Lay prestige vs sports prestige

(Please Ask Questions and Answer Questions)
User avatar
lisjjen
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby lisjjen » Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:16 pm

Flips88 wrote:The athletic department is on a separate budget, so revenue stays within that department


I don't think that's how institutional budgets work.

User avatar
Flips88
Posts: 13605
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby Flips88 » Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:22 pm

lisjjen wrote:
Flips88 wrote:The athletic department is on a separate budget, so revenue stays within that department


I don't think that's how institutional budgets work.

I don't know if you realize the amount of free clothes/equipment/gifts that college athletes receive plus the salaries of coaching and staff. Those are funded by revenue from the sports programs. I certainly don't want Bob Stoops $4.3 million salary coming out of students' tuition money.

nonprofit-prophet
Posts: 844
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:10 am

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby nonprofit-prophet » Tue Feb 15, 2011 5:30 pm

Flips88 wrote:
blazinswordofjustice wrote:
jamie9248922 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flutie_Effect

It has been debated...but it was a factor in putting Boston College in many people's minds


Interesting...i agree though, besides increasing a school's national reputation and image in peoples minds, a good athletic program can bring in a LOT of money for a school, a school like USC/texas/LSU sells a lot of merchandise/tickets/etc...plus increases donations by having a good athletic program...

The athletic department is on a separate budget, so revenue stays within that department for the most part. I guess the best hope is that your NFL players donate to the university scholarship fund...



That's only partially true. The salaries and costs are usually from a separate budget. However, some of the profits from athletics programs can (and usually do) go back into academics. As an example: UT recently signed a deal to create its own network. A few million bucks is going straight to academics.

User avatar
cmraider
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby cmraider » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:17 pm

Flips88 wrote:The athletic department is on a separate budget, so revenue stays within that department for the most part. I guess the best hope is that your NFL players donate to the university scholarship fund...


I have also heard ^this^ is true. However, when I thought about the athletic revenue generated by the BCS school in my state (U of Tennessee), I started to wonder how true that statement is. UT attracts 100k+ fans to each of its 7-8 annual home games. I don't know the exact number, but I think each of those produces ~$5 million profit, depending on the opponent. One home game creates enough money to cover the entire coaching staff's salary, and then some. Never mind the other 6-7 games at Neyland, the tens of millions of dollars in merchandise sales, any potential bowl payouts and the big TV contract. And then there's basketball. Unlike a lot of schools, UT draws well for both men's and women's bball, but I won't go into that.

The school part of the university has to get a significant amount, no?

Edited: for excessive use of the words "home game"

User avatar
Flips88
Posts: 13605
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby Flips88 » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:36 pm

cmraider wrote:
Flips88 wrote:The athletic department is on a separate budget, so revenue stays within that department for the most part. I guess the best hope is that your NFL players donate to the university scholarship fund...


I have also heard ^this^ is true. However, when I thought about the athletic revenue generated by the BCS school in my state (U of Tennessee), I started to wonder how true that statement is. UT attracts 100k+ fans to each of its 7-8 annual home games. I don't know the exact number, but I think each of those produces ~$5 million profit, depending on the opponent. One home game creates enough money to cover the entire coaching staff's salary, and then some. Never mind the other 6-7 games at Neyland, the tens of millions of dollars in merchandise sales, any potential bowl payouts and the big TV contract. And then there's basketball. Unlike a lot of schools, UT draws well for both men's and women's bball, but I won't go into that.

The school part of the university has to get a significant amount, no?

Edited: for excessive use of the words "home game"


Well I assume you're assuming $50/ticket for those 100,000 fans, but you're forgetting the large number of staff that work a game day: security, ushers, concessions, etc. I'm not saying none goes to the school, I'm just saying it largely stays within the department. I would say if anything, the city benefits the most from the revenue of popular sports. The boost to local restaurants, bars, gas stations, etc. That's a huge debate surrounding the OU/Texas football game. Dallas and Texas at large reap all the economic benefits of the game, while Norman probably suffers from losing a significant portion of its population for a weekend.

User avatar
cmraider
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby cmraider » Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:23 pm

Flips88 wrote:
Well I assume you're assuming $50/ticket for those 100,000 fans, but you're forgetting the large number of staff that work a game day: security, ushers, concessions, etc. I'm not saying none goes to the school, I'm just saying it largely stays within the department. I would say if anything, the city benefits the most from the revenue of popular sports. The boost to local restaurants, bars, gas stations, etc. That's a huge debate surrounding the OU/Texas football game. Dallas and Texas at large reap all the economic benefits of the game, while Norman probably suffers from losing a significant portion of its population for a weekend.


Nah, tickets aren't that cheap. Student guest tickets are usually more than $50 (LinkRemoved), according to the chart I saw online. I'd say that average ticket price is at least $100. If Florida or Alabama are in town, triple that. Also, the $5 million is the amount of profit the game generates. That includes tickets, concessions, parking, merchandise, etc. (not sure if advertising is included). I'm not 100% on the $5 million figure, but I vaguely remember hearing that on some sports talk radio show.

I think $5 million might be conservative. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that each fan pays an average of $75 per ticket (x100,000=7.5 million), $5 for parking (not everyone pays UT for parking; =$8 million), $15 in concessions ($9.5 million) and $10 in merchandise ($10.5 million). I think you can find $5 million profit in there.

Anyway, I'm not arguing. I thought the same thing you do. I just wonder where all the money goes, unless the AD is just depositing $50 million into its bank account every year.

I agree with the main benefactor being the city, particularly those like Knoxville, Stillwater, University Park, PA; Gainesville FL; Lexington, KY; and Mississippi where the universities drive the economy of the entire city.

Edit: clarification and punctuation
Last edited by cmraider on Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lisjjen
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby lisjjen » Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:42 pm

Flips88 wrote:
lisjjen wrote:
Flips88 wrote:The athletic department is on a separate budget, so revenue stays within that department


I don't think that's how institutional budgets work.

I don't know if you realize the amount of free clothes/equipment/gifts that college athletes receive plus the salaries of coaching and staff. Those are funded by revenue from the sports programs. I certainly don't want Bob Stoops $4.3 million salary coming out of students' tuition money.


With Boise State's meteoric rise to fame, they are putting millions of the dollars they get from ESPN spots and merchandizing into making it a real school. Sure they added on to the stadium and the coaching staff, but they bring in way more money than they use. The rest goes to the institution.

User avatar
chrisnashville
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:46 am

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby chrisnashville » Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:39 pm


User avatar
drylo
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:41 am

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby drylo » Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:05 pm

Most athletic departments do not have revenue > expenses. To me, the biggest benefit that schools get from fielding competitive athletic teams is general popularity/attention. Schools often get more press for success in sports than in other things because sports are accessible to people. People don't necessarily understand/care about the most cited faculty (if that is even a metric for a good teacher), but you can attract attention by being relevant in sports.

nonprofit-prophet
Posts: 844
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:10 am

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby nonprofit-prophet » Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:42 pm

drylo wrote:Most athletic departments do not have revenue > expenses. To me, the biggest benefit that schools get from fielding competitive athletic teams is general popularity/attention. Schools often get more press for success in sports than in other things because sports are accessible to people. People don't necessarily understand/care about the most cited faculty (if that is even a metric for a good teacher), but you can attract attention by being relevant in sports.


Actually the biggest benefit is being able to fund all the small sports, especially the women's sports, which public schools must maintain under Title IX

User avatar
drylo
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:41 am

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby drylo » Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:08 pm

nonprofit-prophet wrote:
drylo wrote:Most athletic departments do not have revenue > expenses. To me, the biggest benefit that schools get from fielding competitive athletic teams is general popularity/attention. Schools often get more press for success in sports than in other things because sports are accessible to people. People don't necessarily understand/care about the most cited faculty (if that is even a metric for a good teacher), but you can attract attention by being relevant in sports.


Actually the biggest benefit is being able to fund all the small sports, especially the women's sports, which public schools must maintain under Title IX


No. Your logic just creates a feedback loop: the biggest benefit to having good sports teams is the ability to fund less popular sports teams, including women's teams, which we have to have (Title IX) in order to have our big sports teams, which we need to have in order to fund our small women's teams...

If the biggest benefit to having a competitive football team was to be able to fund other sports, the college sports landscape would look a lot different.

User avatar
cmraider
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby cmraider » Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:28 pm

drylo wrote:Most athletic departments do not have revenue > expenses. To me, the biggest benefit that schools get from fielding competitive athletic teams is general popularity/attention. Schools often get more press for success in sports than in other things because sports are accessible to people. People don't necessarily understand/care about the most cited faculty (if that is even a metric for a good teacher), but you can attract attention by being relevant in sports.

I can get behind this. My UG played D-I sports (including football), but not in a BCS conference. In each year's school budget, there is an allocation of millions of dollars in what is known as "the president's fund." The president of the U can spend that money at his discretion. I worked at the student newspaper, and we discovered that app. 90-95% of that fund was used to cover the football program's deficit. This angered a lot of people because there wasn't any apparent benefit to bailing out the football team every year, other than the fact we got to keep the football team. Attendance was low, the alumni were apathetic and the residents of the city didn't show much support for the school's sports.

Now, we're seeing some benefits of it: bowl games, more games on TV, better attendance etc., but I don't know how self-sufficient football is at my school.

D-I football in general is kind of like law school, insofar as schools like C of Charleston see the money a LS can generate so they want to get a piece of the pie. Schools like UNC-Charlotte want to join D-I because otherwise, you're never on TV unless you make the D-IAA playoffs, and it's hard to generate any noise for your school if you play on the lower tier. Appy St.'s profile rose significantly when it beat Michigan, as did James Madison's when it beat Va Tech.

jamie9248922
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:16 pm

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby jamie9248922 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:22 am

cmraider wrote:
drylo wrote:Most athletic departments do not have revenue > expenses. To me, the biggest benefit that schools get from fielding competitive athletic teams is general popularity/attention. Schools often get more press for success in sports than in other things because sports are accessible to people. People don't necessarily understand/care about the most cited faculty (if that is even a metric for a good teacher), but you can attract attention by being relevant in sports.

I can get behind this. My UG played D-I sports (including football), but not in a BCS conference. In each year's school budget, there is an allocation of millions of dollars in what is known as "the president's fund." The president of the U can spend that money at his discretion. I worked at the student newspaper, and we discovered that app. 90-95% of that fund was used to cover the football program's deficit. This angered a lot of people because there wasn't any apparent benefit to bailing out the football team every year, other than the fact we got to keep the football team. Attendance was low, the alumni were apathetic and the residents of the city didn't show much support for the school's sports.

Now, we're seeing some benefits of it: bowl games, more games on TV, better attendance etc., but I don't know how self-sufficient football is at my school.


Good example...I barley knew App State existed before it beat Michigan, know it seems like most people know of it, and i found out its actually a pretty good school!
D-I football in general is kind of like law school, insofar as schools like C of Charleston see the money a LS can generate so they want to get a piece of the pie. Schools like UNC-Charlotte want to join D-I because otherwise, you're never on TV unless you make the D-IAA playoffs, and it's hard to generate any noise for your school if you play on the lower tier. Appy St.'s profile rose significantly when it beat Michigan, as did James Madison's when it beat Va Tech.

User avatar
Ty Webb
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby Ty Webb » Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:29 am

Flips88 wrote:
blazinswordofjustice wrote:
jamie9248922 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flutie_Effect

It has been debated...but it was a factor in putting Boston College in many people's minds


Interesting...i agree though, besides increasing a school's national reputation and image in peoples minds, a good athletic program can bring in a LOT of money for a school, a school like USC/texas/LSU sells a lot of merchandise/tickets/etc...plus increases donations by having a good athletic program...

The athletic department is on a separate budget, so revenue stays within that department for the most part. I guess the best hope is that your NFL players donate to the university scholarship fund...


If only this were true. At most institutions, it's not. All schools "tax" their athletic departments, and many of them do it at shameful rates. I know this because my alma mater is one of the biggest perps.

User avatar
cmraider
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby cmraider » Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:37 pm

usuaggie wrote:i've talked to lawyers who had assumed oregon was ranked higher than it is just because they heard so much about the school during the football season.

When I first started looking into law school, and became familiar with the USNWR rankings, I was unsurprised to see schools like the Ivies, Stanford, G-Town and Vandy at the top of the rankings. When it came to public schools though, I was surprised to see well-known state schools at both the top (Cal, Mich., Va.) and bottom of the rankings (Nebraska, West Va., Ole Miss, LSU, Oregon). Going into it, I would have assumed that the private schools who are known by lay people for having top law schools (HYS) would be near the top, and I also figured state schools would be somewhere in the middle, comprising most of the 25-75 range. I guess this points to the fact that sports prestige can boost your lay prestige. I would have assumed a school like Penn St., for instance, would be much more highly ranked since it's a large public university in a big state with BCS athletics. Penn St. isn't a TTT, but before reading the rankings, I would have thought they were a top-40 school.

I was also surprised to see that quite a few BCS schools didn't have J.D. programs. I guess that is a result of the general thinking that a complete, large university should have business, law and medical schools. No law school at Purdue, Auburn, Oregon St., OK St., Wash. St., and NC St. was a bit puzzling at first glance.

User avatar
sdwhodat
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby sdwhodat » Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Capitol A wrote:I actually think sports prestige does have some impact on schools' general lay prestige. Of course undergrad prestige has little to do with law school prestige, and lay prestige is all but irrelavant to securing gainful employment...That being said, take for example Notre Dame and/or Duke; the general public is highly aware of these schools' acadmeic excellence. Why? because the people on TV are constantly talking about how impressive it is that they are able to compete on the level that they do (not so much Notre Dame football anymore) while maintaining high standards of academic excellence. Meanwhile, schools like Vanderbilt, UVA, W&M, and many others do not perform well enough in sports to really be a topic of discussion on TV. So, the general public outside of their close geographic proximity has no idea that they are strong academic institutions. Here in Phoenix, I would say that the majority of people think of UVA as pretty much equivelant to ASU.


I disagree about Vanderbilt. Most people assume that Vanderbilt is NOT the sports powerhouse that the other SEC schools tend to be BECAUSE they focus more on academics.

Also, aw :( about Notre Dame. GO IRISH!

User avatar
sdwhodat
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby sdwhodat » Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:44 pm

cmraider wrote:
Fred_McGriff wrote:Image

T12


Let's imagine for a minute that USNWR ranked college sports programs. Just in the same way they rank medical, business and law schools, assume they treated college sports like a professional program with factors such as tradition, NFL/NBA placement, quality of coaching staff, on-field performance, etc. serving as the metrics. If you consider the only sports which most people care about (football, men's basketball and, to a lesser extent, women's basketball), who would be the T14 of college sports?

Edit: Forgot NFL wasn't the only pro sports league


Does no one care about baseball? :(

User avatar
RareAir
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 1:37 am

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby RareAir » Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:20 am

sdwhodat wrote:
cmraider wrote:
Fred_McGriff wrote:Image

T12


Let's imagine for a minute that USNWR ranked college sports programs. Just in the same way they rank medical, business and law schools, assume they treated college sports like a professional program with factors such as tradition, NFL/NBA placement, quality of coaching staff, on-field performance, etc. serving as the metrics. If you consider the only sports which most people care about (football, men's basketball and, to a lesser extent, women's basketball), who would be the T14 of college sports?

Edit: Forgot NFL wasn't the only pro sports league


Does no one care about baseball? :(



Only people on the west coast and the SEC. ACC cares but they're just abysmal.

And anyone having Vtech in their sports t14 is off their rocker. They are good for being super duper high to start the year and then getting pounded by the one or two good teams they play all year. IDK how they are ALWAYS in the top 15 to start the cfb season. They basically make it to BCS bowls simply because they sucked the least out of the ACC teams.

User avatar
crossarmant
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:01 am

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby crossarmant » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:05 am

RareAir wrote:Only people on the west coast and the SEC. ACC cares but they're just abysmal.

And anyone having Vtech in their sports t14 is off their rocker. They are good for being super duper high to start the year and then getting pounded by the one or two good teams they play all year. IDK how they are ALWAYS in the top 15 to start the cfb season. They basically make it to BCS bowls simply because they sucked the least out of the ACC teams.


Went to Virginia Tech. They steamroll the piss out of everyone for the first half of the season, then comes the end of the season and they lose to Miami pretty much at cue. Though they continue to get better and better in football and basketball. I know when I first got there in 2005 the basketball team was totally TTTT, but over the past 6 years or so they've started stepping their game up, getting into the rankings, etc. Also with football 15 years ago they were regularly being beat by Syracuse, but now they're eternally high in the rankings and perenially winning the AAC Championship so it's been a real upward trajectory.

And in regards to sports prestige, I've noticed myself with VT how a long time ago, they were well enough known in Virginia, but it was so-so even if they have some of the best engineering and architecture programs in America. Now with the growing football and basketball programs, people all over know it and realize it's a solid school and a household name. Well, sports and the shootings. So, I think that in general, anything that gets the name of the school out there to the masses and has at least decent academics will increase lay prestige, be it sports or a famous alumni. Look at Occidental College for instance, almost no one had heard of the place until Obama was in the spotlight and now people are familiar with it, or VCU (where I currently work) until this past year with the Final Four.

User avatar
Flips88
Posts: 13605
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby Flips88 » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:18 am

crossarmant wrote:
RareAir wrote:Only people on the west coast and the SEC. ACC cares but they're just abysmal.

And anyone having Vtech in their sports t14 is off their rocker. They are good for being super duper high to start the year and then getting pounded by the one or two good teams they play all year. IDK how they are ALWAYS in the top 15 to start the cfb season. They basically make it to BCS bowls simply because they sucked the least out of the ACC teams.


Went to Virginia Tech. They steamroll the piss out of everyone for the first half of the season, then comes the end of the season and they lose to Miami pretty much at cue.

By steamroll the piss out of everyone do you mean lose to Boise State and James Madison? and then win out in a shitty conference and get their ass kicked by Stanford in the Orange Bowl?

User avatar
crossarmant
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:01 am

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby crossarmant » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:34 am

Flips88 wrote:
crossarmant wrote:
RareAir wrote:Only people on the west coast and the SEC. ACC cares but they're just abysmal.

And anyone having Vtech in their sports t14 is off their rocker. They are good for being super duper high to start the year and then getting pounded by the one or two good teams they play all year. IDK how they are ALWAYS in the top 15 to start the cfb season. They basically make it to BCS bowls simply because they sucked the least out of the ACC teams.


Went to Virginia Tech. They steamroll the piss out of everyone for the first half of the season, then comes the end of the season and they lose to Miami pretty much at cue.

By steamroll the piss out of everyone do you mean lose to Boise State and James Madison? and then win out in a shitty conference and get their ass kicked by Stanford in the Orange Bowl?


Touché. Honestly though, I was there for 4 years and never went to a single game so I'm the wrong person to ask about their abilities. But more or less, they do well enough and then choke at the end of the season. I was always a little bitter that VT would spend $66million on Lane Stadium upgrades, build a $35 million practice facility, yet Freshman Calculus was self taught in an off-campus computer lab and the Dean of Science's office was in a trailer. However, athletic programs do bring about name recognition, so if your name is known people will look into the school's academic credentials. For instance, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute are about on par academics, but which one will people recognize better across the country with people? The one with a strong football team.

User avatar
Flips88
Posts: 13605
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby Flips88 » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:38 am

crossarmant wrote:Touché. Honestly though, I was there for 4 years and never went to a single game so I'm the wrong person to ask about their abilities. But more or less, they do well enough and then choke at the end of the season. I was always a little bitter that VT would spend $66million on Lane Stadium upgrades, build a $35 million practice facility, yet Freshman Calculus was self taught in an off-campus computer lab and the Dean of Science's office was in a trailer. However, athletic programs do bring about name recognition, so if your name is known people will look into the school's academic credentials. For instance, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute are about on par academics, but which one will people recognize better across the country with people? The one with a strong football team.

Your talking to a guy that went to OU for undegrad. People don't know shit about OU as a school (and that's a shame), but they do know we have a top football team.

User avatar
rinkrat19
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:35 am

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby rinkrat19 » Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:56 pm

crossarmant wrote:
RareAir wrote:Only people on the west coast and the SEC. ACC cares but they're just abysmal.

And anyone having Vtech in their sports t14 is off their rocker. They are good for being super duper high to start the year and then getting pounded by the one or two good teams they play all year. IDK how they are ALWAYS in the top 15 to start the cfb season. They basically make it to BCS bowls simply because they sucked the least out of the ACC teams.


Went to Virginia Tech. They steamroll the piss out of everyone for the first half of the season, then comes the end of the season and they lose to Miami pretty much at cue. Though they continue to get better and better in football and basketball. I know when I first got there in 2005 the basketball team was totally TTTT, but over the past 6 years or so they've started stepping their game up, getting into the rankings, etc. Also with football 15 years ago they were regularly being beat by Syracuse, but now they're eternally high in the rankings and perenially winning the AAC Championship so it's been a real upward trajectory.

And in regards to sports prestige, I've noticed myself with VT how a long time ago, they were well enough known in Virginia, but it was so-so even if they have some of the best engineering and architecture programs in America. Now with the growing football and basketball programs, people all over know it and realize it's a solid school and a household name. Well, sports and the shootings. So, I think that in general, anything that gets the name of the school out there to the masses and has at least decent academics will increase lay prestige, be it sports or a famous alumni. Look at Occidental College for instance, almost no one had heard of the place until Obama was in the spotlight and now people are familiar with it, or VCU (where I currently work) until this past year with the Final Four.

I'd barely heard of VT until the shooting, which (obviously and understandably) plastered it all over the national news for weeks.

User avatar
Flips88
Posts: 13605
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby Flips88 » Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:01 pm

We all know who put Va Tech on the map:

Image

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1920
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Lay prestige vs sports prestige

Postby Stringer Bell » Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:03 pm

Flips88 wrote:We all know who put Va Tech on the map:

Image


Jim Druckenmiller put VT on the map.




Return to “Law School FAQ”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest