VFL-82-JP
Bleedin' Orange...
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2015
- Messages
- 20,156
- Likes
- 54,806
The article quoted by DaddyChad in the OP is eight friggin years old.
Eight years is a long time.
Eight years ago, very few Vols fans had ever heard of Butch Jones. Heck, very few Cincinnati fans, either; he was still at CMU back then.
Eight years ago, very few of us had even heard of Derek Dooley. When this article was written, not a single mattress had died from smoke inhalation as a result of Lane Kiffin's departure; because he hadn't left yet.
Eight years is one hell of a long time.
I see no evidence that the OP (or anyone else) checked to see how much conditions have changed over those eight long years. Checked to see whether any of it remains valid, or to what degree.
When it comes to things as fluid as college admissions policies, you might as well have started a conversation about an article from the 1970s.
Bogus thread, I'm thinking. Chad, if you have reason to believe this article has continuing relevance, please explain why and how.
EDIT: reading the article a second time, noticed that not only is the article from 2009, but the DATA used in writing the article is from 2006 and earlier. In other words, the information is all more than a decade old. Old news. Way old. And way-old news applied to current times without any updates = fake news.
Eight years is a long time.
Eight years ago, very few Vols fans had ever heard of Butch Jones. Heck, very few Cincinnati fans, either; he was still at CMU back then.
Eight years ago, very few of us had even heard of Derek Dooley. When this article was written, not a single mattress had died from smoke inhalation as a result of Lane Kiffin's departure; because he hadn't left yet.
Eight years is one hell of a long time.
I see no evidence that the OP (or anyone else) checked to see how much conditions have changed over those eight long years. Checked to see whether any of it remains valid, or to what degree.
When it comes to things as fluid as college admissions policies, you might as well have started a conversation about an article from the 1970s.
Bogus thread, I'm thinking. Chad, if you have reason to believe this article has continuing relevance, please explain why and how.
EDIT: reading the article a second time, noticed that not only is the article from 2009, but the DATA used in writing the article is from 2006 and earlier. In other words, the information is all more than a decade old. Old news. Way old. And way-old news applied to current times without any updates = fake news.
Last edited: