he gone

creepycoug

UW_Doog_Bot said:

RatherBeBrewing said:

dtd said:

RatherBeBrewing said:

I see all these new posts about Junior Adams and I’m relieved to see that it’s just hot talk on the value of a college degree.


Oh no - wait... Oregon hired him? Well. Fuck. Why would we(?) want him(?)



My two thoughts:
1. A college degree is definitely worth it. Even if we forego all the non-tangible benefits of college and just use the raw averages readily available - with the hypothetical $100k of debt, it’s worth it. Unless you plan on living under ~12 years after graduation. Save your outlier examples, we do averages like civilized people.

2. Some of Lanning’s hires don’t make sense. But after Scott Frost all of Oregon’s WR coaches have been shitty, he’s the sixth one since 2016, so it might not matter. If he’s shitty like the rest have been at least its another notch on Oregon’s dicking-of-other-Pac-12-schools belt and a step up from hiring away Leach’s assistants.

1. Just not true, not today. Using averages from 2 decades ago when people made money writing for newspapers makes no sense. The cash me ousside girl made a million in a weekend showing her meth boobs. Trade schools make way more sense for the vast majority of people.

2. Memphis of the West

1. Your observational data aligns with teachers telling kids to learn how to add fractions or they’ll end up as plumbers digging in toilets - but fail to mention that the plumbers make twice as much money as them. However the data I’m referring to is new and shows that based on earnings just two years after graduation 76% of BA/BS degree holders are earning enough to where ten years after graduation they should have recouped their investment.
This doesn’t take into account the higher employment rates, health insurance rates, and the rates of not being in poverty. The study is from 2020/21 and didn’t take the rocketing inflation into consideration.
The 24% of those who don’t recoup in ten years should still come out ahead in the long run and the numbers are skewed by more expensive private and for profit institutions. The obvious majors are the ones with poor return: religious studies, anthropology, film, etc.

It’s still true, maybe not as obvious as in the past, but go to a state school and get a degree that isn’t 100% fluff and you’re going to be better off than most people without one.

2. I wish, Memphis had some monster offensive numbers. This feels more like an amalgamation of a watered down, poor man’s Saban/Kirby recruiting wins system, with a strong Jim Mora flavor Jr and Todd Graham aftertaste.

*sigh

Re: data

Yes, let's normalize our inherently non-normal data for kurtosis and skew. The overwhelming majority of wealth made that drives up the averages is made by less than 5% of graduate earners.

Odds are those guys were going to be successful anyways so it's opportunity cost as I mentioned.

Use the mode instead of the mean.



Now reverse the process for non-graduates to adjust for people that college would have never benefited anyways.

Aka you can't fix stupid.

We haven't even talked about market projection and demographics out over tim.

TLDR YMMV and correlation ain't causation.

I have come around to agreeing with this view, overcoming a huge emotional bias on my part in the process. But at today's prices it's hard to justify for at least 50% of the college-attending population.

There is too much money in financial aid right now that draws too many people into the game. Then again, you don't want it to be a rich man's game either. There is a rough cut people use to describe what it used to be and what it is now by referencing Harvard: 50 years ago Harvard was 75% rich kids of varying degrees of intelligence (see the Kennedys) and 25% brilliant kids. Today, it's flipped, and even Harvard admissions references the "happy bottom 25%", meaning wealthy and hooked kids who will graduate in the bottom 25% and be happy just to have the degree as a social credential.

I often wonder if we need to go back to that. Let the rich have their spots because in the end they pay for everything, but make sure there is a mechanism to find and develop talent coming from various socio-economic backgrounds. There are too many "middle bell curve" kids spending money - the government's or their parent's - going to college and barely getting anything out of it.

The thing that makes this topic difficult is the same thing that makes most topics difficult: subtlety. There are soft reasons for getting an education that goes beyond ROI. There's the experience of it and the other things that are harder to pinpoint. If you go to school with smart kids, that will rub off too. There's little question that it can make you better all around even if you're not that gifted to begin with. But at what cost?

There are legions of kids going to college on mom & dad's dime who are entirely checking the box. I mean, check the fucking box and are barely more intellectually developed than when they got there. Education can be a great thing but you have to actually get one and you have to make it so that it is economically feasible. I myself don't care about the 4-year ROI measure. I play the the long game. But you can't be saddled with six-figure debt for a bachelor's degree.

backthepack

HFNY said:

The question is, who do DeBoer / Grubb hire as WR coach now? Is it possible a WR coach can walk (coach) and chew gum (recruit well) at the same time?

Grant Heard please. Worked with Deboer at Indiana. Currently the Co-OC/Wr coach at Indiana. Recruited DK as well. Only making 425k.

HFNY

I'd be happy to see him paid $650k but not sure if DeBoer would make him Co-OC?

HairyBallsDawg

backthepack said:

HFNY said:

The question is, who do DeBoer / Grubb hire as WR coach now? Is it possible a WR coach can walk (coach) and chew gum (recruit well) at the same time?

Grant Heard please. Worked with Deboer at Indiana. Currently the Co-OC/Wr coach at Indiana. Recruited DK as well. Only making 425k.

I'm intrigued. Looks like he was also the WR coach at Ole Miss from 2012-2016 so he was Stringfellow's position coach there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Heard

Kingdome_Urinals

creepycoug said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

RatherBeBrewing said:

dtd said:

RatherBeBrewing said:

I see all these new posts about Junior Adams and I’m relieved to see that it’s just hot talk on the value of a college degree.


Oh no - wait... Oregon hired him? Well. Fuck. Why would we(?) want him(?)



My two thoughts:
1. A college degree is definitely worth it. Even if we forego all the non-tangible benefits of college and just use the raw averages readily available - with the hypothetical $100k of debt, it’s worth it. Unless you plan on living under ~12 years after graduation. Save your outlier examples, we do averages like civilized people.

2. Some of Lanning’s hires don’t make sense. But after Scott Frost all of Oregon’s WR coaches have been shitty, he’s the sixth one since 2016, so it might not matter. If he’s shitty like the rest have been at least its another notch on Oregon’s dicking-of-other-Pac-12-schools belt and a step up from hiring away Leach’s assistants.

1. Just not true, not today. Using averages from 2 decades ago when people made money writing for newspapers makes no sense. The cash me ousside girl made a million in a weekend showing her meth boobs. Trade schools make way more sense for the vast majority of people.

2. Memphis of the West

1. Your observational data aligns with teachers telling kids to learn how to add fractions or they’ll end up as plumbers digging in toilets - but fail to mention that the plumbers make twice as much money as them. However the data I’m referring to is new and shows that based on earnings just two years after graduation 76% of BA/BS degree holders are earning enough to where ten years after graduation they should have recouped their investment.
This doesn’t take into account the higher employment rates, health insurance rates, and the rates of not being in poverty. The study is from 2020/21 and didn’t take the rocketing inflation into consideration.
The 24% of those who don’t recoup in ten years should still come out ahead in the long run and the numbers are skewed by more expensive private and for profit institutions. The obvious majors are the ones with poor return: religious studies, anthropology, film, etc.

It’s still true, maybe not as obvious as in the past, but go to a state school and get a degree that isn’t 100% fluff and you’re going to be better off than most people without one.

2. I wish, Memphis had some monster offensive numbers. This feels more like an amalgamation of a watered down, poor man’s Saban/Kirby recruiting wins system, with a strong Jim Mora flavor Jr and Todd Graham aftertaste.

*sigh

Re: data

Yes, let's normalize our inherently non-normal data for kurtosis and skew. The overwhelming majority of wealth made that drives up the averages is made by less than 5% of graduate earners.

Odds are those guys were going to be successful anyways so it's opportunity cost as I mentioned.

Use the mode instead of the mean.



Now reverse the process for non-graduates to adjust for people that college would have never benefited anyways.

Aka you can't fix stupid.

We haven't even talked about market projection and demographics out over tim.

TLDR YMMV and correlation ain't causation.

I have come around to agreeing with this view, overcoming a huge emotional bias on my part in the process. But at today's prices it's hard to justify for at least 50% of the college-attending population.

There is too much money in financial aid right now that draws too many people into the game. Then again, you don't want it to be a rich man's game either. There is a rough cut people use to describe what it used to be and what it is now by referencing Harvard: 50 years ago Harvard was 75% rich kids of varying degrees of intelligence (see the Kennedys) and 25% brilliant kids. Today, it's flipped, and even Harvard admissions references the "happy bottom 25%", meaning wealthy and hooked kids who will graduate in the bottom 25% and be happy just to have the degree as a social credential.

I often wonder if we need to go back to that. Let the rich have their spots because in the end they pay for everything, but make sure there is a mechanism to find and develop talent coming from various socio-economic backgrounds. There are too many "middle bell curve" kids spending money - the government's or their parent's - going to college and barely getting anything out of it.

The thing that makes this topic difficult is the same thing that makes most topics difficult: subtlety. There are soft reasons for getting an education that goes beyond ROI. There's the experience of it and the other things that are harder to pinpoint. If you go to school with smart kids, that will rub off too. There's little question that it can make you better all around even if you're not that gifted to begin with. But at what cost?

There are legions of kids going to college on mom & dad's dime who are entirely checking the box. I mean, check the fucking box and are barely more intellectually developed than when they got there. Education can be a great thing but you have to actually get one and you have to make it so that it is economically feasible. I myself don't care about the 4-year ROI measure. I play the the long game. But you can't be saddled with six-figure debt for a bachelor's degree.

College is simply associated with social prestige and higher earnings. Even if college grads don't always make more money, it doesn't really matter. Mass higher education is a social norm in the developed world and middle-class people will do whatever it takes to maintain social prestige.

Most jobs, even prestigious jobs, don't actually require discrete and measurable cognitive skills. They do however, prefer people with higher credentials because of socitety-wide academic credential inflation.

College is also preferable for middle-class mating. Not just for the opportunity for to hook up with enormous varieties of potential partners, but also for social prestige thereafter. Try getting an attractive, upwardly-mobile girlfriend without a college degree and decent-seeming job. People with more education also tend to have more successful marriages and create more stable families. College tends to be the crucible of this social process.

Lastly, the environment of college is considered inherently pleasurable by many people.

Emoterman

theknowledge said:

Emoterman said:

theknowledge said:

RaceBannon said:

People forget that colleges are under no legal obligation to provide a football program

Just a few more tweaks and its dead for good

The emotional attachment of a 150 year tradition and people's love of Alma Mater U doesn't translate to the Montlake Junior Seahawks

The players will never get better pay than they get now over and under the table

And I've been told a college education is valuable except when it isn't I guess

I'd have loved a free education. I made my own business decision at 19 and decided 100's of thousands of debt wasn't a good plan for me.

Yup, thats me. Stacking laundry soap. I also have a healthy 410K, I bought a house and property with a pretty cheap mortgage, paid in cash for the build of another house on my property that my mom retired in and outside of my mortgage I have no debt. I'm certainly not rich but after being a drunk and a coke head for my early adulthood I haven't been entirely stupid with what money I did make. You don't need to go to college if you're not ashamed of stacking cans, digging ditches, building fences, pouring drinks or shoveling shit for a living. All of which I've done at one point or another. Someone's got to do it. Maybe Biden will come through like he said and get that debt off your record. I don't have that problem. I know, take it to the Pump.

Hold on, so, it's not a joke, you actually are a night stock boy? Union gig for those sweet bennies? (ILTCTB)

LawDawg1

ntxduck said:

theknowledge said:

Emoterman said:

theknowledge said:

RaceBannon said:

People forget that colleges are under no legal obligation to provide a football program

Just a few more tweaks and its dead for good

The emotional attachment of a 150 year tradition and people's love of Alma Mater U doesn't translate to the Montlake Junior Seahawks

The players will never get better pay than they get now over and under the table

And I've been told a college education is valuable except when it isn't I guess

I'd have loved a free education. I made my own business decision at 19 and decided 100's of thousands of debt wasn't a good plan for me.

Yup, thats me. Stacking laundry soap. I also have a healthy 410K, I bought a house and property with a pretty cheap mortgage, paid in cash for the build of another house on my property that my mom retired in and outside of my mortgage I have no debt. I'm certainly not rich but after being a drunk and a coke head for my early adulthood I haven't been entirely stupid with what money I did make. You don't need to go to college if you're not ashamed of stacking cans, digging ditches, building fences, pouring drinks or shoveling shit for a living. All of which I've done at one point or another. Someone's got to do it. Maybe Biden will come through like he said and get that debt off your record. I don't have that problem. I know, take it to the Pump.

Whatever you got to tell yourself to not face the reality of earlier poor decisions, man

I bet you thought this wouldn’t backfire in your fucking face. Sad!

RatherBeBrewing

Kingdome_Urinals said:

creepycoug said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

RatherBeBrewing said:

dtd said:

RatherBeBrewing said:

I see all these new posts about Junior Adams and I’m relieved to see that it’s just hot talk on the value of a college degree.


Oh no - wait... Oregon hired him? Well. Fuck. Why would we(?) want him(?)



My two thoughts:
1. A college degree is definitely worth it. Even if we forego all the non-tangible benefits of college and just use the raw averages readily available - with the hypothetical $100k of debt, it’s worth it. Unless you plan on living under ~12 years after graduation. Save your outlier examples, we do averages like civilized people.

2. Some of Lanning’s hires don’t make sense. But after Scott Frost all of Oregon’s WR coaches have been shitty, he’s the sixth one since 2016, so it might not matter. If he’s shitty like the rest have been at least its another notch on Oregon’s dicking-of-other-Pac-12-schools belt and a step up from hiring away Leach’s assistants.

1. Just not true, not today. Using averages from 2 decades ago when people made money writing for newspapers makes no sense. The cash me ousside girl made a million in a weekend showing her meth boobs. Trade schools make way more sense for the vast majority of people.

2. Memphis of the West

1. Your observational data aligns with teachers telling kids to learn how to add fractions or they’ll end up as plumbers digging in toilets - but fail to mention that the plumbers make twice as much money as them. However the data I’m referring to is new and shows that based on earnings just two years after graduation 76% of BA/BS degree holders are earning enough to where ten years after graduation they should have recouped their investment.
This doesn’t take into account the higher employment rates, health insurance rates, and the rates of not being in poverty. The study is from 2020/21 and didn’t take the rocketing inflation into consideration.
The 24% of those who don’t recoup in ten years should still come out ahead in the long run and the numbers are skewed by more expensive private and for profit institutions. The obvious majors are the ones with poor return: religious studies, anthropology, film, etc.

It’s still true, maybe not as obvious as in the past, but go to a state school and get a degree that isn’t 100% fluff and you’re going to be better off than most people without one.

2. I wish, Memphis had some monster offensive numbers. This feels more like an amalgamation of a watered down, poor man’s Saban/Kirby recruiting wins system, with a strong Jim Mora flavor Jr and Todd Graham aftertaste.

*sigh

Re: data

Yes, let's normalize our inherently non-normal data for kurtosis and skew. The overwhelming majority of wealth made that drives up the averages is made by less than 5% of graduate earners.

Odds are those guys were going to be successful anyways so it's opportunity cost as I mentioned.

Use the mode instead of the mean.



Now reverse the process for non-graduates to adjust for people that college would have never benefited anyways.

Aka you can't fix stupid.

We haven't even talked about market projection and demographics out over tim.

TLDR YMMV and correlation ain't causation.

I have come around to agreeing with this view, overcoming a huge emotional bias on my part in the process. But at today's prices it's hard to justify for at least 50% of the college-attending population.

There is too much money in financial aid right now that draws too many people into the game. Then again, you don't want it to be a rich man's game either. There is a rough cut people use to describe what it used to be and what it is now by referencing Harvard: 50 years ago Harvard was 75% rich kids of varying degrees of intelligence (see the Kennedys) and 25% brilliant kids. Today, it's flipped, and even Harvard admissions references the "happy bottom 25%", meaning wealthy and hooked kids who will graduate in the bottom 25% and be happy just to have the degree as a social credential.

I often wonder if we need to go back to that. Let the rich have their spots because in the end they pay for everything, but make sure there is a mechanism to find and develop talent coming from various socio-economic backgrounds. There are too many "middle bell curve" kids spending money - the government's or their parent's - going to college and barely getting anything out of it.

The thing that makes this topic difficult is the same thing that makes most topics difficult: subtlety. There are soft reasons for getting an education that goes beyond ROI. There's the experience of it and the other things that are harder to pinpoint. If you go to school with smart kids, that will rub off too. There's little question that it can make you better all around even if you're not that gifted to begin with. But at what cost?

There are legions of kids going to college on mom & dad's dime who are entirely checking the box. I mean, check the fucking box and are barely more intellectually developed than when they got there. Education can be a great thing but you have to actually get one and you have to make it so that it is economically feasible. I myself don't care about the 4-year ROI measure. I play the the long game. But you can't be saddled with six-figure debt for a bachelor's degree.

College is also preferable for middle-class mating.

Lastly, the environment of college is considered inherently pleasurable by many people.

I think most of us enjoyed the middle-class mating, but let’s not bash the lower-class banging that direct-to-workforce teens partake in.

Being around a bunch of 18-24ish year olds who are living away from their parents for the first time is an education in social development and teaches you important life skills. You don’t have to go to a four year university to get them all, but it’s an unspoken part of the package. Most middle-class American 18 year olds are sheltered, naive, and don’t understand shit about how the world works - college is like the real world, but with training wheels and re-dos.

ChillyDawg

https://twitter.com/Realdawg2021/status/1477816758463614977

1. Thomas Ford, UW Offensive Analyst
   
2. Jermaine Kearse, Former UW receiver
   
3. Joel Filani, Texas Tech Receivers Coach
   
4. Kirby Moore, Fresno State Offensive Coordinator
   
5. Tyler Osborne, Sacramento State Wide receivers coach

From UW Daily:

Adams was a key figure in recruiting sophomore wide receivers Jalen McMillan and Rome Odunze to UW. The two former four-star wideouts will likely follow Adams to Oregon. Four-star wide receiver Germie Bernard headlined UW’s class on early signing day in December, but his future is certainly up in the air following the Adams news, along with the rest of the Huskies’ pass-catchers.

bananasnblondes

ChillyDawg said:

https://twitter.com/Realdawg2021/status/1477816758463614977

1. Thomas Ford, UW Offensive Analyst
   
2. Jermaine Kearse, Former UW receiver
   
3. Joel Filani, Texas Tech Receivers Coach
   
4. Kirby Moore, Fresno State Offensive Coordinator
   
5. Tyler Osborne, Sacramento State Wide receivers coach

From UW Daily:

Adams was a key figure in recruiting sophomore wide receivers Jalen McMillan and Rome Odunze to UW. The two former four-star wideouts will likely follow Adams to Oregon. Four-star wide receiver Germie Bernard headlined UW’s class on early signing day in December, but his future is certainly up in the air following the Adams news, along with the rest of the Huskies’ pass-catchers.

Thomas Ford would be fun because FSP WRs would still be encouraged to leave the state. Also, Ford recently liked a commitment tweet by a kid who picked UCLA over UW