Speaking of brain-dead people....

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:38 am

We have a 100% graduation rate in basketball, so I find it hard to believe that the other sports combined are at 30% or so to drag it down to 52% overall.

By the way, Presidents Cup anyone??

UMclassof2002 · Post by **UMclassof2002** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:51 am

CelticCat wrote: By the way, Presidents Cup anyone??

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:50 pm

http://www.bigskyconf.com/section_front ... typeid=738

http://www.bigskyconf.com/section_front ... typeid=738

http://www.bigskyconf.com/section_front ... typeid=738

June 29th:

The Sterling Savings Bank Presidents Cup will reside in Bozeman, Mont., for the next year.

I'm sorry the cup on campus proves your horribly thrown together image a complete traveshamockery.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:50 pm

2002,

One semester does not a "Daddy" make. I stated A) our GPA was OVER 3.0 (will attempt to get last years final #) and B) we've accomplished that for 9 years!

Could you please ask your "gal" (does he know you refer to him that way?) to provide dUMb's collective GPA for the past 9 years, please?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:54 pm

Comparing GPAs between the two schools is comparing apples to oranges. It's like trying to figure out who is taller by quoting one person's height in inches and the other's in centimeters.

GavinDonos · Post by **GavinDonos** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:59 pm

UMclassof2002 wrote:But when the proof is provided, I require you to admit publicly that UM is your daddy. You may have a slight (.05) edge in cumulative GPA, but that is so small as to not really even count. On the other hand, an 18% difference in graduation rate = bona fide ownership.

Keep in mind we lost almost half of the football team a few years back and when Potera-Haskens was a coach we had a lot of lady bball players transfer out, not to mention that mick had a period where he was losing a lot of players. All of those count as student athletes that didn't graduate. These stats can be easily skewed and we all know how these friz trolls work, you can't really trust anything they put on the table as far as comprehensive statistics go.

MSU student athletes have proven time and again that they are among the tops in the country as far as academic achievement goes. They have earned the reputation they have.

And whats the big deal about graduating from UM anyway? All you need is a pool cue and a personalized beer stein.

UMclassof2002 · Post by **UMclassof2002** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:29 pm

El_Gato wrote:Sources for your *ahem* claims, 2002? Your graduation rate info needs a little support; I'm sorry that I just can't take your word for it.

Here's the link to the report:

http://www.ncaa.org/grad_rates/2004/d1/

Here are Montana's graduation stats for 2004:

UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRESHMAN-COHORT GRADUATION RATES All Students Student-Athletes #
1997-98 Graduation Rate 45% 70%
Four-Class Average 43% 59%

and here are Montana State's graduation stats:

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY-BOZEMAN

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRESHMAN-COHORT GRADUATION RATES All Students Student-Athletes #
1997-98 Graduation Rate 44% 52%
Four-Class Average 40% 50%

The bolded numbers are the percentage of student athletes who enrolled by 97-98 who had graduated by 2004 (the numbers are calculated on a 6 year cohort).

70% - 52%, Montana wins.

Your GPA argument is irrelevant when you consider you are barely graduating half of your players.

No charge.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:38 pm

Great.

You "graduate" more kids than we do, but our kids are getting better grades...

Tells me it's a sh!t-load easier to earn a degree at dUMb than it is at MSU. Can't have one without the other, 2002. Reminds me of my brother-in-law who would've needed 2.5 more years to get a Business degree at MSU but got one at dUMb in 2 SEMESTERS... Yeah, the Harvard of the Northwest...

The same place where athletes can spend 4 months flunking out but get themselves academically eligible over Christmas break. Yeah, a real tough academic institution...

And ACADEMICS brought DOWN your #'s for the President's Cup. So, yippee, you found 1 category where you have an edge; obviously you have far others where you suck.

UMclassof2002 · Post by **UMclassof2002** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:41 pm

GavinDonos wrote:
UMclassof2002 wrote:But when the proof is provided, I require you to admit publicly that UM is your daddy. You may have a slight (.05) edge in cumulative GPA, but that is so small as to not really even count. On the other hand, an 18% difference in graduation rate = bona fide ownership.
Keep in mind we lost almost half of the football team a few years back and when Potera-Haskens was a coach we had a lot of lady bball players transfer out, not to mention that mick had a period where he was losing a lot of players. All of those count as student athletes that didn't graduate.

If there is point to this statement, please feel free to share.

UM is subject to the same statistical analysis that MSU. I'm sure the NCAA is not influencing the stats in our favor.

UMclassof2002 · Post by **UMclassof2002** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:57 pm

El_Gato wrote:Great.

You "graduate" more kids than we do, but our kids are getting better grades...

Tells me it's a sh!t-load easier to earn a degree at dUMb than it is at MSU. Can't have one without the other, 2002. Reminds me of my brother-in-law who would've needed 2.5 more years to get a Business degree at MSU but got one at dUMb in 2 SEMESTERS... Yeah, the Harvard of the Northwest... The same place where athletes can spend 4 months flunking out but get themselves academically eligible over Christmas break. Yeah, a real tough academic institution...

And ACADEMICS brought DOWN your #'s for the President's Cup. So, yippee, you found 1 category where you have an edge; obviously you have far others where you suck.

Dude, here's what has been established so far:

1. MSU has a 3% advantage in cumultive GPA. This is your justification for pronouncing MSU the superior institution. lol?
2. UM has an 18% advantage in graduation rates.

So what you are saying is that the schools requirements are higher, but your athletes are not strong enough academically to graduate?

Is that something you want to brag about?

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:15 pm

El_Gato wrote:Tells me it's a sh!t-load easier to earn a degree at dUMb than it is at MSU. Can't have one without the other, 2002. Reminds me of my brother-in-law who would've needed 2.5 more years to get a Business degree at MSU but got one at dUMb in 2 SEMESTERS...

Sorry Gato, but I'm going to have to slightly call b/s on this one (I say "slightly" because I don't doubt that the story is technically true, but there has to be more to it than what you've told us).

First let's start with a basic truism: at any school, business is not that difficult of a major. I'm not knocking it; accounting was my undergraduate major, and I certainly respect my own education, but compared to law school and my LL.M. program, it was a walk in the park, and would have been had I gone to MSU, Harvard, or anywhere else. It's just not that difficult of a discipline, regardless of the institution.

The reason I say this (knowing that I will surely face the wrath of an overly-sensitive business student somewhere who is reading this) is to make the point that no one, at any school, should truly need more than four years to finish an undergrad business degree. Anyone who spends more than four years to finish such a degree must have either (1) changed majors, (2) double majored, (3) transferred from another school and lost some credits in the process, (4) failed some courses along the way, (5) not taken certain required courses when they were offered, thus getting themselves off schedule to graduate on time, or (6) not gone to school full-time. (There are probably other scenarios I'm not thinking of, but you get the idea.)

Anyway, my point is, I don't know your brother-in-law's story, but there has to be a reason why it would have taken him so long to get a degree from MSU, and it has nothing to do with one school's curriculum being "easier" or "harder" than the other's. Maybe he changed majors; maybe he missed some required courses that were prerequisites for others that he needed, and he was able to get them more quickly at UM than at MSU, etc. At the end of the day, the bottom line is that the basic requirements for a business degree at both schools are comparable, and neither is that difficult.

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:19 pm

Alright I'll point out a couple things in your argument.

First, note that:
# Only student-athletes receiving athletics aid are included in this report.

Also:
- Graduation Rates of Those Exhausting Eligibility (Student-Athletes # entering during 1988-89 through 1997-98)
Number Exhausting Eligibility = 264 Graduation Rate = 92%

So of the players that actually finished their careers at MSU, 92% of them graduated.

UM is saying that if you don't graduate, you failed out. That isn't the case a lot of the time. But with our head coaching changes over this time period, I bet a lot of players were dismissed or transfered, moreso than UM.

These numbers don't really mean a lot. Until you can prove that MSU has had more kids flunk out of school, you have no basis for your argument.

No charge.

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:23 pm

Also, straight from the report:

It is important to note that graduation rates are affected by a number of factors: some students may work part-time and need more than six years to graduate, some may leave school for a year or two to work or travel, some may transfer to another college or university, or some may be dismissed for academic deficiencies.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:25 pm

Grizlaw wrote:
El_Gato wrote:Tells me it's a sh!t-load easier to earn a degree at dUMb than it is at MSU. Can't have one without the other, 2002. Reminds me of my brother-in-law who would've needed 2.5 more years to get a Business degree at MSU but got one at dUMb in 2 SEMESTERS...
Sorry Gato, but I'm going to have to slightly call b/s on this one (I say "slightly" because I don't doubt that the story is technically true, but there has to be more to it than what you've told us).

First let's start with a basic truism: at any school, business is not that difficult of a major. I'm not knocking it; accounting was my undergraduate major, and I certainly respect my own education, but compared to law school and my LL.M. program, it was a walk in the park, and would have been had I gone to MSU, Harvard, or anywhere else. It's just not that difficult of a discipline, regardless of the institution.

The reason I say this (knowing that I will surely face the wrath of an overly-sensitive business student somewhere who is reading this) is to make the point that no one, at any school, should truly need more than four years to finish an undergrad business degree. Anyone who spends more than four years to finish such a degree must have either (1) changed majors, (2) double majored, (3) transferred from another school and lost some credits in the process, (4) failed some courses along the way, (5) not taken certain required courses when they were offered, thus getting themselves off schedule to graduate on time, or (6) not gone to school full-time. (There are probably other scenarios I'm not thinking of, but you get the idea.)

Anyway, my point is, I don't know your brother-in-law's story, but there has to be a reason why it would have taken him so long to get a degree from MSU, and it has nothing to do with one school's curriculum being "easier" or "harder" than the other's. Maybe he changed majors; maybe he missed some required courses that were prerequisites for others that he needed, and he was able to get them more quickly at UM than at MSU, etc. At the end of the day, the bottom line is that the basic requirements for a business degree at both schools are comparable, and neither is that difficult.

Pssst. Dude! We're supposed to be out there telling anyone who will listen how hard accounting is. If everybody else figures out that a reasonably disciplined monkey can do it, we're screwed!

[In a loud, booming voice] So as I was saying, although my Chem E classes my freshman year were tough, things went to a whole new level of difficulty over the next four years plus a summer during my time pursuing the holy grail of academic achievements: an accounting degree.

UMclassof2002 · Post by **UMclassof2002** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:28 pm

Grizlaw wrote:
El_Gato wrote:Tells me it's a sh!t-load easier to earn a degree at dUMb than it is at MSU. Can't have one without the other, 2002. Reminds me of my brother-in-law who would've needed 2.5 more years to get a Business degree at MSU but got one at dUMb in 2 SEMESTERS...
Sorry Gato, but I'm going to have to slightly call b/s on this one (I say "slightly" because I don't doubt that the story is technically true, but there has to be more to it than what you've told us).

First let's start with a basic truism: at any school, business is not that difficult of a major. I'm not knocking it; accounting was my undergraduate major, and I certainly respect my own education, but compared to law school and my LL.M. program, it was a walk in the park, and would have been had I gone to MSU, Harvard, or anywhere else. It's just not that difficult of a discipline, regardless of the institution.

The reason I say this (knowing that I will surely face the wrath of an overly-sensitive business student somewhere who is reading this) is to make the point that no one, at any school, should truly need more than four years to finish an undergrad business degree. Anyone who spends more than four years to finish such a degree must have either (1) changed majors, (2) double majored, (3) transferred from another school and lost some credits in the process, (4) failed some courses along the way, (5) not taken certain required courses when they were offered, thus getting themselves off schedule to graduate on time, or (6) not gone to school full-time. (There are probably other scenarios I'm not thinking of, but you get the idea.)

(7) Just moving to Missoula made him smarter

UMclassof2002 · Post by **UMclassof2002** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:29 pm

CelticCat wrote:Also, straight from the report:

It is important to note that graduation rates are affected by a number of factors: some students may work part-time and need more than six years to graduate, some may leave school for a year or two to work or travel, some may transfer to another college or university, or some may be dismissed for academic deficiencies.

Again, these are universal factors.

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:32 pm

UMclassof2002 wrote:
CelticCat wrote:Also, straight from the report:

It is important to note that graduation rates are affected by a number of factors: some students may work part-time and need more than six years to graduate, some may leave school for a year or two to work or travel, some may transfer to another college or university, or some may be dismissed for academic deficiencies.
Again, these are universal factors.

But it doesn't mean that exactly x% of everyones graduation problems are from this. It is going to vary from school to school.

I would be the IA schools get hurt by transfers quite a bit more than we do.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:34 pm

UMclassof2002 wrote:
CelticCat wrote:Also, straight from the report:

It is important to note that graduation rates are affected by a number of factors: some students may work part-time and need more than six years to graduate, some may leave school for a year or two to work or travel, some may transfer to another college or university, or some may be dismissed for academic deficiencies.
Again, these are universal factors.

They are universal factors, but they skew the results in such a way that, without removing the impact of those factors, a comparison of the relative academic strengths of each school is impossible.

Of course, that is true for this entire argument, for the most part.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:34 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Pssst. Dude! We're supposed to be out there telling anyone who will listen how hard accounting is. If everybody else figures out that a reasonably disciplined monkey can do it, we're screwed!

[In a loud, booming voice] So as I was saying, although my Chem E classes my freshman year were tough, things went to a whole new level of difficulty over the next four years plus a summer during my time pursuing the holy grail of academic achievements: an accounting degree.

Er, yeah, that was what I meant.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:37 pm

UMclassof2002 wrote:
Grizlaw wrote:...(5) not taken certain required courses when they were offered, thus getting themselves off schedule to graduate on time, or (6) not gone to school full-time. (There are probably other scenarios I'm not thinking of, but you get the idea.)

(7) Just moving to Missoula made him smarter

Sweet.

--GL (never fails)