Frankly, I could tell you more about WVUs third string QB then how the academic alliances form...I am assuming there is a reason we don't have one. Is it the different academic goals/diversity of the schools? I am very interested in hearing this answer

Jackson

Jackson,

I thought the BE was supposed to get access to the ACC consortium as part of the BE-ACC lawsuit. What that exactly meant, who is participating, etc. - I have no idea. Maybe someone else does.

There's nothing about it at the ACC's website:
http://www.acciac.org/

The sheer diversity of the Big East schools--from two national top 25 schools to Tier III's to regional liberal arts schools--would probably limit the ability to gather consensus around much in the way of research.

Quick example: medical research. The state schools have medical schools, but only one of the nine private schools (Georgetown) has a medical program of its own--the medical center in Syracuse is a SUNY research facility.

The hybrid nature of this conference doesn't help matters any. All of the schools have different alliances, goals, and priorities. There is no consensus in anything.

Why should academics be any different?

bitcruncher Wrote:The hybrid nature of this conference doesn't help matters any. All of the schools have different alliances, goals, and priorities. There is no consensus in anything. Why should academics be any different?

Well, even across schools their is diversity. Georgetown and Providence have different educational missions, as well as Rutgers and Cincinnati.

The Big 10 is unique in the ability to build schools of similar region, focus, and research focus--every one of the 12 CIC members (Big 10+Chicago) are major research institutions. Most conferences don't have this, either. What does Miami and Maryland have in common academically?

For the Big East schools, Pitt, Notre Dame, Rutgers are in a top tier of research, Georgetown, Syracuse and Cincinnati are in a second tier, and then a lot of others fall after that.

DFW HOYA Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:The hybrid nature of this conference doesn't help matters any. All of the schools have different alliances, goals, and priorities. There is no consensus in anything. Why should academics be any different?

Well, even across schools their is diversity. Georgetown and Providence have different educational missions, as well as Rutgers and Cincinnati.

The Big 10 is unique in the ability to build schools of similar region, focus, and research focus--every one of the 12 CIC members (Big 10+Chicago) are major research institutions. Most conferences don't have this, either. What does Miami and Maryland have in common academically?

For the Big East schools, Pitt, Notre Dame, Rutgers are in a top tier of research, Georgetown, Syracuse and Cincinnati are in a second tier, and then a lot of others fall after that.

Really I had always thought Cincy and Georgetown brought in similar amounts of research money to Pitt, ND, and RU. I knew Syracuse while way ahead of many of the other schools did not bring in as much money.

brista21 Wrote:

DFW HOYA Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:The hybrid nature of this conference doesn't help matters any. All of the schools have different alliances, goals, and priorities. There is no consensus in anything. Why should academics be any different?

Well, even across schools their is diversity. Georgetown and Providence have different educational missions, as well as Rutgers and Cincinnati.

The Big 10 is unique in the ability to build schools of similar region, focus, and research focus--every one of the 12 CIC members (Big 10+Chicago) are major research institutions. Most conferences don't have this, either. What does Miami and Maryland have in common academically?

For the Big East schools, Pitt, Notre Dame, Rutgers are in a top tier of research, Georgetown, Syracuse and Cincinnati are in a second tier, and then a lot of others fall after that.

Really I had always thought Cincy and Georgetown brought in similar amounts of research money to Pitt, ND, and RU. I knew Syracuse while way ahead of many of the other schools did not bring in as much money.

You're right, they do. But, because Cincinnati was in a non-Big Six conference for years the perception is that Cincinnati isn't "on par" with Notre Dame, or Pitt or Rutgers. But the fact is, Cincinnati is VERY close to those schools. If Cincinnati had been in the Big East originally then Cincinnati's academic reputation would be stronger.

CatsClaw Wrote:

brista21 Wrote:

DFW HOYA Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:The hybrid nature of this conference doesn't help matters any. All of the schools have different alliances, goals, and priorities. There is no consensus in anything. Why should academics be any different?

Well, even across schools their is diversity. Georgetown and Providence have different educational missions, as well as Rutgers and Cincinnati.

The Big 10 is unique in the ability to build schools of similar region, focus, and research focus--every one of the 12 CIC members (Big 10+Chicago) are major research institutions. Most conferences don't have this, either. What does Miami and Maryland have in common academically?

For the Big East schools, Pitt, Notre Dame, Rutgers are in a top tier of research, Georgetown, Syracuse and Cincinnati are in a second tier, and then a lot of others fall after that.

Really I had always thought Cincy and Georgetown brought in similar amounts of research money to Pitt, ND, and RU. I knew Syracuse while way ahead of many of the other schools did not bring in as much money.

You're right, they do. But, because Cincinnati was in a non-Big Six conference for years the perception is that Cincinnati isn't "on par" with Notre Dame, or Pitt or Rutgers. But the fact is, Cincinnati is VERY close to those schools. If Cincinnati had been in the Big East originally then Cincinnati's academic reputation would be stronger.

Which lends credence to the belief that if you aren't an Ivy, MIT, Cal Tech, NYU, U of Chicago that big time athletics is almost necessary to help the academic profile of a school.

In answer to the post topic question:

...ummmm, leadership?

Let's face it the league was founded on two principles: markets and basketball.

Jackson1011 Wrote:Frankly, I could tell you more about WVUs third string QB then how the academic alliances form...I am assuming there is a reason we don't have one. Is it the different academic goals/diversity of the schools? I am very interested in hearing this answer

Jackson

The main purpose of academic consortiums like the CIC and now the SECAC has to do with the aligning and sharing of doctoral research programs and information for various goals, one of which is to enhance the application and receipt of federal research dollars.

Up until this point the CIC has been by far the model of these type of academic consortiums, although the Ivy League's individual reputations are still ahead of the Big Ten individual university reputations.

In the past few years, the federal government appears to now be leaning toward a model started in California and has spread to some northeastern states. These state consortiums favor a mixture of academic institutions, businesses, and not-for-profit agencies. And the key goal of these consortiums is research that leads to economic development in the region. Also, these state consortiums have drawn upon private universities in the state as well as public.

So in this regard, in these types of consortiums, the Big East could eventually merge as a leader due to its markets and its diversity and not be handicapped by it.

But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to materialize.

Cheers,
Neil

Hoquista Wrote:Jackson,

I thought the BE was supposed to get access to the ACC consortium as part of the BE-ACC lawsuit. What that exactly meant, who is participating, etc. - I have no idea. Maybe someone else does.

There's nothing about it at the ACC's website:
http://www.acciac.org/

Well, in truth, the settlement mentioned that if the member institutions agreed, they would consider some of the Big East football schools for membership in the ACCIAC.

Maybe the ACC members knew they would never agree upon this?

Anyway, how weak is that? Rather than start one of their own, RU, Pitt, WVU, and UConn want to join the ACC's?

Cheers,
Neil

brista21 Wrote:

CatsClaw Wrote:

brista21 Wrote:

DFW HOYA Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:The hybrid nature of this conference doesn't help matters any. All of the schools have different alliances, goals, and priorities. There is no consensus in anything. Why should academics be any different?

Well, even across schools their is diversity. Georgetown and Providence have different educational missions, as well as Rutgers and Cincinnati.

The Big 10 is unique in the ability to build schools of similar region, focus, and research focus--every one of the 12 CIC members (Big 10+Chicago) are major research institutions. Most conferences don't have this, either. What does Miami and Maryland have in common academically?

For the Big East schools, Pitt, Notre Dame, Rutgers are in a top tier of research, Georgetown, Syracuse and Cincinnati are in a second tier, and then a lot of others fall after that.

Really I had always thought Cincy and Georgetown brought in similar amounts of research money to Pitt, ND, and RU. I knew Syracuse while way ahead of many of the other schools did not bring in as much money.

You're right, they do. But, because Cincinnati was in a non-Big Six conference for years the perception is that Cincinnati isn't "on par" with Notre Dame, or Pitt or Rutgers. But the fact is, Cincinnati is VERY close to those schools. If Cincinnati had been in the Big East originally then Cincinnati's academic reputation would be stronger.

Which lends credence to the belief that if you aren't an Ivy, MIT, Cal Tech, NYU, U of Chicago that big time athletics is almost necessary to help the academic profile of a school.

Exactly. I couldn't believe how important athletics became to academic profiles until Big East expansion came around and I read up on the Big East, Big Ten and Pac-10 academics. By all accounts Cincinnati would have fit in fine in the Big Ten academically, it was more of an Ohio State thing (already having an Ohio school). That's why I was so excited about joining the Big East. Athletically it would have given UC a lot of tools that an Ohio State or Kentucky had but, just as importantly, it gave Cincinnati more academic tools to push itself into the higher rungs of academic programs.

omnicarrier Wrote:In answer to the post topic question:

...ummmm, leadership?

Let's face it the league was founded on two principles: markets and basketball.

Jackson1011 Wrote:Frankly, I could tell you more about WVUs third string QB then how the academic alliances form...I am assuming there is a reason we don't have one. Is it the different academic goals/diversity of the schools? I am very interested in hearing this answer

Jackson

The main purpose of academic consortiums like the CIC and now the SECAC has to do with the aligning and sharing of doctoral research programs and information for various goals, one of which is to enhance the application and receipt of federal research dollars.

Up until this point the CIC has been by far the model of these type of academic consortiums, although the Ivy League's individual reputations are still ahead of the Big Ten individual university reputations.

In the past few years, the federal government appears to now be leaning toward a model started in California and has spread to some northeastern states. These state consortiums favor a mixture of academic institutions, businesses, and not-for-profit agencies. And the key goal of these consortiums is research that leads to economic development in the region. Also, these state consortiums have drawn upon private universities in the state as well as public.

So in this regard, in these types of consortiums, the Big East could eventually merge as a leader due to its markets and its diversity and not be handicapped by it.

But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to materialize.

Cheers,
Neil

And you know the sad thing? If the Big East developed a consortium like that with the Division I-A football schools and the basketball schools not only would it have a powerful consortium but it would make it even less likely of a split occurring. You would think that Mike Tranghese and people in the Big East who don't want a split would realize that. When you're talking about strong academic and research universities and facilities like Georgetown, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Cincinnati, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Depaul, etc, you're talking about some strong, heady stuff, especially with Notre Dame being part of it.

DFW HOYA Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:The hybrid nature of this conference doesn't help matters any. All of the schools have different alliances, goals, and priorities. There is no consensus in anything. Why should academics be any different?

Well, even across schools their is diversity. Georgetown and Providence have different educational missions, as well as Rutgers and Cincinnati.

True. But then I highly doubt Providence, Nova, St. John's, Seton Hall, Marquette or DePaul consider themselves to be research universities.

Unlike let's say Georgetown, Syracuse, and Notre Dame all of which do.

And while the educational missions of a Rutgers and a Cincinnati may be different in terms of undergraduate missions, both are actually similar when it comes to graduate/doctoral research missions.

Quote:The Big 10 is unique in the ability to build schools of similar region, focus, and research focus--every one of the 12 CIC members (Big 10+Chicago) are major research institutions. Most conferences don't have this, either. What does Miami and Maryland have in common academically?

Agreed for the most part. Which is why the CIC has been such a success whereas the ACCIAC's main focus remains on International Research abroad.

Quote:For the Big East schools, Pitt, Notre Dame, Rutgers are in a top tier of research, Georgetown, Syracuse and Cincinnati are in a second tier, and then a lot of others fall after that.

I'd be leery of research rankings, especially any that consider ND a top tier research university. Dig a little deeper into those rankings and you will likely find that ND is in the top tier due to its Endowments, Annual Giving Rates by Alumni, and its undergraduate admissions criteria none of which really has much to do with the quality and quantity of the research going on at that fine institution.

Another misleading criteria that is often used when ranking research institutions is Total Research Dollars received. In this regard, state institutions (in particular flagship state institutions) have an advantage since they are likely to receive far more state research dollars than secondary public institutions of that state as well as privates that reside in that state.

It's the reason I favor those research rankings that focus more on federal research dollars. The main bias in this category is that medical and engineering research costs more $$$ than does social science research. But every system is flawed.

The next criteria I tend to favor is the quality of the research faculty. What national organizations are they members of and number of national awards that they have received.

And lastly, the number of doctorates granted at the institution and the number of students still doing post doctorate work at the institution.

So, in this regard, here are how the top 4 private research universities that have ever been Big East members compare to one another - two of which are considered by the Center for Measuring University Performances to be amongst the Top 25 Private Universities in Research while the other two are in the upper echelon of those privates ranked in the 26-50 category.

Univ. - Federal Research $$$ - Honored Faculty - Doctorates - Post Doctorates

Georgetown - $ 100,328 - 14 - 84 - 44
Univ. of Miami - $ 156,059 - 6 - 195 - 337
Notre Dame - $ 51,072 - 19 - 160 - 140
Syracuse - $ 46,945 - 10 - 164 - 43

Now keeping in mind that both Georgetown and Miami have medical research centers to explain the gap difference in terms of federal research dollar granted, the only other significant difference between these four are the high number of honored faculty member at ND and the high number of students doing post doctoral work at Miami.

And those two factors also help explain why ND and Miami are in the Top 25 of those rankings of private research universities whereas Georgetown and Syracuse are the top 2 in the 26-50 rankings of private research universities.

As for public research universities, Pitt is one of the upper echelon institutions along with Cal-Berkeley, UCLA, Illinois, UNC, and Wisconsin.

That is excellent company indeed.

Rutgers also ranks in the Top 25 as does Cincinnati. Cincinnati would probably be ahead of Rutgers if it were not for its much smaller number of honored faculty.

Both South Florida and Connecticut rank in the 26-50 group.

The foundation is there for an excellent academic consortium. But it would need to be along the lines of new consortiums that include businesses, not-for-profit agencies, with a mixture of state flagships, private, and public metro universities.

Cheers,
Neil

CatsClaw Wrote:

brista21 Wrote:Which lends credence to the belief that if you aren't an Ivy, MIT, Cal Tech, NYU, U of Chicago that big time athletics is almost necessary to help the academic profile of a school.

Exactly. I couldn't believe how important athletics became to academic profiles until Big East expansion came around and I read up on the Big East, Big Ten and Pac-10 academics. By all accounts Cincinnati would have fit in fine in the Big Ten academically, it was more of an Ohio State thing (already having an Ohio school). That's why I was so excited about joining the Big East. Athletically it would have given UC a lot of tools that an Ohio State or Kentucky had but, just as importantly, it gave Cincinnati more academic tools to push itself into the higher rungs of academic programs.

And nothing demonstrates the above more than Florida State whose "research" prowess (such as it is) was elevated by being in the ACC. FSU is still considered the second best research institution in the state of Florida behind UF, even though it was surpassed by USF in virtually every category that matters before the Bulls even entered the Big East.

But because FSU was in the ACC and USF was in the Sun Belt and briefly C-USA this was never recognized. Now that they are part of the Big East, there is even talk of them becoming an AAU Member. Of course, neither approaches UF (already in the AAU), but in comparison with each other, USF has the edge and has the better chance for AAU membership.

Cheers,
Neil

All this means is that all universities has different missions, and serve different purposes. Is one better than another? It depends on what your goals and priorities are.

Which is more important to the building, the architect, or the men that build it? The building wouldn't get built if either failed to do his job.

It's like those butterflies that flap their wings to create hurricanes halfway around the world.

Thanks but no thanks... Conferences should be about athletics not academics. We'll continue to find cures like the vaccine developed at UofL for cervical cancer or the soon to be announced cure for cickle cell anemia. Let the ACC schools can sit around snacking on crab cakes and crumpets, talking about getting it done. Big East schools do it. Just like the football field, the ACC is a bunch of elitist hot air. Screw them and their consortium.
CJ

Academic consortiums are still useful resources to have. The Big East should simply go ahead and start one. It should not matter that every university is not as singularly focused as the Big Ten. There is no rule saying there can't be several areas of concentration within one overall consortium. Getting the thing off the ground is the key though.

CardinalJim Wrote:Thanks but no thanks... Conferences should be about athletics not academics. We'll continue to find cures like the vaccine developed at UofL for cervical cancer or the soon to be announced cure for cickle cell anemia. Let the ACC schools can sit around snacking on crab cakes and crumpets, talking about getting it done. Big East schools do it. Just like the football field, the ACC is a bunch of elitist hot air. Screw them and their consortium.
CJ

Big East leadership apparently thinks enough of the ACC's consortium that they want to be part of it in some capacity.

The leadership of this conference is why we're still talking about splitting.

Who cares what they think?

CardinalJim Wrote:Thanks but no thanks... Conferences should be about athletics not academics. We'll continue to find cures like the vaccine developed at UofL for cervical cancer or the soon to be announced cure for cickle cell anemia. Let the ACC schools can sit around snacking on crab cakes and crumpets, talking about getting it done. Big East schools do it. Just like the football field, the ACC is a bunch of elitist hot air. Screw them and their consortium.
CJ

That's a sports fan talking, not a college president. And ultimately college presidents decide who are part of their particular athletic conferences and who are not. And it will be college presidents that decide whether or not they accept offers from other conferences to be part of a different league.

All-sports conference or hybrid?
Average Conference payouts?
Conference TV Network?
conference Academic Consortium?

The more the Big East keeps coming up short in the above areas the more likely other members may bolt to other leagues that are in better shape than the above.

And in this age of conference networks, there is likely going to be a war of attrition between the Big East and the ACC in the coming decade and a half.

Cheers,
Neil