dukkbill

Thanks. That is very useful. So based on those statements, LSU gets about 65 MM from its boosters, but those boosters do not directly pay any expenses.

That appears to be about 5th in the conference with Texas at the high end (167MM) and south Carolina at the low end of about 17MM. LSU seems to be about 7th in the conference on football revenue

Perhaps more important, what do you see as a trend? It looks like those contributions are declining by about 17 percent at LSU

quote:

---

I'm not ranting, I'm just trying to understand when GPAs and standardized tests matter and when they don't

---

Admissions to law school are where those two will heavily matter; and that starts the process to take the next steps where those achievements will be inportant to screen candidates

quote:

---

Utilize some of the law schools in the SEC. LSU, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Alabama, Texas. etc.

---

First, it’s not Ivys as a block — it’s Harvard Yale and Columbia. They are the only ones with more than 4 justices. Michigan would actually be next rather than another Ivy

Also, there is a big difference in the selectivity of those schools as well. In terms of the average applicant, two of those schools likely have very similar achievement and credentials as Notre Dame, which has a siting justice

It’s still individual achievement that should matter, but where you start has a great impact on where you are able to finish. That’s why the big 3 can dominate. It’s the track to get the achievements of clerkships, professorships etc. I think you would have to change that system to get candidates that are strong applicant's from other schools

Didn't FSU have this problem in the late 80s and early 90s. Mowery and Thomas missed some close field goals against Miami that could have won games.

quote:

---

law degree is from UVa

---

So how do you think this plays out?

quote:

---

Did you unironically compare Moses to Angel Reese on a public forum?

---

I think Jeff Teague did it, but it was meant as a rib. Moses caught flack about padding his stats with rebounds, but he shot 49.5% and had a 19% ORB rate over a very long career.

quote:

---

Who would be her NBA comp?

---

Reese is a tough comp b/c the efficiency and turnovers usually don't translate to long careers in the NBA.

I'd say the best statistical comp is probably a young Boogie Cousins. He turned it over a lot in his first years, and also shot very inefficiently. He still put up respectable boards and ppg, but largely because of volume.

He also shot from average at 8.4 feet, so he is taking a few harder shots. Boogie also got better, but Reese's restricted area shooting is only improving marginally, and she hasn't shown a midrange game of note.

ETA: i went back to see if there is a comp in college, and it was just as difficult to find a modern era player that was shooting that much so inefficiently, turning the ball over and staying on the court. The only real comp statistically was back in the 60s with Ray Kosanke of Stanford. There were some players that had some bad years, e.g. Chris Washburn at NC State his freshman year, but he did finish better and like Boogie improved.

Most NBA players don't stay on the court with that efficiency at finishing. Joel Pryzbilla had a notable awful year, but he bounced back to a decent restricted area percentage the next year.

There really isn't a good NBA comp when you look at efficiency and turnovers. I don't watch enough WNBA to know about historical "style" comps, but the few players that could stay on the court with similar efficiency and turnover margins were LaTasha Byers or Rebekka Brunson. Neither were given that much of an offensive role though.

Reese's standout stat is generally ORB%. In the NBA, Andre Drummond makes a living on having that skill, but he is much more efficient and less turnover prone.

quote:

---

You guys seem to think

---

Therein lies the difficulty. I don’t know what anyone else thinks. We don’t have a secret strategy thread where we coordinate our posts

Ed brings good content so I try to read his threads but they unfortunately always seem to get derailed by the same people

quote:

---

just want to know if they're using the 163 number to sensationalize or if it vaguely resembles the actual number of worst cases?

---

Yes, and I thought Ed answered that question. I don’t know if it was in response to you, but he stated earlier that we don’t know and opined the reason was it was early in the investigation. I have nothing to add to that

We know the state contends 163 were rescued with many suffering abuse neglect and exploitation. Additionally three people were charged

You rescue kids it’s laudable. You convict perverts beyond a reasonable doubt of indecent assault on a minor then you as the people’s representative are doing your job

quote:

---

Where in the video was the clear testimonial evidence? It should be easy to point out cuz the video was pretty short

---

That was linked in my post. LINK. There it is again

quote:

---

Um. Did you watch the same video?

---

Ed’s — yes. Did they refute the news report of the AGs conference?

quote:

---

Your post isn't directly responding to my comment.

---

Your posts don’t respond to the subject of the thread

Indeed, you claimed Ed made a claim without evidence. There was clear testimonial evidence of exploitation.

The rest of your post was just insults of Ed are some group of people. I don’t want to get involved with the derailing