UNC Responses today are strong, massive
KT called a Congressional hearin Apr 13, 3:19 p.m.
Oh please. A lack of character? I noticed you didn't call out your fellow tarholes when they were mocking Duke's QB who transferred due to his mother's brain cancer. Hypocrite much, numbnuts?
RamfatherRedux Apr 13, 12:45 p.m.
97% over the CNN threshold KatY girl...what's ever more hilar-e-ous is you girlz going all in on Willingham's info like it was the King James version of the bible...you grilz got taken to the woodshed on this and it's hurtin so bad all you can do is MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!...no go sit down like a good little boy and quit eating your boogers...
BTW, thanks for admitting my superiority once again. After I skinned you 8 ways from Sunday on a lack of character I noticed you went running to the mods...
Objective Scientist Apr 13, 12:42 p.m.
Yes... I am familiar with both the "expert" reports and Willingham's assertions. If I had the opportunity I would have a set of questions for both. I believe the "truth" of the matter lies somewhere between what Willingham states, what the "experts" conclude, and what the UNC administration claims. I find it very difficult to believe Willingham's 60% and would like to see the "evidence", the data, the research that supports that percentage. The "expert" opinions, even if they are valid totally or only to a small degree are tainted by the fact that UNC administrators selected them, hired them, paid them. I do not believe UNC administrators who claim that everything is 100% "above board" and that no issues exist with regard to the academic qualifications of athletes admitted to UNC. Set aside the specific charges such as Willingham's 60% number, likewise with the validity of the ability of the test used to measure reading ability at specific grade levels, etc. Ask one simple question: "Have some - SOME - EVEN a FEW - athletes been admitted to UNC who were significantly, seriously deficient in the academic knowledge and skills to succeed in the typical UNC classroom for any legitimate degree? I believe there is sufficient evidence to support a resounding "YES" answer to that question. If you look at a specific TEAM - football and/or basketball - the "few" becomes a much larger portion than the "few" is of the total of 700-800 athletes across all sports. It seems the admission of severely academically deficient athletes is "defended" and "justified" by claiming to - and actually providing - HUGE amounts of support for such athletes. Such support is both ineffective and wasted on those who only want to "play ball", have no motivation/desire to be a student, and for whom the focus is on increasing their draft status for the professional ranks.
RamfatherRedux Apr 13, 12:39 p.m.
Duke troll give "credibility" a bad name...903, you've been learnt and burnt so much in here credibility is going to sue you for defamation of character...
903 Free Paul Frampton 2 Apr 13, 11:59 a.m.
will lose all credibility
Unc troll taking about someone losing credibility...
KT called a Congressional hearin Apr 13, 9:10 a.m.
So you're going to crow victory when it's determined that the number was only 30%? Figures
RamfatherRedux Apr 13, 8:18 a.m.
As I said before...Willingham let the cow out of the barn and now is trying to defend it. She can't walk it back or will lose all credibility, but this has gotten way beyond her control and took on a life of it's own. She got in over her head, and she is going to drown in the facts much to the howling of CrackPride cultists...
unc70 Apr 13, 8:01 a.m.
Did you read the expert analyses? Remember her claim that 60% read below
TTCP Apr 13, 12:58 a.m.
ewenc IS a farce.
unbiasedaccfan Apr 12, 7:59 p.m.
I assume since UNC officials had such a "strong reply" that we should forget that UNC has already admitted to no show classes, students copying and cut and paste papers, an athletic dept that steered marginal athletes to classes with no attendance and a promised A to help remain eligible. What a sham.
Please sign in to post.
The Dan Lebatard Show
Under Center with McNabb and Malone
— Fri 9:27 a.m.
— Fri 9:20 a.m.
— Fri 9:16 a.m.
— Fri 8:51 a.m.
— Fri 8:51 a.m.
— Fri 8:33 a.m.
— Fri 8:05 a.m.
— Fri 7:57 a.m.
— Fri 7:23 a.m.
— Fri 5:10 a.m.
— Fri 1:25 a.m.
— Fri 1:14 a.m.
— Fri 1:10 a.m.
— Fri 1:03 a.m.
— Fri 1:03 a.m.
— Fri 12:58 a.m.
— Fri 12:19 a.m.
— Fri 12:03 a.m.