this is my 1st topic and i jus wanna get yall 2 comment about tha situation down at USC, they coach had 2 go, they lost alot of current players and recruits because of tha shyt that went down wit coach Floyd, i dont really kno what all happened i jus kno people was changing schools and going pro, Percy Miller Jr. didnt redshirt even tho he didnt get a boat load of playin time but he is returning 2 USC, right? ok. is he gonna be playing alot this year wit all tha players gone 2 tha pros and overseas and diffrent colleges and stuff. i jus want a lil bit mo info on lil romeo. when i seen him on youetube.com he look like he can hoop. he kinda short but u can be lil and produce at tha college level. i aint askin yall 4 his NBA projection, jus do yall think he'll b a pretty good college player or wha?
I had the opportunity to watch Lil Romeo play at the A.B.C.D Camp back in 2006. He had absolutely no business being there. He was hands down the worst player there, and I was PISSED when he made the underclassmen all-star game. This past season he played a grand total of 12 minutes and scored 5 points. To be honest, I really don't have a problem with him playing at U.S.C. What I do have a problem with is him getting a FULL ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIP!!! The only reason they even gave him a scholarship is because he convinced Demar Derozan to play for them.
U.S.C. is one of the most expensive schools in the country. Students can run up costs of 50 grand on tuition, fees, room and board alone. What's the point of giving someone who can pay their own way a full scholarship, especially when he/she isn't even good at what you're giving them a scholarship for? I'm sure he could get regular playing time at a mid to low major D-1 school, but U.S.C. and their competition seems like a little bit too much for him.
U.S.C. is in serious rebuilding mode right now. Their backcourt doesn't look too good, so he might get a starting spot. They should take his scholarship so that they can get an extra player next year.
Logic cannot have any empirical part; that is, a part in which the universal and necessary laws of thought should rest on grounds taken from experience; otherwise it would not be logic, i.e., a canon for the understanding or the reason, valid for all thought, and capable of demonstration. Natural and moral philosophy, on the contrary, can each have their empirical part, since the former has to determine the laws of nature as an object of experience;Silver Tiffany the latter the laws of the human will, so far as it is affected by nature: the former, however, being laws according to which everything does happen; the latter, laws according to which everything ought to happen. Ethics, however, must also consider the conditions under which what ought to happen frequently does not.