>:( >:( What “smaller school” should he go play for?
We are smaller in both profile and enrollment than Chapel Hill, some battles you should probably let go.
We are smaller in both profile and enrollment than Chapel Hill, some battles you should probably let go.[/quote]
Oh, I’m sure he meant “smaller” in terms of enrollment :
(~30,000 vs. 26,000…yes, we’re soooo MUCH smaller anyway) …and “smaller” would not be the correct term if he was referring to “profile”. “Lower profile” would be the correct terminology. These are the types of comments that continually make outsiders think we are still a 2,000 student satellite campus of Chapel Hill.
And these are the types of comments that lead people to believe that we have a huge inferiority complex when it comes to UNC-CH. We are smaller than UNC-CH in both enrollment and profile. Nothing he said was inaccurate.
We are smaller in both profile and enrollment than Chapel Hill, some battles you should probably let go.[/quote]
Oh, I’m sure he meant “smaller” in terms of enrollment : (~30,000 vs. 26,000…yes, we’re soooo MUCH smaller anyway) …and “smaller” would not be the correct term if he was referring to “profile”. “Lower profile” would be the correct terminology. These are the types of comments that continually make outsiders think we are still a 2,000 student satellite campus of Chapel Hill.[/quote]
Dude, you need to get laid. Yes, lower profile would be the correct terminology, but my God man, get a life or something.
We are smaller in both profile and enrollment than Chapel Hill, some battles you should probably let go.[/quote]
Oh, I’m sure he meant “smaller” in terms of enrollment : (~30,000 vs. 26,000…yes, we’re soooo MUCH smaller anyway) …and “smaller” would not be the correct term if he was referring to “profile”. “Lower profile” would be the correct terminology. These are the types of comments that continually make outsiders think we are still a 2,000 student satellite campus of Chapel Hill.[/quote]
Dude, you need to get laid. Yes, lower profile would be the correct terminology, but my God man, get a life or something.[/quote]
I’ve got plenty of “life” jackass. (Note: I didn’t start the personal shots). I simply stated an opinion on the term “smaller school”…you still got a problem, then PM me.
And these are the types of comments that lead people to believe that we have a huge inferiority complex when it comes to UNC-CH. We are smaller than UNC-CH in both enrollment and profile. Nothing he said was inaccurate.[/quote]
My problem is with the “smaller school” comment. I know he’s pretending he meant in actual enrollment, but its the term “smaller school” that implies we are a “small” school that I have a problem with. Do you guys not think that perception (of Charlotte as a small school) is a problem for us? If not you must not have been around long.
I don’t think being considered a smaller school than Chapel hill is a problem, because it is a fact.
Give me a break…see my previous post…on second thought you’re right. In fact, I agree I think he should have gone to a smaller school where he could play more too. You know, somewhere like Duke or Wake Forest…you know since they’re smaller, that has a lot to do with playing time. :
Give me a break…see my previous post…on second thought you’re right. In fact, I agree I think he should have gone to a smaller school where he could play more too. You know, somewhere like Duke or Wake Forest…you know since they’re smaller, that has a lot to do with playing time. ::)[/quote]
WFU is a smaller school than Chapel Hill, in profile and in enrollment. Duke, well, at least in enrollment.
Give me a break…see my previous post…on second thought you’re right. In fact, I agree I think he should have gone to a smaller school where he could play more too. You know, somewhere like Duke or Wake Forest…you know since they’re smaller, that has a lot to do with playing time. ::)[/quote]
WFU is a smaller school than Chapel Hill, in profile and in enrollment. Duke, well, at least in enrollment.[/quote]
Exactly…thanks for making MY point (ie; that Hootie’s original point had nothing to do with “enrollment” even though you and Cass pretended that his post was “accurate” because he was referring to enrollment…yeah right). He obviously meant that we are “small time”, which is what I didn’t like. You guys don’t have to agree or like what I post (cause I don’t give a rats a$$) but when personal shots are taken I will respond…until I grow tired of it atleast. 
I am the one who said it was enrollment and profile, not hootie. He actually said, “Yes, lower profile would be the correct terminology.”
I included both size and enrollment to show that yes, we are a smaller school in both those areas. It wasn’t a shot at the school, we are a smaller school, a lower profile school, whatever you want to call it. It is absurd to me to even consider that it was a slight to our school.
WFU is smaller and has a lower profile than the University of Florida. I bet those WFU fans would be livid if I said anything like that, huh?!
I am the one who said it was enrollment and profile, not hootie. He actually said, “Yes, lower profile would be the correct terminology.”
I included both size and enrollment to show that yes, we are a smaller school in both those areas. It wasn’t a shot at the school, we are a smaller school, a lower profile school, whatever you want to call it. It is absurd to me to even consider that it was a slight to our school.
WFU is smaller and has a lower profile than the University of Florida. I bet those WFU fans would be livid if I said anything like that, huh?![/quote]
WFU fan here… you shut your damn mouth
Moss hack into your account?
Stop It! Roy Williams is turning us against eachother!
haha. I did not. Ever since we played them in basketball, it’s been hard for me to cheer them on as I once did as a kid. I of course cheer them on against Duke, UNC-CH, NCSU and Clemson.
I am the one who said it was enrollment and profile, not hootie. He actually said, “Yes, lower profile would be the correct terminology.”
I included both size and enrollment to show that yes, we are a smaller school in both those areas. It wasn’t a shot at the school, we are a smaller school, a lower profile school, whatever you want to call it. It is absurd to me to even consider that it was a slight to our school.
WFU is smaller and has a lower profile than the University of Florida. I bet those WFU fans would be livid if I said anything like that, huh?!
[/quote]
No, but I bet you they would be if you said that a basketball recruit of theirs was "crazy to go be a practice dummy at Florida when he could play so much more at a “smaller school like Wake Forest”.
I am the one who said it was enrollment and profile, not hootie. He actually said, “Yes, lower profile would be the correct terminology.”
I included both size and enrollment to show that yes, we are a smaller school in both those areas. It wasn’t a shot at the school, we are a smaller school, a lower profile school, whatever you want to call it. It is absurd to me to even consider that it was a slight to our school.
WFU is smaller and has a lower profile than the University of Florida. I bet those WFU fans would be livid if I said anything like that, huh?![/quote]
I’m not sure I can make this any clearer, but I’ll try. The “smaller school” statement was used as a reason for getting more playing time…what the heck would the school’s enrollment have to do with playing time?
All of this arguing over a Chapel Hill walk on?
All of this arguing over smaller vs lower. I guess he’s right, we should be saying we’re lower than Chapel Hill.