(07-03-2014 09:04 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The PAC does have deep relationships outside of athletics. Academics do matter to that conference and a reason why BSU wasn't even considered for PAC expansion.

(07-03-2014 09:48 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  How you can get from a single school (UofL) being happy to be associated with a conference where every school is academically stronger than it to "academics do matter to conferences" is a mystery.

(07-03-2014 09:30 AM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  I'm not sure that academic associations matter as much as people claim. The real money through academics is through research grants, which is usually done in a small level by professors and their teams. When I was at a Big 10 University (Iowa) we collaborated with local industry, a Big 12 school (Texas) and an ACC school (Wake Forest). When I was at a Pac 10 school (Arizona) we collaborated with local industry, the military, an ACC school (Maryland) and had some connections with a Big 10 school (Northwestern).

I think "academic association" only matters to presidents and other high level administrators. Basically, it determines if they get to hang out with the "cool kids." As far as actually doing research and getting funding, that is done by the actual workers. Research interest and likelihood of bringing in funding seems to be the real drivers, not which table the president gets to sit at. Conference affiliation sounds cool, but I think the reality is much different when you talk about actual research being done. In contrast, the Claremont colleges have real cooperation, not just lip service and afternoon tea together.

There is always an exception, and in this case it is probably the U of U. Known for their prominent placement of Pac 12 stickers everywhere, they apparently had Pac-12 banners at their graduation ceremonies. Never saw any Pac 12 garb at the U of A - graduation or otherwise.

(07-03-2014 09:48 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  How you can get from a single school (UofL) being happy to be associated with a conference where every school is academically stronger than it to "academics do matter to conferences" is a mystery.

(07-03-2014 11:09 AM)brista21 Wrote:  I think it matters because the red tape for collaborations or resource sharing is easier to navigate in a broad based partnership like day the Big Ten/CIC has. But it's far from the be all and end all.

On another note Rutgers and Ohio State had been collaborating separately with the University of Sao Paulo on agricultural research specifically plant based fuels for over 20 and nearly 30 years respectively. They've all met together in biannual conferences for the last 15 years, but the collaborations have really been two bilateral relationships rather than a trilateral one. Now both schools are going to be collaborating together with the University of Sao Paulo as a result of the other Big Ten and CIC partnerships.

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk

(07-03-2014 09:30 AM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  I'm not sure that academic associations matter as much as people claim. The real money through academics is through research grants, which is usually done in a small level by professors and their teams. When I was at a Big 10 University (Iowa) we collaborated with local industry, a Big 12 school (Texas) and an ACC school (Wake Forest). When I was at a Pac 10 school (Arizona) we collaborated with local industry, the military, an ACC school (Maryland) and had some connections with a Big 10 school (Northwestern).

I think "academic association" only matters to presidents and other high level administrators. Basically, it determines if they get to hang out with the "cool kids." As far as actually doing research and getting funding, that is done by the actual workers. Research interest and likelihood of bringing in funding seems to be the real drivers, not which table the president gets to sit at. Conference affiliation sounds cool, but I think the reality is much different when you talk about actual research being done. In contrast, the Claremont colleges have real cooperation, not just lip service and afternoon tea together.

There is always an exception, and in this case it is probably the U of U. Known for their prominent placement of Pac 12 stickers everywhere, they apparently had Pac-12 banners at their graduation ceremonies. Never saw any Pac 12 garb at the U of A - graduation or otherwise.

(07-03-2014 03:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 09:30 AM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  There is always an exception, and in this case it is probably the U of U. Known for their prominent placement of Pac 12 stickers everywhere, they apparently had Pac-12 banners at their graduation ceremonies. Never saw any Pac 12 garb at the U of A - graduation or otherwise.

And I think "academic association" has a limited meaning here. That is, I think it has less to do with actual, day to day cooperation or interaction, and more to do with perception. I think presidents generally prefer to be associated with other schools they view as peers. So it's not that they are sitting with the "cool kids". It's a lot like high school, where the jocks sit with the jocks and the nerds sit with the nerds. It's their comfort zone.

(07-03-2014 11:09 AM)brista21 Wrote:  I think it matters because the red tape for collaborations or resource sharing is easier to navigate in a broad based partnership like day the Big Ten/CIC has. But it's far from the be all and end all.

On another note Rutgers and Ohio State had been collaborating separately with the University of Sao Paulo on agricultural research specifically plant based fuels for over 20 and nearly 30 years respectively. They've all met together in biannual conferences for the last 15 years, but the collaborations have really been two bilateral relationships rather than a trilateral one. Now both schools are going to be collaborating together with the University of Sao Paulo as a result of the other Big Ten and CIC partnerships.

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk

(07-03-2014 08:07 PM)buffdog Wrote:  When athletes, that represent a program, have to meet the same entrance requirements as regular students, then I will believe it is about academics, until then, no it is not about academics.

(07-03-2014 09:30 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 11:09 AM)brista21 Wrote:  I think it matters because the red tape for collaborations or resource sharing is easier to navigate in a broad based partnership like day the Big Ten/CIC has. But it's far from the be all and end all.

On another note Rutgers and Ohio State had been collaborating separately with the University of Sao Paulo on agricultural research specifically plant based fuels for over 20 and nearly 30 years respectively. They've all met together in biannual conferences for the last 15 years, but the collaborations have really been two bilateral relationships rather than a trilateral one. Now both schools are going to be collaborating together with the University of Sao Paulo as a result of the other Big Ten and CIC partnerships.

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk

Bilateral, you mean, like when RU and OSU started their joint tripartite PhD program with USP 10 years ago? That's bilateral? Despite it being called the "Tripartite Collaborative", for what, I don't know, at least a decade?

No, this sells better as a CIC story the day Rutgers enters the Big Ten even though there is nothing new.

BTW, I like how the first project listed on Rutgers' CIC website is a Pitt and Wake led institute. That must be because the ACCIAC is so incredible, no?

(07-03-2014 09:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 08:07 PM)buffdog Wrote:  When athletes, that represent a program, have to meet the same entrance requirements as regular students, then I will believe it is about academics, until then, no it is not about academics.

To be fair, talented musicians attending a university's school of music also don't need the same grades and test scores as freshmen who intend to major in engineering. But we should ask that each athlete is closer to the credentials of the average incoming student than they are now.