12-14-2015, 03:44 PM
Henry Hattis's stock is rising. He is now a four star on scout and in the top 300.
http://www.scout.com/player/198174-henry...=2015&s=18
http://www.scout.com/player/198174-henry...=2015&s=18
Class of 2016
Henry Hattis's stock is rising. He is now a four star on scout and in the top 300.
http://www.scout.com/player/198174-henry...=2015&s=18
http://www.scout.com/player/198174-henry...=2015&s=18
12-14-2015, 05:12 PM
(12-14-2015, 01:31 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=9617.msg148127#msg148127 date=1450120416]
[quote author=TrumpCard link=topic=9617.msg148124#msg148124 date=1450118924]
The "experts" missed the boat on this one big time. TAMU tops the predictions, yet the kid has said multiple times that his #1 priority is a prestigious degree...
Keep in mind that in Texas, TAMU is widely considered to be a prestigious degree. And that's not entirely crazy: nearly all Texans stay in-state for college (a far higher percentage than in most states), and TAMU is the third-best university in the state.
[/quote]
While at Stanford, I got enough education in relativism to last me a lifetime. Let's just focus on objective criteria. My understanding is that UT-Austin has a 10% rule, which is that all kids in the top 10% of their class automatically earn admission. McCulloch is in the top 1% of his class, plus he's his class president and the star of his football team. He's a superstar. There wouldn't be another kid like him in his whole class at TAMU.
[/quote]
Are you sure? I know the university of california system has a similar rule, but I think it is the top 8%, and it only gains admissions to the UC system, not UCLA. There were about 290,000 Texas high school grads, so the top 10% would be roughly 29,000 guarantees. They had 38,000 aapplications, and 15,500 acceptances (slightly less than half enrolled). It sounds to me like the top 10% might be guaranteed a spot somewhere in the UT system, but maybe not specifically at UT-Austin.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(12-14-2015, 01:31 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=9617.msg148127#msg148127 date=1450120416]
[quote author=TrumpCard link=topic=9617.msg148124#msg148124 date=1450118924]
The "experts" missed the boat on this one big time. TAMU tops the predictions, yet the kid has said multiple times that his #1 priority is a prestigious degree...
Keep in mind that in Texas, TAMU is widely considered to be a prestigious degree. And that's not entirely crazy: nearly all Texans stay in-state for college (a far higher percentage than in most states), and TAMU is the third-best university in the state.
[/quote]
While at Stanford, I got enough education in relativism to last me a lifetime. Let's just focus on objective criteria. My understanding is that UT-Austin has a 10% rule, which is that all kids in the top 10% of their class automatically earn admission. McCulloch is in the top 1% of his class, plus he's his class president and the star of his football team. He's a superstar. There wouldn't be another kid like him in his whole class at TAMU.
[/quote]
Are you sure? I know the university of california system has a similar rule, but I think it is the top 8%, and it only gains admissions to the UC system, not UCLA. There were about 290,000 Texas high school grads, so the top 10% would be roughly 29,000 guarantees. They had 38,000 aapplications, and 15,500 acceptances (slightly less than half enrolled). It sounds to me like the top 10% might be guaranteed a spot somewhere in the UT system, but maybe not specifically at UT-Austin.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
12-14-2015, 05:25 PM
Correct. The "10 percent rule" guarantees admission to any state funded school in Texas, including Texas A&M.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_House_Bill_588
State funded schools in Texas include the well known University of Texas system (8 campuses) and Texas A&M University System (12 campuses), as well as the University of Houston system (4 campuses), University of North Texas system (3 campuses plus a law school), Texas State University (4 campuses), Texas Tech University system (2 campuses), and 4 independent public universities.
BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_House_Bill_588
State funded schools in Texas include the well known University of Texas system (8 campuses) and Texas A&M University System (12 campuses), as well as the University of Houston system (4 campuses), University of North Texas system (3 campuses plus a law school), Texas State University (4 campuses), Texas Tech University system (2 campuses), and 4 independent public universities.
BC
Correct. The "10 percent rule" guarantees admission to any state funded school in Texas, including Texas A&M.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_House_Bill_588
State funded schools in Texas include the well known University of Texas system (8 campuses) and Texas A&M University System (12 campuses), as well as the University of Houston system (4 campuses), University of North Texas system (3 campuses plus a law school), Texas State University (4 campuses), Texas Tech University system (2 campuses), and 4 independent public universities.
BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_House_Bill_588
State funded schools in Texas include the well known University of Texas system (8 campuses) and Texas A&M University System (12 campuses), as well as the University of Houston system (4 campuses), University of North Texas system (3 campuses plus a law school), Texas State University (4 campuses), Texas Tech University system (2 campuses), and 4 independent public universities.
BC
12-14-2015, 06:40 PM
(12-14-2015, 05:25 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Correct. The "10 percent rule" guarantees admission to any state funded school in Texas, including Texas A&M.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_House_Bill_588
State funded schools in Texas include the well known University of Texas system (8 campuses) and Texas A&M University System (12 campuses), as well as the University of Houston system (4 campuses), University of North Texas system (3 campuses plus a law school), Texas State University (4 campuses), Texas Tech University system (2 campuses), and 4 independent public universities.
BC
It should be noted that the Supreme Court is currently hearing a challenge to this law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supr...945fefd3d3
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
(12-14-2015, 05:25 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Correct. The "10 percent rule" guarantees admission to any state funded school in Texas, including Texas A&M.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_House_Bill_588
State funded schools in Texas include the well known University of Texas system (8 campuses) and Texas A&M University System (12 campuses), as well as the University of Houston system (4 campuses), University of North Texas system (3 campuses plus a law school), Texas State University (4 campuses), Texas Tech University system (2 campuses), and 4 independent public universities.
BC
It should be noted that the Supreme Court is currently hearing a challenge to this law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supr...945fefd3d3
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
12-14-2015, 06:50 PM
I don't think that's correct. The top 10% law is not under challenge in the USSC; rather an affirmative action program instituted by the University of Texas Austin for a portion of the roughly 20% of incoming freshmen not covered by the top-10% rule.
The top-10% rule initially started because of a court case that had ruled affirmative action illegal in Texas (Hopwood vs. Texas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas, which was decided in the 5th circuit court of appeals). However, the door was re-opened for affirmative action in Texas (and other states covered by the 5th circuit) by a ruling of the US Supreme Court about a case in Michigan (Grutter v. Bolliinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger). Affirmative action is again being argued in front of the US Supreme Court, but that should not have an effect on the top-10% rule.
BC
The top-10% rule initially started because of a court case that had ruled affirmative action illegal in Texas (Hopwood vs. Texas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas, which was decided in the 5th circuit court of appeals). However, the door was re-opened for affirmative action in Texas (and other states covered by the 5th circuit) by a ruling of the US Supreme Court about a case in Michigan (Grutter v. Bolliinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger). Affirmative action is again being argued in front of the US Supreme Court, but that should not have an effect on the top-10% rule.
BC
I don't think that's correct. The top 10% law is not under challenge in the USSC; rather an affirmative action program instituted by the University of Texas Austin for a portion of the roughly 20% of incoming freshmen not covered by the top-10% rule.
The top-10% rule initially started because of a court case that had ruled affirmative action illegal in Texas (Hopwood vs. Texas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas, which was decided in the 5th circuit court of appeals). However, the door was re-opened for affirmative action in Texas (and other states covered by the 5th circuit) by a ruling of the US Supreme Court about a case in Michigan (Grutter v. Bolliinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger). Affirmative action is again being argued in front of the US Supreme Court, but that should not have an effect on the top-10% rule.
BC
The top-10% rule initially started because of a court case that had ruled affirmative action illegal in Texas (Hopwood vs. Texas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas, which was decided in the 5th circuit court of appeals). However, the door was re-opened for affirmative action in Texas (and other states covered by the 5th circuit) by a ruling of the US Supreme Court about a case in Michigan (Grutter v. Bolliinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger). Affirmative action is again being argued in front of the US Supreme Court, but that should not have an effect on the top-10% rule.
BC
12-14-2015, 07:31 PM
Thanks for that clarification -- it seems to match what I heard on NPR the other day. They were talking about a white woman who was denied admission to UT-Austin a few years ago while, according to her case, minority students from her high school with inferior grades were admitted. That doesn't fit with the 10% rule, obviously.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
Thanks for that clarification -- it seems to match what I heard on NPR the other day. They were talking about a white woman who was denied admission to UT-Austin a few years ago while, according to her case, minority students from her high school with inferior grades were admitted. That doesn't fit with the 10% rule, obviously.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
12-15-2015, 12:01 AM
Correct, Abigail Fisher (the woman who sued the University of Texas) was not within the top 10% of her class, and therefore was in the pool for the remaining 25% of UT Austin spots that do not go to the 10% rule (it has actually been amended for UT Austin so that no more than 75% of applicants go to UT Austin under the 10% rule, which means that the 10% rule is more like 7 or 8%). UT takes race into account for filling those 25% of spots, and Fisher has alleged that this constitutes illegal discrimination.
BC
BC
Correct, Abigail Fisher (the woman who sued the University of Texas) was not within the top 10% of her class, and therefore was in the pool for the remaining 25% of UT Austin spots that do not go to the 10% rule (it has actually been amended for UT Austin so that no more than 75% of applicants go to UT Austin under the 10% rule, which means that the 10% rule is more like 7 or 8%). UT takes race into account for filling those 25% of spots, and Fisher has alleged that this constitutes illegal discrimination.
BC
BC
12-15-2015, 04:05 PM
Changing the subject, does anyone know the nature of the injury suffered by future Stanford TE Kaden Smith:
[tweet]676586259066716163[/tweet]
[tweet]676586259066716163[/tweet]
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
12-15-2015, 08:23 PM
Oh no! Stanford now at #5 in Rivals rankings, having been passed by UDFG and Ole Miss.
Oh no! Stanford now at #5 in Rivals rankings, having been passed by UDFG and Ole Miss.
12-15-2015, 10:05 PM
(12-15-2015, 04:05 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:Changing the subject, does anyone know the nature of the injury suffered by future Stanford TE Kaden Smith:
[tweet]676586259066716163[/tweet]
I'm guessing it's his leg.
12-16-2015, 07:08 AM
At a more cynical time in Stanford FBall I would have gone with rickets.
12-16-2015, 09:02 AM
(12-15-2015, 10:05 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:[quote author=TrumpCard link=topic=9617.msg148474#msg148474 date=1450220756]
Changing the subject, does anyone know the nature of the injury suffered by future Stanford TE Kaden Smith:
[tweet]676586259066716163[/tweet]
I'm guessing it's his leg.
[/quote]
Looks like there are black straps to a post-Op Knee brace on his upper thigh, so I will guess he had something "minor". Knee procedures are not exactly trivial, but my guess would be there might have been a plan to do something or other after the season. After those types of procedures it is always best to avoid load bearing activities, and that probably created the need for the stylish crutches.
All just speculation from one photo though, could just be a brace to protect strained ligaments or whatever.
(12-15-2015, 10:05 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:[quote author=TrumpCard link=topic=9617.msg148474#msg148474 date=1450220756]
Changing the subject, does anyone know the nature of the injury suffered by future Stanford TE Kaden Smith:
[tweet]676586259066716163[/tweet]
I'm guessing it's his leg.
[/quote]
Looks like there are black straps to a post-Op Knee brace on his upper thigh, so I will guess he had something "minor". Knee procedures are not exactly trivial, but my guess would be there might have been a plan to do something or other after the season. After those types of procedures it is always best to avoid load bearing activities, and that probably created the need for the stylish crutches.
All just speculation from one photo though, could just be a brace to protect strained ligaments or whatever.
12-16-2015, 03:34 PM
Peus commits (I believe as a preferred walk-on)
https://twitter.com/bpeusjr/status/677228977669447680
BC
https://twitter.com/bpeusjr/status/677228977669447680
BC
Peus commits (I believe as a preferred walk-on)
https://twitter.com/bpeusjr/status/677228977669447680
BC
https://twitter.com/bpeusjr/status/677228977669447680
BC
12-18-2015, 05:43 PM
I've long thought that pigs would fly before Crawford commits to Stanford, but for those who were thinking that Stanford has a chance:
[tweet]677514571133747200[/tweet]
[tweet]677514571133747200[/tweet]
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
12-18-2015, 05:45 PM
This one is less ominous, but still puzzling. Maybe there is a month long winter period that allows for "independent study" or some such thing.
[tweet]677609035907010560[/tweet]
[tweet]677609035907010560[/tweet]
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
12-18-2015, 06:42 PM
And there goes David Long:
[tweet]678018906628362240[/tweet]
[tweet]678018906628362240[/tweet]
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
12-18-2015, 06:45 PM
Sad. But been coming so not a surprise just a brobdingnagian disappointment
12-18-2015, 08:54 PM
I wonder why.
Who would honestly ever go to Washington over Stanford...
Academics? Worried he won't get playing time?
Big loss for our class.
Who would honestly ever go to Washington over Stanford...
Academics? Worried he won't get playing time?
Big loss for our class.
I wonder why.
Who would honestly ever go to Washington over Stanford...
Academics? Worried he won't get playing time?
Big loss for our class.
Who would honestly ever go to Washington over Stanford...
Academics? Worried he won't get playing time?
Big loss for our class.
12-18-2015, 09:15 PM
Disappointing but I had given up hope on Long a while ago, given his recent comments. He would have been a fantastic pickup, but academics seems to get at least one highly desired player every cycle (one that we know about, at least).
Good to have lots of depth among the DBs.
Good to have lots of depth among the DBs.
Disappointing but I had given up hope on Long a while ago, given his recent comments. He would have been a fantastic pickup, but academics seems to get at least one highly desired player every cycle (one that we know about, at least).
Good to have lots of depth among the DBs.
Good to have lots of depth among the DBs.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »