Reason #8: Recruiting expenses should be less expensive when successful recruiting is more concentrated within the home state.
PaladinDad liked this
I think that may well have applied to several others who've left the program this year but it is certainly possible. I just think Bailey had high expectations after his great HS career and is reluctant to give them up. Understandable. I hope his faith in himself is rewarded and he has an outstanding few years at USC.Davemeister wrote: ↑Sat Jun 23, 2018 10:03 amFurman is not an easy school and a Liberal Arts education is not for everyone. When undergrads transfer, it is frequently because they are not a "good fit" in the classroom. This applies to athletes as well as the entire student body.
Not saying this was the case with Rogers, but it may have figured into his calculations.
Really? I don’t see why? We don’t get any state support.
This has nothing to do with lines on a map. It’s distance. ATL is closer to FU than Charleston. So is Charlotte, Asheville, Augusta, Tri-Cities TN. That’s what matters.
Recurring expenses are directly proportional to distance, not lines on a map.
Terrible argument. I could turn it right around and say keeping them away from Mercer, Samford just as important as keeping them away from Woffy and Citadel.
I don’t even know what to say here this is so beyond my ability to relate to it. So let me get this straight, you’re arguing a schools reputation is directly proportional to the % of in-state students? Well then I guess the Ivy League schools are way overrated.