get drafted.

[metsjetsfan]

Every kid who plays on a team knows there are a few kids who don't care about classes.

I don't think this is that big a deal.

Sorry, I have to disagree.  If a potential Stanford football recruit said, "we came here to play FOOTBALL, we ain't come to play SCHOOL", I would be appalled and question why he is even considering Stanford.  In fact, if there were "a few kids who don't care about school" on the Stanford team, I don't think too many of us would be happy to hear that's how Stanford chooses recruits.  I would think that's what distinguishes Stanford from schools like Kal or ND.

[metsjetsfan]

Every kid who plays on a team knows there are a few kids who don't care about classes.

I don't think this is that big a deal.

Sorry, I have to disagree.  If a potential Stanford football recruit said, "we came here to play FOOTBALL, we ain't come to play SCHOOL", I would be appalled and question why he is even considering Stanford.  In fact, if there were "a few kids who don't care about school" on the Stanford team, I don't think too many of us would be happy to hear that's how Stanford chooses recruits.  I would think that's what distinguishes Stanford from schools like Kal or ND.

[Roberton3]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-pointless

If you are a recruit who cares about getting a good education, how could you go to a school knowing that your potential teammates have Cardale Jones' perspective and could care less about academics?

I agree.  But if you are a recruit who cares about getting a good education, why would you even be considering Ohio State in the first place?

[Roberton3]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-pointless

If you are a recruit who cares about getting a good education, how could you go to a school knowing that your potential teammates have Cardale Jones' perspective and could care less about academics?

I agree.  But if you are a recruit who cares about getting a good education, why would you even be considering Ohio State in the first place?

[CowboyIndian]

This is just a college kid's take on Marxist theory.

[CowboyIndian]

This is just a college kid's take on Marxist theory.

[oman]

Wow, the dreaded negative five for that comment?

Given that the key reason I chose Stanford over Ivy was that I could wear OP shorts there during spring break, I don't think it's that wacky to think that a recruit might discount learning, on a campus visit, that some of his teamates would rather party than study.

I'm not arguing that the average Ohio State recruit is more concerned with academics than a Stanford recruit.  I am arguing that they aren't so stupid as to believe that if they wanted to, they would not be able to get an education there.  And if the kid is excited about the program, that his parents will justify his going to a less academic school.

That's not even taking into consideration some of the more complex arguments about the benefits of going to a school where you may below average on test scores and academic acheivement.

(Is the negative 5 an automatic or does the comment get manually scrubbed?) 

[oman]

Wow, the dreaded negative five for that comment?

Given that the key reason I chose Stanford over Ivy was that I could wear OP shorts there during spring break, I don't think it's that wacky to think that a recruit might discount learning, on a campus visit, that some of his teamates would rather party than study.

I'm not arguing that the average Ohio State recruit is more concerned with academics than a Stanford recruit.  I am arguing that they aren't so stupid as to believe that if they wanted to, they would not be able to get an education there.  And if the kid is excited about the program, that his parents will justify his going to a less academic school.

That's not even taking into consideration some of the more complex arguments about the benefits of going to a school where you may below average on test scores and academic acheivement.

(Is the negative 5 an automatic or does the comment get manually scrubbed?) 

[71Bear]

The kid just articulated (in a not so grammatically correct manner) the thoughts of many  college football players across the country.

The only difference between him and his peers is that he voiced his opinion.

I believe that every school playing at the top level of college football has at least a player or two who would prefer to skip the "going to class" part of the equation.

The notion of tsk tsk, I'm glad that we don't have any guys like that on our team is rather ludicrous.

Heck, I remember one Stanford athlete who left to the pro's early stating that he wasn't interested in school. 

There is no shame in that.  It is a reality that we should accept even if we don't like it. 

It all boils down hoping that athletes from our Alma Mater keep their mouths shut...

[71Bear]

The kid just articulated (in a not so grammatically correct manner) the thoughts of many  college football players across the country.

The only difference between him and his peers is that he voiced his opinion.

I believe that every school playing at the top level of college football has at least a player or two who would prefer to skip the "going to class" part of the equation.

The notion of tsk tsk, I'm glad that we don't have any guys like that on our team is rather ludicrous.

Heck, I remember one Stanford athlete who left to the pro's early stating that he wasn't interested in school. 

There is no shame in that.  It is a reality that we should accept even if we don't like it. 

It all boils down hoping that athletes from our Alma Mater keep their mouths shut...

[socalstanfan1]

The big picture here, IMO, isn't about whether we can/should feel superior about the quality of student-athlete who comes to Stanford, it is about the way the NFL uses college football as a free farm system.  Talented athletes who really have no desire to go to college must do so if they want a chance to play in the NFL (realistically the same is true for basketball, though some try Europe).  They go, often where they feel they can study the least, and resent when they do have to attend classes because they sense (probably correctly) that for many boosters and alumni, all that really matters is success on the field.  In sports like baseball and hockey, where viable minor leagues exist as an option for such athletes, you get far less of this attitude because those with talent who don't appreciate university life go the minor league route, and those who want college go to Uni.  Want to stop reading these tweets? Get the NFL and NBA to pony up for meaningful farm systems.  Getting athletes who don't want to study out of the system also reduces a host of other forms of corruption (acaemic, financial, etc).

But, of course, many colleges don't want that since football and basketball provide both prestige and $$$$$. 

[socalstanfan1]

The big picture here, IMO, isn't about whether we can/should feel superior about the quality of student-athlete who comes to Stanford, it is about the way the NFL uses college football as a free farm system.  Talented athletes who really have no desire to go to college must do so if they want a chance to play in the NFL (realistically the same is true for basketball, though some try Europe).  They go, often where they feel they can study the least, and resent when they do have to attend classes because they sense (probably correctly) that for many boosters and alumni, all that really matters is success on the field.  In sports like baseball and hockey, where viable minor leagues exist as an option for such athletes, you get far less of this attitude because those with talent who don't appreciate university life go the minor league route, and those who want college go to Uni.  Want to stop reading these tweets? Get the NFL and NBA to pony up for meaningful farm systems.  Getting athletes who don't want to study out of the system also reduces a host of other forms of corruption (acaemic, financial, etc).

But, of course, many colleges don't want that since football and basketball provide both prestige and $$$$$. 

[washingtonismoney]

The flip side of "classes are pointless": https://twitter.com/Hawks_Island31/statu...7436754945

Homework can't wait until Sunday, dude?

[washingtonismoney]

The flip side of "classes are pointless": https://twitter.com/Hawks_Island31/statu...7436754945

Homework can't wait until Sunday, dude?

[estephan500]

Hmm. Can I suggest that the function that turns a negative five rating into an automatic "hide this post" be deleted?

-- in the example that occurred in this thread, the result was absurd...  there is no reason that the comment, whose only vice was in being "much disagreed with" ... should be censored from the view of subsequent visitors

-- In general, that auto-censor function would only make sense if we knew that people only used the down-vote button to mean "this is spam, or pure conversation-killing troll material, or equates to dangerous conduct not speech". ... But people don't use the down button that way, they use it to mean "I emphatically disagree"

-- also, I have often added up votes which wind up mitigating others' down votes. But this feature strangely cuts off the post from subsequent voting, latecomers are out.

[estephan500]

Hmm. Can I suggest that the function that turns a negative five rating into an automatic "hide this post" be deleted?

-- in the example that occurred in this thread, the result was absurd...  there is no reason that the comment, whose only vice was in being "much disagreed with" ... should be censored from the view of subsequent visitors

-- In general, that auto-censor function would only make sense if we knew that people only used the down-vote button to mean "this is spam, or pure conversation-killing troll material, or equates to dangerous conduct not speech". ... But people don't use the down button that way, they use it to mean "I emphatically disagree"

-- also, I have often added up votes which wind up mitigating others' down votes. But this feature strangely cuts off the post from subsequent voting, latecomers are out.

[yvonne]

The function really does help to reduce truly undesirable posts when the moderators are unavailable. We haven't had the misfortune of having a human posting porn, which we did a few years ago, but it makes sense to have a hide feature. I'll raise the ceiling for hiding posts, and look into some other methods for dealing with spam and other undesirable posts.

[yvonne]

The function really does help to reduce truly undesirable posts when the moderators are unavailable. We haven't had the misfortune of having a human posting porn, which we did a few years ago, but it makes sense to have a hide feature. I'll raise the ceiling for hiding posts, and look into some other methods for dealing with spam and other undesirable posts.