Posted by UCLA is not Stanford or UConn on November 02, 2017 at 08:02:03:
In Reply to: Re: PLEASE! posted by Another UCLA alum on November 02, 2017 at 07:09:25:
: : : It all depends on the degree you get from
: : : UCLA, (STEMS)science/Tech/Engineering/Math
: : : degrees, ya; will get you a good income after
: : : college, a degree in afro-american, chicano,
: : : indian,etc., studies not so much,also include all
: : : the social science type degrees, re: sociology,
: : : psychology,etc
: : : Go to a starbucks sometme and get to know some
: : : of the baristas, half of them have a college
: : : degree that is worthless in the real world
: : I graduated from UCLA in the 90s and proudly support all things UCLA. In light of all the shadiness in college athletics, I happily support someone who runs a program with integrity and who fosters the growth of young women. Sure she might benefit from some new coaching blood, maybe a better Xs and Os person, but anyone who is supposedly steering their players away from a full UCLA scholarship is completely misguided and deluded. Stanford, Cal, even SC...the same. Use basketball as a tool for something greater please.
: : And if you’re interested, I make 40K in a month. But before taxes. UCLA undergrad and grad school.
: If the girls is interested in a basketball career, UCLA is not a destination. Sorry. If the offers come from Stanford, UConn, Baylor, Notre Dame, Duke and UCLA, the Bruins are last on that list. Even if you're a top student and you're a top player, the pro leagues are a definite starting point. A top WNBA player could bank over 5 Million in a ten year career in US/Europe before going into coaching or grad school. Elizabeth Williams made a big thing about being a doctor. She's playing basketball. Do you think Jordin Canada will go into nursing right after graduation?
: UCLA is still one of the greatest academic institutions in the world and considering the tuition, would have to also be considered one of the bargains. However, if a girl is wanting a career in basketball, it is not the top place to go. If you put all things together, academics, athletics, etc., UCLA simply can't compete with a Stanford, Notre Dame or even Duke. The one they can compete with and have succeeded is Cal, which is ahead of UCLA academically, but whose basketball program is a wreck.
Taurasi almost came to UCLA instead of UConn and Nikki Blue almost went to UConn instead of UCLA. You can see how both of those ended up. Granted, it was during the Olivier era, but Close is showing she's the second coming of Olivier. How many players does she have in the W or overseas? Any club coach would be insane to recommend UCLA over the top tier programs based on basketball. Even if you just wanted academics, Stanford, Duke and Notre Dame would be impossible to pass up. There might have been a few players who were accepted to Stanford but went to UCLA but by all measures, that would have been a terrible decision. I believe Ekmark turned down Stanford to go to UConn where she rode the bench and is now at the academically inept but basketball competent ASU.
I agree that it's wonderful that Coach Close is running a clean program. However, if you can't couple that with a winning program that doesn't always underachieve, that will get old very quickly. UCLA has proven that morality means little as their current mens basketball coach harassed a rape victim to withdraw charges so one of his players could continue playing.
I also agree that Coach Close needs to rethink her assistants because they're stuck on a strange road. People were talking here about how UCLA athletics is a winning tradition. They forgot about womens basketball.
Post a Followup