I don't get why people get so hung up on academics. It's about the sports and regional matchups. Who cares if school A is 10 slots higher than school B. It's FB, BB and the other sports. Let's play ball and get over all this foolishness.

Academics CAN matter if your conference is safe and stable and everyone in your region wants to be in it (PAC/SEC/B1G). IOW if your conference has the luxury of being active instead of reactive, you can set the criteria to be whatever you want it to be, including academics.

Academics do not matter if you are vulnerable to raids and or need replacements as quick as possible from the best available schools regardless if they met your past standards or not (B12/ACC/BE..etc)

Since Presidents are the ones who ultimately drive Conference Affiliation, it matters to some of them.

I agree it shouldn't matter though.

Because this is *college* athletics...

Academics are important, but it doesn't drive the bus anymore.

It matters for the BIG and PAC.

For the SEC it matters if you are a state flagship. Multiple C*USA schools have better academics than SEC schools, and several are in bigger metros, but they are not the "capstone" school of the state. If they had it to do over, Vanderbilt and Mississippi State would not have mad it into the SEC, but for different reasons.

For the ACC it matters for some of them. It's why it took so long for Louisville to make it in. The bar is lowered, but Louisville is still considered the #2 school in Kentucky and not a complete academic pushover (still better than WVU). Who the ACC goes for after being raided again will depend on whether or not they lose FSU/Clemson, or they lose UNC/Virginia.

This is a conference realignment board, so we talk about academics more than most sports message boards. The general sports fan population actually severely underrates the academic component in terms of determining conference affiliation (particularly when talking about the power conferences).

Now, if you're asking whether *conferences* are overrating academics, I'd generally agree with 10thMountain: it all depends upon your options. The Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC can put up whatever academic requirements that they want (if they choose to do so) because they have a long list of schools trying to get in. On the other end of the spectrum, the WAC has to take a for-profit school (Grand Canyon University) just to be able to survive. Note that schools are completely hypocritical when it comes to academics regarding the actual athletes (e.g. UNC will always be considered an academic superstar even with their current scandal going on while Boise State has ranked very highly for football team academic performance yet won't get a sniff of a Pac-12 invite on academic grounds). Whether it's right or wrong, it's all about institutional perception.

(04-03-2013 04:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Now, if you're asking whether *conferences* are overrating academics, I'd generally agree with 10thMountain: it all depends upon your options.

It also depends on what kind of academics we are talking about. The total amount of Big Ten "CIC" research funding dwarfs the revenues of athletics ~ its big business, its got a number of wealth corporate clients looking to it to generate intellectual property and future wealth opportunities, and the Big Ten Presidents just aren't going to ignore academics to chase the smaller amounts of money available for playing sport.

At the other end of the FBS totem pole, the MAC schools all subsidize their sports, which means there is a strong academic lobby in the MAC schools to reduce emphasis on athletics, and if the MAC brings in a school that is too weak in athletics, it strengthens the hands of the opponents of sports subsidies.

And, yeah, for the All Aboard Conference, Conference USA, Sunbelt, they are sporting conferences doing what they can do to cobble together the best competition they can, and they just can't be too fussy, even if it does make some academics at their schools pitch a fit.

(04-03-2013 04:57 PM)GreenMississippi Wrote:  It matters for the BIG and PAC.

For the SEC it matters if you are a state flagship. Multiple C*USA schools have better academics than SEC schools, and several are in bigger metros, but they are not the "capstone" school of the state. If they had it to do over, Vanderbilt and Mississippi State would not have mad it into the SEC, but for different reasons.

Multiple (current) CUSA schools are small private schools with big endowments so the fact that they rank higher than big state schools isn't super surprising.

I'll agree that MSU probably wouldn't make a do over because MS is such a small market state to begin with but not sure about Vandy. They are a great school, great road trip and are competitive in everything and even have occasional good FB seasons. Plus, there seems to be some value in having at least one private member as no major conference doesn't have one.

I wish academics matter more, that's what college should be about (even if that really is cliche). You look around at Division II/III and there you find some of the truest student-athletes, using their abilities to help their futures off the field (as well as DI of course, but I'm just using this as an example of young men and women with even less of a chance of going pro).

Too bad the Magnolia Conference didn't come to be during the 1950's, the idea of a major athletic conference committed to academics first would be great to see today. Charter members were supposed to be Tulane, SMU, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Duke, I imagine that Baylor, TCU, The U, and Wake Forest would be involved now if the events of the past occurred fairly similar to real life. Money was one of the main reasons it never formed, Rice and SMU didn't want to give up their share of the Cotton Bowl payout along with Duke not wanting to part with UNC. Guess we can't cry over spilled milk now.

(04-03-2013 05:18 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Multiple (current) CUSA schools are small private schools with big endowments so the fact that they rank higher than big state schools isn't super surprising.

There's a point where people seem to get confused about Big Ten "academics" ~ what the Big Ten is meaning in "academics" is the academic status of the academic graduate schools, the professional status of the professional graduate schools, and the research funds drawing power of the big research grant graduate schools ... with the emphasis on the last of the three.

Quality of undergraduate education is not much of a pressing concern at the big research universities. Lots of big state research universities have weaker undergraduate education in lots of fields than smaller public universities in their same states, because they use the undergraduate courses as a cash cow to finance the graduate education of their graduate students.

PAC and Big both want high level research activity in all members and the ability of a member to add value to their Research consortiums and help land academic grant money. SEC is starting one of these as well. as to everyone else. well I don't see much emphasis on academics or the ability to work together to land grant money. I don't know if the ACC does much of this but they should be.

In the MWC, I know Wyoming and CSU are working together on several research projects and seeing increases in grant money by pooling resources. But I doubt the MWC gave much thought to academics other then a general university profile.

It does matter actually. Endowments dwarf every school's athletic budget. These things matter in the Big 10 where they split research costs.

No. There is a perception that lower academic standards equates to better athletes. That is why Harvard will never compete with Alabama. Im not saying either one is right or wrong. just that it is not unreasonable for schools to say they want to be associated with schools that have similar standards.

There are some gray areas. You have to look beyond a single list or publication.

(04-03-2013 05:18 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-03-2013 04:57 PM)GreenMississippi Wrote:  It matters for the BIG and PAC.

For the SEC it matters if you are a state flagship. Multiple C*USA schools have better academics than SEC schools, and several are in bigger metros, but they are not the "capstone" school of the state. If they had it to do over, Vanderbilt and Mississippi State would not have mad it into the SEC, but for different reasons.

Multiple (current) CUSA schools are small private schools with big endowments so the fact that they rank higher than big state schools isn't super surprising.

I'll agree that MSU probably wouldn't make a do over because MS is such a small market state to begin with but not sure about Vandy. They are a great school, great road trip and are competitive in everything and even have occasional good FB seasons. Plus, there seems to be some value in having at least one private member as no major conference doesn't have one.

The tailgating there sucks though and the strip clubs have a strict no-touch policy IIRC. Of course that was a Thursday night game so my experience may be jaded.

I got to get out to see some of the West teams one of these days.

(04-03-2013 07:47 PM)billings Wrote:  PAC and Big both want high level research activity in all members and the ability of a member to add value to their Research consortiums and help land academic grant money. SEC is starting one of these as well. as to everyone else. well I don't see much emphasis on academics or the ability to work together to land grant money. I don't know if the ACC does much of this but they should be.

In the MWC, I know Wyoming and CSU are working together on several research projects and seeing increases in grant money by pooling resources. But I doubt the MWC gave much thought to academics other then a general university profile.

The ACC has the ACCIAC ("[o]nly the Ivy League includes more top 40 universities") and CIC's don't help land grant money. They pool purchasing of supplies, offer access to fiber optic cable at reduced rates (they get reduced rates by pooling purchasing), offer access to virtual memory at reduced rates (they get reduced rates by pooling purchasing), provide electronic security ("identity management") at reduced rates (they get reduced rates by pooling purchasing), have pooled library sharing (which every college in the US does anyway), share summer abroad program, let PHD students spend a year at a different member institution (they've been doing this since 1963), and have some digital shared classes (they do this for about 6 classes and, to the best of my knowledge, all of them are into to language classes, which means 99.9% of B1G students will never come into contact with this...I know I didn't.).

The CIC does not directly help anyone get grant money.

Here is a link to the site (heads up, don't just read the titles. Read the descriptions, because the titles can be misleading. "Collaborative research" is actually "IT for Collaborative Research" and that consists of pooled purchasing for fiber optic cable, cloud memory, and electronis security when you click on it.)

http://www.cic.net/projects/technology/c...e-research

Here is a link to the ACCIAC:
http://acciac.org/

Until UMD leaves, the conference with the best academics is the ACC. Even when UMD is replaced by UL, I think that ACC will still be marginally better than the B1G in terms of average US New rank. The B1G is just better at advertising than the ACC.

Don't get me wrong, pooled purchasing is good, and B1G pooled purchasing probs results in cheaper prices than ACC pooled purchasing, because B1G universities probs do more pooled purchasing, but it isn't even close to being as good as people pretend that it is. The same goes with the shared classes. I personally LOVE that idea, but 6 intro to language classes is less than impressive, and the ACC is MUCH better situated to do that (better schools and fewer time zones).

(04-03-2013 09:23 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  It does matter actually. Endowments dwarf every school's athletic budget. These things matter in the Big 10 where they split research costs.

No, they don't.

(04-03-2013 09:38 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  No. There is a perception that lower academic standards equates to better athletes. That is why Harvard will never compete with Alabama. Im not saying either one is right or wrong. just that it is not unreasonable for schools to say they want to be associated with schools that have similar standards.

There are some gray areas. You have to look beyond a single list or publication.

You are correct sir. People voice their perceptions, not necessarily reality. Mississippi State has been mentioned here as a school that might not have been included in the SEC if academics was a primary consideration for membership, compared to say Vandy. While Vandy is certainly considered by those who make such comparisons as a fine academic institution, MSU isn't just a one room schoolhouse with no academic credentials of their own. It is a Carnegie Research University (high research activity) institution that graduates a significant percentage of its students in practical disciplines, such as engineering, forestry and agricultural sciences. I'm not saying MSU is Georgia Tech, but it's not the academic wasteland that some may suggest. FWIW, I am not a MSU fan.

That said, to paraphrase someone else on the thread... it's college *athletics*. Conference affiliation should be as much about academics as its members deem important, but it is about an athletic association.

(04-04-2013 12:04 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  The CIC does not directly help anyone get grant money.

Here is a link to the site (heads up, don't just read the titles. Read the descriptions, because the titles can be misleading. "Collaborative research" is actually "IT for Collaborative Research" and that consists of pooled purchasing for fiber optic cable, cloud memory, and electronis security when you click on it.)

http://www.cic.net/projects/technology/c...e-research

Don't believe that for a minute. The CIC is the chief lobbying arm of the B1G for federal research dollars.

(04-04-2013 07:34 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-04-2013 12:04 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  The CIC does not directly help anyone get grant money.

Here is a link to the site (heads up, don't just read the titles. Read the descriptions, because the titles can be misleading. "Collaborative research" is actually "IT for Collaborative Research" and that consists of pooled purchasing for fiber optic cable, cloud memory, and electronis security when you click on it.)

http://www.cic.net/projects/technology/c...e-research

Don't believe that for a minute. The CIC is the chief lobbying arm of the B1G for federal research dollars.

1. It's not.
2. They don't claim to be. They only claim to do what I said they did. I know that because I quoted them. Either they are telling a lie against their best interest or you have a fatally flawed misconception of what they actually do.