Catching crap from the squaks

**crash_zone** · 06-19-2007, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by BvK1126

Dang, darts! Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? What's with the personal attacks on anyone and everyone here? Since you've decided to take it negative, here's one for you. The word is "expedite," not "expediate." I'll go slow and provide you a link for explanation, because you're obviously not as smart as you want us to think you are.

actually, dart was right.

(dictionary.com)
Expediate
\Ex*pe"di*ate\, v. t. [Cf. F. exp['e]dier. See Expedite.] To hasten; to expedite. [Obs.] ``To expediate their business.'' --Sir E. Sandys.

**brianhos** · 06-19-2007, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by crash_zone

actually, dart was right.

(dictionary.com)
Expediate
\Ex*pe"di*ate\, v. t. [Cf. F. exp['e]dier. See Expedite.] To hasten; to expedite. [Obs.] ``To expediate their business.'' --Sir E. Sandys.

Ohh boy... here we go. When the thread deteriorates into references to dictionary .com we should just all stop talking and back away.

**keepngoal** · 06-19-2007, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by cytech

I am not 100% sure but I think it was only recently within last 5 years that Iowa stopped taking money from U of I's general fund

If that is true... it is kinda funny that a storybook program like the UofI's took 128 years of football to become self sufficient. Even through the gloried Fry years they were on the State's dime.

- keep.

**BvK1126** · 06-19-2007, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by brianhos

Ohh boy... here we go. When the thread deteriorates into references to dictionary .com we should just all stop talking and back away.

Yeah, you're right, brianhos, but I just can't help myself. I have to respond!

Originally Posted by crash_zone

actually, dart was right.

(dictionary.com)
Expediate
\Ex*pe"di*ate\, v. t. [Cf. F. exp['e]dier. See Expedite.] To hasten; to expedite. [Obs.] ``To expediate their business.'' --Sir E. Sandys.

I'll acknowledge that darts was right -- if he was writing his post in the 18th century! You'll notice the "[Obs.]" reference in the entry. That means the word is obsolete, and has been replaced by "expedite."

**crash_zone** · 06-19-2007, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by BvK1126

Yeah, you're right, brianhos, but I just can't help myself. I have to respond!

I'll acknowledge that darts was right -- if he was writing his post in the 18th century! You'll notice the "[Obs.]" reference in the entry. That means the word is obsolete, and has been replaced by "expedite."

well, he WAS trying to talk to a hawk...ie. 18th century education. right?

**BvK1126** · 06-19-2007, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by crash_zone

well, he WAS trying to talk to a hawk...ie. 18th century education. right?

Well, an "alleged" hawk, at the very least. Point well taken!

**Wesley** · 06-19-2007, 05:34 PM

Do they have equal revenue sharing in the Big Ten? That could make a difference.

**crash_zone** · 06-19-2007, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley

Do they have equal revenue sharing in the Big Ten? That could make a difference.

Yes, they do.

**CrossCyed** · 06-19-2007, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by bmuff

What ISU does with the money that they get from the state is their own business. If Geoffrey wanted to take that money and give it to faculty, he could. You can tell your neighbor (if you're not lying on here) to mind his own business and have fun watching ISU/iowa on TV this fall.

No, it's not their own business, as they are state funds. That's why we know how much coaches get paid and whatnot.

**Wesley** · 06-19-2007, 09:02 PM

Or tell them to buy Clone season tickets and then we would not need the extra state fund help.

**Cyclone62** · 06-19-2007, 09:07 PM

While this doesn't really bother me too much, even as a student, I'm not a big fan of it. I mean, I'm paying over 1,000% what my Mom did while she was at ISU, and 750% what my dad did while he was at Coe (private college), the tuition increases have more to do with inflation than the money to the athletic department.

With how expensive school has become, we're becoming awfully close to being unable to finance federally funded schools, which would privatize many of them, and making education a luxury for the wealthy; a step backwards, that some people think is the best way to go.

**flyhighcy** · 07-07-2007, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by keepngoal

If that is true... it is kinda funny that a storybook program like the UofI's took 128 years of football to become self sufficient. Even through the gloried Fry years they were on the State's dime.

- keep.

Don't make yourself look stupid......Iowa was self sustaining until the 1970s.

**herbiedoobie** · 07-08-2007, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by Cyclone62

While this doesn't really bother me too much, even as a student, I'm not a big fan of it. I mean, I'm paying over 1,000% what my Mom did while she was at ISU, and 750% what my dad did while he was at Coe (private college), the tuition increases have more to do with inflation than the money to the athletic department.

With how expensive school has become, we're becoming awfully close to being unable to finance federally funded schools, which would privatize many of them, and making education a luxury for the wealthy; a step backwards, that some people think is the best way to go.

Lots of folks believe that the cost of education is directly the result of "free" money (yeah, right!) through grants and loans.

I'm more afraid of public universities becoming irrelevant through teaching crap than of the cost. In the education marketplace, if a product is worth it, people will pay. (Wouldn't you pay twice as much for school if it helped you make twice or more during your career as NOT going to school?)

But if the cost of education keeps going up, while the relative value of a college degree goes down, now THERE is a problem. Just hip-shooting, I'd say that a college degree today is not worth a private high school education circa 1950. And a Master's Degree is roughly equivalent to a college education circa the same timeframe.

Part of the problem is that college is becoming too inclusive. Most folks would probably be better suited with a more directed, technical education, or just going straight into the workforce, but college degrees have become more in demand than technical competence.

**Skyh13** · 07-08-2007, 04:26 AM

It just sucks cause now the engineering students are getting gouged with extra fees for tuition, simply because of their major choice... I understand it's supposed to benefit the program, but still.... approx. 30% more? (from in-state tuition... which only comes to about 12% for us out-of-staters...

)

I don't know what this has to do with athletics, but since we're all complaining about funding.. well, there you have it.

**joepublic** · 07-08-2007, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by darts180

Look I understand that you are a Hawk fan. But if you don't think that the Board of Regents was, and is in eIU's lap, you are a bigger fool than you look like on here. As someone that dealt with the Board as a student rep, I will tell you that 90 % of what was passed as "legislation" was submitted by, and benefitted only Iowa.

In terms of what this ruling means, it gives Iowa State a chance to expediate (means get it done quicker, cause I know I have to go slow for you) self sufficiency in their athletic department. More luxury suites=more money raised. People are excited about the direction of the ISU athletic department, which has already shown with record numbers in the fundraising area.

I understand, in the end, that if somehow Gene Chizik begins to establish a program that would be bad for the Hawks. And I understand that Iowa State being good in basketball is bad for the Hawks, as is wrestling and all other sports. So you come on here to talk us down????

Now I see why all of the other Big 10 fans hate you guys, I already knew why we did.

Hey Darts, the UI despises the Regents. UI can't stand an oversight body telling them what to do.