(04-27-2011 08:50 AM)WilsonPirate Wrote:  If ECU were called the "University of Eastern North Carolina", I might agree it would fall into the "directional U" category. Instead, it is EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY, denoting a specific, finite geographic area, more closely approximating "University of [CITY]". In the hierarchy of directional-ness, it rests somewhere between the University of North Carolina and the University of Southern California.

Calling a school 'directional' is just an intellectually lazy way of saying a school is not a state flagship AND/OR a member of the BCS cartel AND/OR a school who has risen above its 'directional' name for the sake of convenience AND/OR all of the above (plus its faster to type "directional U").

I'm curious to know where Louisiana Tech, Arkansas State, University of Idaho, and University of Nevada fit in the directional taxonomy.

I think the "directional school" label itself is not necessarily accurate, but it's not necessarily intellectually lazy at least in describing a high correlation between names and power schools. The only school that could be characterized as a "directional school" in the entire BCS is USF. (Anyone that keeps bringing up USC, please stop. Private schools are not and can never be "directional".) Does that mean that BCS conferences simply choose schools based on their names? No. However, the BCS conferences definitely find flagship schools and their virtual equivalents (i.e. the Texas A&M and Florida State-types) to be much more desirable than public schools lower on the totem poles in their respective states, and by nature they don't have directional names.

(04-27-2011 11:52 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 07:48 AM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  Those arrogant asses in Chapel Hill tried to make us UNC-Greenville but that didn't fly. That's how proud we are to be named East Carolina University.

What's East Carolina University? Is that the FCS team we beat 42-17 last fall?

Didn't you guys lose to an FCS team awhile back? I believe it was Furman. Your condescension doesn't prove the point you'd like it too. I'm sure Louisville fans know all about attitudes like yours.

(04-27-2011 11:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 08:50 AM)WilsonPirate Wrote:  If ECU were called the "University of Eastern North Carolina", I might agree it would fall into the "directional U" category. Instead, it is EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY, denoting a specific, finite geographic area, more closely approximating "University of [CITY]". In the hierarchy of directional-ness, it rests somewhere between the University of North Carolina and the University of Southern California.

Calling a school 'directional' is just an intellectually lazy way of saying a school is not a state flagship AND/OR a member of the BCS cartel AND/OR a school who has risen above its 'directional' name for the sake of convenience AND/OR all of the above (plus its faster to type "directional U").

I'm curious to know where Louisiana Tech, Arkansas State, University of Idaho, and University of Nevada fit in the directional taxonomy.

I think the "directional school" label itself is not necessarily accurate, but it's not necessarily intellectually lazy at least in describing a high correlation between names and power schools. The only school that could be characterized as a "directional school" in the entire BCS is USF. (Anyone that keeps bringing up USC, please stop. Private schools are not and can never be "directional".) Does that mean that BCS conferences simply choose schools based on their names? No. However, the BCS conferences definitely find flagship schools and their virtual equivalents (i.e. the Texas A&M and Florida State-types) to be much more desirable than public schools lower on the totem poles in their respective states, and by nature they don't have directional names.

No, it's simply because they were there first. Nothing more, nothing less. Look at Vandy for proof of this, there are dozens of schools that would add far more to the SEC than Vandy (academics included) but they are still in the SEC. Why? Because they were in it years ago.

Keep in mind a lot depends on the state.

UCF's Operating Budget this year was $1,263,439,274. That's over one billion dollars people.
UF's (this is 2007..couldn't find 2011) was $4.377 billion.

A big difference? Sure!

But 1 billion dollars is still a lot of money, and while I don't have have the time to look up other schools numbers, that has to be a decent number.

I'd expect those numbers to get closer together over the years too. These "flagship" schools may have had a bigger head start, but what the next 100 years brings, nobody knows.

Interesting side note: the stae of Florida was pretty close to rennamming all the state schools to UF-XXXXXXXX back in the day.

USF = UF-Tampa.
UCF = UF-Orlando....or....UFO.

That could have been fun =p.

I wouldn't have minded being UFO in the least, especially with our ties to the space coast.

(04-26-2011 09:44 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Honestly the whole "directional school" thing mystifies me to no end. For example the profiles of Central Florida and Eastern Michigan don't compare any more accurately than Western Kentucky University compares with the University of Southern California. If tomorrow the University of Central Florida announced that it was changing its name to the University of Orlando what difference would that make regarding their academic profile, athletic budget, endowment, facilities, etc.?

IMO it matters more to faculty than it does to sports fans, because they want the perceived "non-directional" prestige, though obviously some sports fans care a lot about it too.

So, Southwest Missouri State became Missouri State University. The University of Southwestern Louisiana wanted to become the University of Louisiana, but LSU fought like hell against it and forced USL into getting only "University of Louisiana at Lafayette" while Northeast Louisiana University at the same time became "University of Louisiana at Monroe". Southwest Texas State University wanted to drop the "Southwest" for a long time, and they finally ended up getting "Texas State University - San Marcos" though they are apparently allowed to nickname themselves "Texas State".

(04-27-2011 11:58 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Your condescension doesn't prove the point you'd like it too.

I was merely attempting to affirm mine arrogance by casting forth witty remarks towards thine scurvy lot.

(04-26-2011 09:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  This is what the BE presidents must be asking themselves lately in light of the Villanova debacle. Does the BE conference take a hit with another compass point school in the conference? I know what most fans believe on this board, but what do you think the presidents have in mind? This is a serious question, because we know that 1) most schools think of their athletics budgets as advertising for the school, 2) most schools are spending roughly 5% or less of their overall operating budget on all athletics and 3) most BCS school presidents are image/brand conscious when it comes to the schools they represent.

We are the center of all. Directionals... ie ECU, USF are very regional. as for Miko's school its the Pitts.

(04-27-2011 12:04 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I wouldn't have minded being UFO in the least, especially with our ties to the space coast.

I think this is a meaningless thread. Not because I'm biased but because if I truly try to be objective about it, I don't find any clues that the items Miko brings up to be affecting the choices in a manner that dismisses a candidate immediately. At least the choices the media is throwing out anyway. For someone who abhors stretching things this is clearly making a stretch against the indicators.

This entire argument is absurd, the directional colleges are seen as lesser colleges because at one point, they were. Now, especially in the fastest growing states, those directional schools are bigger and bring more to the table than many of the 'original' state schools in their state or elsewhere. UCF, and USF, both seem to have far more going for them than FSU does (as an entire institution, not athletics of course), and while FSU still currently dwarfs them in research and grants, we are making more strides than they are and it only seems like a matter of time until we catch up. It's simple demographics and a dash of logic. UCF is already harder to get in to that FSU, and I think USF might be also (not a dig, just not sure). That's saying something considering the two 'directional schools' relative age and exponential growth.

Just imagine what will happen when USF and UCF decide to slow down on the expansion and grow their endowments, push for more research, etc.

(04-27-2011 12:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, it's simply because they were there first. Nothing more, nothing less. Look at Vandy for proof of this, there are dozens of schools that would add far more to the SEC than Vandy (academics included) but they are still in the SEC. Why? Because they were in it years ago.

Yes, they were there first, but the whole reason why they were there first in the first place was that those schools sought out like-minded institutions. So, it's a chicken-or-the-egg argument at best at this point.

I'd be curious where are these dozens of schools that exist that would add more to the SEC than Vandy in terms of *academics*. Seriously? I understand the pure athletics argument, but come on now.

(04-27-2011 11:52 AM)BullsFanatic Wrote:  The problem with UCF as "Florida Tech" was that the Florida Institute of Technology also went by "Florida Tech". The confusion led UCF to change its name. No one at the time would have guessed that UCF would grow to what it is today, with a greater national presence than FIT, so I can't blame FTU leaders for changing their name to distinguish themselves.

Not true.

The name was changed from Florida Technological University to the University of Central Florida in 1978 and had absolutely nothing to do with FIT. UCF was founded in 1963, even though classes weren't held until 1968. The name Florida Technological University was proposed in 1965 and chosen in 1966. From the beginning it was to be known as Florida Tech. The choice to change it in 1978 had everything to do with the leaders of the university wanting a name that appealed to wider base of students and nothing to do with FIT.

FIT was founded as Brevard Engineering College in 1958. It changed its name to Florida Institute of Technology in 1966. This was after Florida Technological University (later UCF) had chosen the Florida Tech name. FIT always called themselves FIT. FIT never used the term "Florida Tech" for itself until the 1990s, well after UCF changed its name from FTU.

(04-27-2011 11:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 09:21 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Many thought if Rutgers was named NJU or NJSU...it would have been invited to join the Big Ten or ACC years ago.

That really doesn't make sense at all. The academic credentials and location of the school have always been the major pluses in that school's favor.

Glad you see the point...as this thread is silly, just like if one started a thread called "Is Metro U for You?"

(04-27-2011 12:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 12:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, it's simply because they were there first. Nothing more, nothing less. Look at Vandy for proof of this, there are dozens of schools that would add far more to the SEC than Vandy (academics included) but they are still in the SEC. Why? Because they were in it years ago.

Yes, they were there first, but the whole reason why they were there first in the first place was that those schools sought out like-minded institutions. So, it's a chicken-or-the-egg argument at best at this point.

I'd be curious where are these dozens of schools that exist that would add more to the SEC than Vandy in terms of *academics*. Seriously? I understand the pure athletics argument, but come on now.

What I meant, moreso, is that there are dozens of schools that could add to their athletics with still having a high level of academics. Hell, Tulane probably puts more emphasis than Vandy on athletics, at least they still have an AD.

And no, it's not a question of 'chicken or the egg' it's a fact that many of these conferences were started before many of these directional universities were founded. It's quite hard to kick out a member of a conference, even one that's not contributing (look at the bottom four BBall only schools in the Big East for proof of that). That means, those who happened to be around at the time of the conference creation got a leg up simply because the demographics hadn't shifted yet.

(04-27-2011 11:52 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 07:48 AM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  Those arrogant asses in Chapel Hill tried to make us UNC-Greenville but that didn't fly. That's how proud we are to be named East Carolina University.

What's East Carolina University? Is that the FCS team we beat 42-17 last fall?

Well you guys did have the best players Black Santa could buy. Payback is coming on October 1st and it will be very sweet. The University of Non Compliance is going to get punked.

(04-27-2011 12:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  This entire argument is absurd, the directional colleges are seen as lesser colleges because at one point, they were. Now, especially in the fastest growing states, those directional schools are bigger and bring more to the table than many of the 'original' state schools in their state or elsewhere. UCF, and USF, both seem to have far more going for them than FSU does (as an entire institution, not athletics of course), and while FSU still currently dwarfs them in research and grants, we are making more strides than they are and it only seems like a matter of time until we catch up. It's simple demographics and a dash of logic. UCF is already harder to get in to that FSU, and I think USF might be also (not a dig, just not sure). That's saying something considering the two 'directional schools' relative age and exponential growth.

Just imagine what will happen when USF and UCF decide to slow down on the expansion and grow their endowments, push for more research, etc.

This is what I've meant by overstatements by expansion candidates in other threads. Here is a comparison of the median SAT scores of the major Florida universities:

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/a/to...scores.htm

So, FSU has higher English scores than UCF and they're tied in Math scores. USF is lower than both of them. It's fine to argue that UCF has done a whole lot to get to the point where it's comparable to FSU, but it loses credibility with overstatements.

(04-27-2011 12:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 12:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  This entire argument is absurd, the directional colleges are seen as lesser colleges because at one point, they were. Now, especially in the fastest growing states, those directional schools are bigger and bring more to the table than many of the 'original' state schools in their state or elsewhere. UCF, and USF, both seem to have far more going for them than FSU does (as an entire institution, not athletics of course), and while FSU still currently dwarfs them in research and grants, we are making more strides than they are and it only seems like a matter of time until we catch up. It's simple demographics and a dash of logic. UCF is already harder to get in to that FSU, and I think USF might be also (not a dig, just not sure). That's saying something considering the two 'directional schools' relative age and exponential growth.

Just imagine what will happen when USF and UCF decide to slow down on the expansion and grow their endowments, push for more research, etc.

This is what I've meant by overstatements by expansion candidates in other threads. Here is a comparison of the median SAT scores of the major Florida universities:

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/a/to...scores.htm

So, FSU has higher English scores than UCF and they're tied in Math scores. USF is lower than both of them. It's fine to argue that UCF has done a whole lot to get to the point where it's comparable to FSU, but it loses credibility with overstatements.

There's dumb students in every class. They are about even and out acceptance rate (43%) is lower than FSU's.

How bout the top half. Like the fact that UCF had 43 National Merit Scholars enroll this past year which puts us in the top 50 in the nation.

(04-27-2011 11:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 08:50 AM)WilsonPirate Wrote:  If ECU were called the "University of Eastern North Carolina", I might agree it would fall into the "directional U" category. Instead, it is EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY, denoting a specific, finite geographic area, more closely approximating "University of [CITY]". In the hierarchy of directional-ness, it rests somewhere between the University of North Carolina and the University of Southern California.

Calling a school 'directional' is just an intellectually lazy way of saying a school is not a state flagship AND/OR a member of the BCS cartel AND/OR a school who has risen above its 'directional' name for the sake of convenience AND/OR all of the above (plus its faster to type "directional U").

I'm curious to know where Louisiana Tech, Arkansas State, University of Idaho, and University of Nevada fit in the directional taxonomy.

I think the "directional school" label itself is not necessarily accurate, but it's not necessarily intellectually lazy at least in describing a high correlation between names and power schools. The only school that could be characterized as a "directional school" in the entire BCS is USF. (Anyone that keeps bringing up USC, please stop. Private schools are not and can never be "directional".) Does that mean that BCS conferences simply choose schools based on their names? No. However, the BCS conferences definitely find flagship schools and their virtual equivalents (i.e. the Texas A&M and Florida State-types) to be much more desirable than public schools lower on the totem poles in their respective states, and by nature they don't have directional names.

I suppose you and I will just differ on what constitutes a directional school, which is fine. Semantics, I guess. I don't think public versus private has anything to do with how directional or not a school's name is: "southern" is a direction. "South" (like "east") is less a direction, and more a location. Agree or disagree as you like.

Now I feel foolish for devoting so much time to this issue, as if it matters in the least. All of us here, and most college sports fans generally, will ascribe very little importance to the name of a university having any bearing on its position in the competitive schema. Perhaps it does to the loathed bandwagoner/apparel fan, who I'd love to buy for what they know, and sell for what they think they know.

(04-27-2011 12:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  What I meant, moreso, is that there are dozens of schools that could add to their athletics with still having a high level of academics. Hell, Tulane probably puts more emphasis than Vandy on athletics, at least they still have an AD.

And no, it's not a question of 'chicken or the egg' it's a fact that many of these conferences were started before many of these directional universities were founded. It's quite hard to kick out a member of a conference, even one that's not contributing (look at the bottom four BBall only schools in the Big East for proof of that). That means, those who happened to be around at the time of the conference creation got a leg up simply because the demographics hadn't shifted yet.

I still don't quite see where there are many, if any, comparable schools to Vandy that balance sports and academics unless you're intimating that the SEC go after some ACC schools like UVA, UNC and Duke. At the non-AQ level, who other than maybe Tulane and Rice (and I don't think either supports athletics anywhere close to Vandy's level) within a reasonable SEC geographic area could possibly bring that combo?

To your second point, out of the 12 C-USA schools, the only 2 members that were not founded by the time the SEC and ACC were formed were UCF and UAB. It had nothing to do with those schools not existing - the original SEC and ACC members didn't consider them to be their peers at that time (with the exception of Tulane, who was a charter SEC member).

Regardless, the "name bias" is really a symptom as opposed to a cause. The BCS bias is toward flagships and flagship equivalents, who by nature don't have directional names.

Hell, I'm surprised he knew his school had a football team.