(09-06-2013 10:12 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 03:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:44 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:28 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that UC deserves to be in a power conference, and I wish UC all the luck in the world joining the Big XII and prospering there. However, the idea of the ACC adding UC needs to be put to rest. Don't get me wrong, UC fields great teams and has great potential. It just isn't a good cultural fit for the ACC, and that's important. None the less, I think that it would be an excellent cultural fit for the Big XII, it would be a great traveling partner for WVU, and it would elevate the competitiveness of the conference. If Memphis can figure out how to consistently field a competitive football team, I can see the Big XII adding Memphis and Cincinnati and both schools doing very well there.

Can you explain how Notre Dame and Louisville, no offense meant towards those schools, are better cultural fits than UC?

I would have to question the cultural reference also.

I honestly don't know the reasons one school gets picked over another.

I suppose there is some rhyme or reason... TV Networks, athletic budget, AAU, Research.

I guess the rather odd thing about the ACC latest choice, in my mind, would be the high regard the conference (ACC) seems to hold and tout in academics. Given UC more than doubles the latest ACC choice in Research, $411M to $190M (go ahead and add that athletic budget for UL onto that $190M), it seems a shift away from any kind of culture and more to a pure athletic driven decision.

In any event, there is no crying in realignment. I don't think the ACC has any incentive to expand unless the other conferences go to 16... we'll have to wait for the Jan P5 meetings to get some kind of direction. We may not be going anywhere...

The ACC isn't jam-packed with big state-funded degree mills that can spread the costs associated with developing a strong research mechanism over a billion students (i.e. like many of the schools in the B1G) and thus doesn't market itself as a premier research conference. It markets itself as the premier academic conference. Look at the slogan of it's academic consortium. It doesn't even mention research. It talks about academic rankings. It says "[o]nly the Ivy League includes more top 40 universities (as ranked by US News)." That's how little research matters. Marketing aside, research funding of one school means almost nothing to the other schools in the conference. In fact, I saw somewhere that the CIC saves something like $19 million. I'm not sure if that's per year, or since the beginning of time, but $19 million split twelve-fourteen ways isn't impressive, especially assuming that every other major conference research consortium is at least half that (guess). Each B1G school gets a couple hundred thousand dollar advantage. In the grand scheme of PSU's $4+ billion operating budget, how much do you think that matters? I'm guessing that you will agree with me when I say that it's worth less than a year's worth of well placed advertisements. However, academic ratings mean a lot. The high caliber kids who are interested in going to BC, ND, Pitt, Miami, and Duke who watch SU play those schools sit through SU advertisements and are more likely to consider going to SU. The same goes for the high caliber undergrads at those schools in relation to SU grad schools.

I guess that's the long way of me saying that UC's research spending is only relevant in my mind to the extent that it influences the UC's academic ranking, which isn't bad, but is more in line with the Big XII than the ACC.

LOL... I was feeling the vibe until you left out how the latest ACC pick better fits the academic profile that is desired.

You can use US News if you want.

I'm not sure how the B1G CIC got brought into the discussion when your claim was that UC better fit the Big 12 profile?

Degree mills? okay...

Cincinnati is a GOOD CULTURAL FIT FOR THE ACC.

Anyone who uses US News to compare schools is a moron. US News compares nothing but opinions and inputs that can be juggled. Emory and Baylor have been caught on this. Real measurements measure outputs.

Cincy is a borderline AAU level school as evidenced by the 2010 AAU voting which you can look up in the Chronicle of Higher Education. By various metric you will find them ranked in the US between about 60 and 95. They are akin to NC State and VT and a clear rung above Clemson and Louisville.

If Louisville had not been available, Cincy would have made it into the ACC. However, Louisville had a few things that Cincy did not have:

1. A new football stadium
2. A larger media market footprint in the State of Kentucky and southside Indiana
3. A highly respected medical school
4. Unquestioned basketball prowess
5. Louisville is a college town

Cincy has some problems that Louisville does not have:

1. Cincy is squeezed in it's market footprint between Ohio State and Kentucky
2. Cincy is a pro town
3. Nippert Stadium is God-awful

The dynamics of the decision to add Louisville were also predicated by the fact that Notre Dame was in on the decision, as well as Syracuse and Pitt. They did not have votes, but their input was respected. FSU and Clemson were adamant about not adding a non-football school and a non-southern school.

I don't think anyone was AGAINST Cincy in the ACC back in November of 2012. The issue was that Louisville was seen as a better addition for media purposes and in that sense, Louisville was able to overcome what would have been too high a hurdle in the past.

(09-07-2013 08:55 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  How many more 45-17 beatdowns will the UC faithful take before they turn on pine box? I was done with him during the middle-end of him during his 1st season at Tech.

There are few coaches I dislike more than Tuberville. He's overrated and goes through offensive coordinators like jelly beans. He's a joke and a bad joke at that.

You can go to this website to see where American universities rank in research dollars http://mup.asu.edu/research_data.html :

In the ACC:

9 Duke
19 UNC
26 Pitt
42 GT
44 UVa
46 MD
62 NC State
64 CINCY
66 VT
69 FSU
79 Miami

Heavy research is key to most of the ACC. GT, NCSU, and VT do not have medical schools, and so have no medical research dollars to speak of otherwise they would be some 10-12 spots higher.

Wake Forest and BC are the two schools that are relatively light on research, however Wake has a large Medical facility and Medical school - Wake Forest Baptist Hospital is the largest hospital in western NC.

So for those saying research is big in the ACC, you are just wrong. In fact medical research is what Duke, UNC, and Pitt live on.


I think from most academic standpoints, Cincy is the top non B-5 school playing FBS football, although by some metrics, Tulane and/or Rice would be better but Tulane's sports stink and Rice is tiny. UConn would be on a rung following these. I may have forgotten someone.

(09-07-2013 09:20 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Cincinnati is a GOOD CULTURAL FIT FOR THE ACC.

Anyone who uses US News to compare schools is a moron. US News compares nothing but opinions and inputs that can be juggled. Emory and Baylor have been caught on this. Real measurements measure outputs.

Cincy is a borderline AAU level school as evidenced by the 2010 AAU voting which you can look up in the Chronicle of Higher Education. By various metric you will find them ranked in the US between about 60 and 95. They are akin to NC State and VT and a clear rung above Clemson and Louisville.

If Louisville had not been available, Cincy would have made it into the ACC. However, Louisville had a few things that Cincy did not have:

1. A new football stadium
2. A larger media market footprint in the State of Kentucky and southside Indiana
3. A highly respected medical school
4. Unquestioned basketball prowess
5. Louisville is a college town

Cincy has some problems that Louisville does not have:

1. Cincy is squeezed in it's market footprint between Ohio State and Kentucky
2. Cincy is a pro town
3. Nippert Stadium is God-awful

The dynamics of the decision to add Louisville were also predicated by the fact that Notre Dame was in on the decision, as well as Syracuse and Pitt. They did not have votes, but their input was respected. FSU and Clemson were adamant about not adding a non-football school and a non-southern school.

I don't think anyone was AGAINST Cincy in the ACC back in November of 2012. The issue was that Louisville was seen as a better addition for media purposes and in that sense, Louisville was able to overcome what would have been too high a hurdle in the past.

1. I will freely stipulate that UC fields good teams. I actually like Cincinnati, and if there's anyone on the planet Earth that respects their athletic department's ability to consistently achieve satisfactory results, it's me. However, I do not think that UC fits the ACC's culture. I have outlined some reasons why I have that belief. You clearly disagree, so tell me why. Why do you think that UC would be a good cultural fit?

2. Find a better system than US News. Sure it has its problems, but it's better than anything that I've ever seen and nobody on this forum has come up with anything better. Also, anyone with a basic understanding of statistics can tell you why opinions can still paint an accurate picture, even if every individual school has a bias. Furthermore, measuring outputs is exceedingly hard. Measuring salaries would favor urban engineering schools in Democratic states with high costs of living, measuring employment rates would favor art schools (all artists are employed...they're just "self employed"), and so on.

3. The AAU is irrelevant to pretty much everything. It was a B1G marketing point, which is the only reason why anyone knows what it is. The ACC doesn't use either that or its research as a selling point, so it doesn't matter for ACC purposes. Anyway, the AAU isn't about to add UC, or any other school for that matter. They're trying to be more selective and you do that by kicking people out and not bringing in new members.

4. Had UL not been available, UCONN would have been chosen and some ACC schools probably would have left. I feel like I come off as ragging on UL a lot because I say things like I see them, both for better and for worse, but I really am thankful that UL was able to save us and hold the conference together.

(09-07-2013 09:36 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  You can go to this website to see where American universities rank in research dollars http://mup.asu.edu/research_data.html :

In the ACC:

9 Duke
19 UNC
26 Pitt
42 GT
44 UVa
46 MD
62 NC State
64 CINCY
66 VT
69 FSU
79 Miami

Heavy research is key to most of the ACC. GT, NCSU, and VT do not have medical schools, and so have no medical research dollars to speak of otherwise they would be some 10-12 spots higher.

Wake Forest and BC are the two schools that are relatively light on research, however Wake has a large Medical facility and Medical school - Wake Forest Baptist Hospital is the largest hospital in western NC.

So for those saying research is big in the ACC, you are just wrong. In fact medical research is what Duke, UNC, and Pitt live on.


I think from most academic standpoints, Cincy is the top non B-5 school playing FBS football, although by some metrics, Tulane and/or Rice would be better but Tulane's sports stink and Rice is tiny. UConn would be on a rung following these. I may have forgotten someone.

You cherry picked 10/15 ACC schools and then made an "if" statement trying to explain away 3/15. If my aunt had different plumbing, she would be my uncle, but that clearly isn't the case.

Some ACC schools may be good at research (nobody ever said that they weren't), but the conference does not market itself as a research conference a la Big Ten. That is a fact. It does market itself as an academic conference. That is a fact. ACC academics generally take priority over ACC research. That is also a fact. Furthermore, marketing purposes aside, one school's research budget has almost no affect an another schools' academic position or research budget. That is also a fact. UC's ability to do research has next to nothing to do with their ability to join the Atlantic Coast Conference. Don't get me wrong, I sincerely wish UC researchers the best of luck and genuinely hope that they develop a cure for cancer, or whatever it is that they're researching. However, is just isn't very applicable to a sports discussion, which is ultimately what this is.

Finally, not that I'm some great UCONN defender, but based PURELY on academics I would say Rice>Tulane>UCONN>SMU>BYU>Tulsa>UC (and I honestly don't know enough about either USF or UCF to pass judgment one way or the other)

yeah i agree.....

Louisville was in fact a move of desperation by the ACC.

the ACC focus's on academic name brand recognition with an emphasis on under grad studies.....being small and elite....

the b10 focus's on being large, research schools with an emphasis on post grad studies.

its two different ways to go about skinning a cat and doesnt mean one is better than the other. thats why its such a joke that people even tr to compare these two conferences academically.

looking at academic rankings it was painfully obvious that maryland was an academic outlier in the ACC. they always were a b10 style school and i think thats the reason why they made the move to the b10.

(09-07-2013 11:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 09:20 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Cincinnati is a GOOD CULTURAL FIT FOR THE ACC.

Anyone who uses US News to compare schools is a moron. US News compares nothing but opinions and inputs that can be juggled. Emory and Baylor have been caught on this. Real measurements measure outputs.

Cincy is a borderline AAU level school as evidenced by the 2010 AAU voting which you can look up in the Chronicle of Higher Education. By various metric you will find them ranked in the US between about 60 and 95. They are akin to NC State and VT and a clear rung above Clemson and Louisville.

If Louisville had not been available, Cincy would have made it into the ACC. However, Louisville had a few things that Cincy did not have:

1. A new football stadium
2. A larger media market footprint in the State of Kentucky and southside Indiana
3. A highly respected medical school
4. Unquestioned basketball prowess
5. Louisville is a college town

Cincy has some problems that Louisville does not have:

1. Cincy is squeezed in it's market footprint between Ohio State and Kentucky
2. Cincy is a pro town
3. Nippert Stadium is God-awful

The dynamics of the decision to add Louisville were also predicated by the fact that Notre Dame was in on the decision, as well as Syracuse and Pitt. They did not have votes, but their input was respected. FSU and Clemson were adamant about not adding a non-football school and a non-southern school.

I don't think anyone was AGAINST Cincy in the ACC back in November of 2012. The issue was that Louisville was seen as a better addition for media purposes and in that sense, Louisville was able to overcome what would have been too high a hurdle in the past.

1. I will freely stipulate that UC fields good teams. I actually like Cincinnati, and if there's anyone on the planet Earth that respects their athletic department's ability to consistently achieve satisfactory results, it's me. However, I do not think that UC fits the ACC's culture. I have outlined some reasons why I have that belief. You clearly disagree, so tell me why. Why do you think that UC would be a good cultural fit?

The ACC's culture is southern and eastern. Cincinnati is in the culturally "southern" part of Ohio. Cincy is also heavily influenced by German culture, as is VT, Pitt, UVa, WF. I see and know nothing that indicates that Cincy is outside the ACC's cultural range. Cincy is not a "Yankee" school, nor is it exclusively "Midwestern". They have a historic basketball tradition, going back to the days of Oscar Robertson and played in the old Dixie Classic against the Big 4 (Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake)

2. Find a better system than US News. Sure it has its problems, but it's better than anything that I've ever seen and nobody on this forum has come up with anything better. Also, anyone with a basic understanding of statistics can tell you why opinions can still paint an accurate picture, even if every individual school has a bias. Furthermore, measuring outputs is exceedingly hard. Measuring salaries would favor urban engineering schools in Democratic states with high costs of living, measuring employment rates would favor art schools (all artists are employed...they're just "self employed"), and so on.

ARWU for one Measuring outputs for education entities usually means things like research, publishing, awards, grants, doctoral production, etc. All that is measured now is the SAT scores of entering students and the number of applications versus the number that matriculate. These are easy to game. Gin up or subsidize the application fee and you improve your score. Make accepted students retake the SAT as a senior or the summer before matriculation and you gin up your scores. Be a small institution in a highly educated state and you gin up your scores.

3. The AAU is irrelevant to pretty much everything. It was a B1G marketing point, which is the only reason why anyone knows what it is. The ACC doesn't use either that or its research as a selling point, so it doesn't matter for ACC purposes. Anyway, the AAU isn't about to add UC, or any other school for that matter. They're trying to be more selective and you do that by kicking people out and not bringing in new members.

AAU membership is rough gauge of the top 50-55 research schools in the US. 55-63 is both debatable and some are on their way out. My point is that Cincy was considered for a vote in 2010, along with NC State and GT. GT, made it, NC State missed by one vote, I don't know how Cincy did in the vote, but they got a vote - getting a vote is itself a sign that your peers consider you to be in the top 70 or so research schools.

4. Had UL not been available, UCONN would have been chosen and some ACC schools probably would have left. I feel like I come off as ragging on UL a lot because I say things like I see them, both for better and for worse, but I really am thankful that UL was able to save us and hold the conference together.

You are wrong about that. UConn would not have 12 of 15 ACC votes to join. BC, VT, Clemson, FSU, GT, and NC State would not have voted for UConn.

With respect, you are on the outside looking in with regards to ACC matters. I and family members have worked for several ACC schools and maintain solid contacts at 4 schools. UConn was at least six votes short.

i honestly cant think of a legitimate reason for why ANY acc school would ever vote in uconns favor

(09-07-2013 11:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 09:36 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  You can go to this website to see where American universities rank in research dollars http://mup.asu.edu/research_data.html :

In the ACC:

9 Duke
19 UNC
26 Pitt
42 GT
44 UVa
46 MD
62 NC State
64 CINCY
66 VT
69 FSU
79 Miami

Heavy research is key to most of the ACC. GT, NCSU, and VT do not have medical schools, and so have no medical research dollars to speak of otherwise they would be some 10-12 spots higher.

Wake Forest and BC are the two schools that are relatively light on research, however Wake has a large Medical facility and Medical school - Wake Forest Baptist Hospital is the largest hospital in western NC.

So for those saying research is big in the ACC, you are just wrong. In fact medical research is what Duke, UNC, and Pitt live on.


I think from most academic standpoints, Cincy is the top non B-5 school playing FBS football, although by some metrics, Tulane and/or Rice would be better but Tulane's sports stink and Rice is tiny. UConn would be on a rung following these. I may have forgotten someone.

You cherry picked 10/15 ACC schools and then made an "if" statement trying to explain away 3/15. If my aunt had different plumbing, she would be my uncle, but that clearly isn't the case.

Some ACC schools may be good at research (nobody ever said that they weren't), but the conference does not market itself as a research conference a la Big Ten. That is a fact. It does market itself as an academic conference. That is a fact. ACC academics generally take priority over ACC research. That is also a fact. Furthermore, marketing purposes aside, one school's research budget has almost no affect an another schools' academic position or research budget. That is also a fact. UC's ability to do research has next to nothing to do with their ability to join the Atlantic Coast Conference. Don't get me wrong, I sincerely wish UC researchers the best of luck and genuinely hope that they develop a cure for cancer, or whatever it is that they're researching. However, is just isn't very applicable to a sports discussion, which is ultimately what this is.

Finally, not that I'm some great UCONN defender, but based PURELY on academics I would say Rice>Tulane>UCONN>SMU>BYU>Tulsa>UC (and I honestly don't know enough about either USF or UCF to pass judgment one way or the other)

You know next to nothing about the ACC, which is to be expected from a Syracuse fan.

(09-07-2013 08:39 PM)Topkat Wrote:  At least I see a change of argument here. Instead of throwing UL under the bus so you can make the ACC mission statement fit, they are just thrown under the bus.

They will be a FULL member. Learn it. Live it. Own it.

As far as sports revenue, not impressed. UL took Marylands spot. In the long term, I doubt any significant increase in revenue will be seen, but it's open for debate. It's not like conference mates don't get money for similar research projects because they will collaborate.

You seem to have a bug about the Big 10. Last post I said that I don't care about them. It's great you represented. I've yet to see the Big 10 deviate from academic profile when expanding.

What would UC bring? The only thing I've seen you use is US News Rankings (which has its own problems that are well documented). Maybe enlighten me on the selection process.

Hey, then you can dream of throwing UC under the bus.

RE "thrown under the bus": Is that the phrase of the day for you or something? Apparently you haven't been following the ACC, but the addition of UL is the only defensive ACC addition in history. That in and of itself makes UL an outlier. I get that UL being an outlier hurts your argument because the only ACC school similar to UC in the ACC is UL, but have some semblance of objectivity.

RE UL: Do you honestly believe that UMD = UL in terms of revenue for the conference? That's like saying Syracuse and Notre Dame are interchangeable because they are both schools and "having SU in a conference is the financial equivalent to having ND in a conference." I love the Cuse, but our athletic dept. isn't even close to being as well-funded as ND's. There's a reason why they join conferences based on their own terms, whereas we join conferences based on the conference's terms.

RE Research: So in your mind, playing a football game against GT once every 6 years, a basketball game against the jackets most years, and scattered other sports on a regular basis means that Syracuse engineering will get more research funding because of Georgia Tech? If so, take a step back and think about how absurd that sounds.

RE B1G: Where were you for the Nebraska add?

RE "What would UC bring?": I don't know. You're the one advocating UC to the ACC. You tell me.

RE Selection process: Off the top of my head, I would imagine it is concentrated on financial impact to the conference, which centers on how much revenue a school will bring into the conference in the form of merch sales, away ticket sales (taking into account the size/passion of the fan base, the location, and the history with current members), post season revenue, TV ratings, and so on, v. how much a school will cost the conference, which might center on travel costs. Next they might examine the competitive impact of the conference, both in terms of how the prospect affects the prestige of the conference and how it affects the conference's recruiting. Then they might analyze the academic impact of the school in terms of location, academic reputation, recruitment focuses, and school strengths. Finally, they might analyze how adding a specific school affects alumni morale of the existing schools by looking at history (has one school tried to black ball another and/or are alumni generally agreeable, or does the prospective member have a rich history?), cultural connection (i.e. BIG EAST Catholic schools), common educational and athletic mission, or a location in an area of interest to alumni.

However, I am sure that I am forgetting something.

RE US News: No. That's not the only thing that I used. I also talked about location and history.

(09-07-2013 11:52 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  You know next to nothing about the ACC, which is to be expected from a Syracuse fan.

Compelling argument. NCSU fan?

(09-07-2013 11:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 11:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. I will freely stipulate that UC fields good teams. I actually like Cincinnati, and if there's anyone on the planet Earth that respects their athletic department's ability to consistently achieve satisfactory results, it's me. However, I do not think that UC fits the ACC's culture. I have outlined some reasons why I have that belief. You clearly disagree, so tell me why. Why do you think that UC would be a good cultural fit?

The ACC's culture is southern and eastern. Cincinnati is in the culturally "southern" part of Ohio. Cincy is also heavily influenced by German culture, as is VT, Pitt, UVa, WF. I see and know nothing that indicates that Cincy is outside the ACC's cultural range. Cincy is not a "Yankee" school, nor is it exclusively "Midwestern". They have a historic basketball tradition, going back to the days of Oscar Robertson and played in the old Dixie Classic against the Big 4 (Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake)

2. Find a better system than US News. Sure it has its problems, but it's better than anything that I've ever seen and nobody on this forum has come up with anything better. Also, anyone with a basic understanding of statistics can tell you why opinions can still paint an accurate picture, even if every individual school has a bias. Furthermore, measuring outputs is exceedingly hard. Measuring salaries would favor urban engineering schools in Democratic states with high costs of living, measuring employment rates would favor art schools (all artists are employed...they're just "self employed"), and so on.

ARWU for one Measuring outputs for education entities usually means things like research, publishing, awards, grants, doctoral production, etc. All that is measured now is the SAT scores of entering students and the number of applications versus the number that matriculate. These are easy to game. Gin up or subsidize the application fee and you improve your score. Make accepted students retake the SAT as a senior or the summer before matriculation and you gin up your scores. Be a small institution in a highly educated state and you gin up your scores.

3. The AAU is irrelevant to pretty much everything. It was a B1G marketing point, which is the only reason why anyone knows what it is. The ACC doesn't use either that or its research as a selling point, so it doesn't matter for ACC purposes. Anyway, the AAU isn't about to add UC, or any other school for that matter. They're trying to be more selective and you do that by kicking people out and not bringing in new members.

AAU membership is rough gauge of the top 50-55 research schools in the US. 55-63 is both debatable and some are on their way out. My point is that Cincy was considered for a vote in 2010, along with NC State and GT. GT, made it, NC State missed by one vote, I don't know how Cincy did in the vote, but they got a vote - getting a vote is itself a sign that your peers consider you to be in the top 70 or so research schools.

4. Had UL not been available, UCONN would have been chosen and some ACC schools probably would have left. I feel like I come off as ragging on UL a lot because I say things like I see them, both for better and for worse, but I really am thankful that UL was able to save us and hold the conference together.

You are wrong about that. UConn would not have 12 of 15 ACC votes to join. BC, VT, Clemson, FSU, GT, and NC State would not have voted for UConn.

With respect, you are on the outside looking in with regards to ACC matters. I and family members have worked for several ACC schools and maintain solid contacts at 4 schools. UConn was at least six votes short.

RE "Southern part of Ohio": Syracuse University is in the middle of the state of NY, but that doesn't make us Midwestern... Btw, according to a UC program published by the University of Cincinnati, UC has played UNC, WF, and NCSU 7 times each and Duke 3 times. I would say that SU and UC have next to no history together and we've played UC 8 times according to the program (which has stats from the '10-'11 year as the most recent year), and all our games have been recent ('05 was the first time that we met).

RE Outputs: "research, publishing, awards, grants, doctoral production, etc." And ALL of those are completely irrelevant to the quality of education conferred and are only of questionable relevance to the school's reputation to confer a quality education. Also, depending on the rankings, employment rates and average starting salary are also measured.

RE US News: Do you think that only some of the schools know that?

RE AAU: When UC joins you can rub it in my face. However, in reality, their chance of joining is roughly the same as UCONN and that is 0%. Anyway, AAU DOESN'T MATTER. It only seems to matter because the B1G used it as a selling point and people who have never done any academic research bought into it.

RE UCONN: Evidently you missed the part where I said "some ACC schools probably would have left."

(09-08-2013 12:08 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 11:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 11:20 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. I will freely stipulate that UC fields good teams. I actually like Cincinnati, and if there's anyone on the planet Earth that respects their athletic department's ability to consistently achieve satisfactory results, it's me. However, I do not think that UC fits the ACC's culture. I have outlined some reasons why I have that belief. You clearly disagree, so tell me why. Why do you think that UC would be a good cultural fit?

The ACC's culture is southern and eastern. Cincinnati is in the culturally "southern" part of Ohio. Cincy is also heavily influenced by German culture, as is VT, Pitt, UVa, WF. I see and know nothing that indicates that Cincy is outside the ACC's cultural range. Cincy is not a "Yankee" school, nor is it exclusively "Midwestern". They have a historic basketball tradition, going back to the days of Oscar Robertson and played in the old Dixie Classic against the Big 4 (Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake)

2. Find a better system than US News. Sure it has its problems, but it's better than anything that I've ever seen and nobody on this forum has come up with anything better. Also, anyone with a basic understanding of statistics can tell you why opinions can still paint an accurate picture, even if every individual school has a bias. Furthermore, measuring outputs is exceedingly hard. Measuring salaries would favor urban engineering schools in Democratic states with high costs of living, measuring employment rates would favor art schools (all artists are employed...they're just "self employed"), and so on.

ARWU for one Measuring outputs for education entities usually means things like research, publishing, awards, grants, doctoral production, etc. All that is measured now is the SAT scores of entering students and the number of applications versus the number that matriculate. These are easy to game. Gin up or subsidize the application fee and you improve your score. Make accepted students retake the SAT as a senior or the summer before matriculation and you gin up your scores. Be a small institution in a highly educated state and you gin up your scores.

3. The AAU is irrelevant to pretty much everything. It was a B1G marketing point, which is the only reason why anyone knows what it is. The ACC doesn't use either that or its research as a selling point, so it doesn't matter for ACC purposes. Anyway, the AAU isn't about to add UC, or any other school for that matter. They're trying to be more selective and you do that by kicking people out and not bringing in new members.

AAU membership is rough gauge of the top 50-55 research schools in the US. 55-63 is both debatable and some are on their way out. My point is that Cincy was considered for a vote in 2010, along with NC State and GT. GT, made it, NC State missed by one vote, I don't know how Cincy did in the vote, but they got a vote - getting a vote is itself a sign that your peers consider you to be in the top 70 or so research schools.

4. Had UL not been available, UCONN would have been chosen and some ACC schools probably would have left. I feel like I come off as ragging on UL a lot because I say things like I see them, both for better and for worse, but I really am thankful that UL was able to save us and hold the conference together.

You are wrong about that. UConn would not have 12 of 15 ACC votes to join. BC, VT, Clemson, FSU, GT, and NC State would not have voted for UConn.

With respect, you are on the outside looking in with regards to ACC matters. I and family members have worked for several ACC schools and maintain solid contacts at 4 schools. UConn was at least six votes short.

RE "Southern part of Ohio": Syracuse University is in the middle of the state of NY, but that doesn't make us Midwestern...

RE Outputs: "research, publishing, awards, grants, doctoral production, etc." And ALL of those are completely irrelevant to the quality of education conferred and are only of questionable relevance to the school's reputation to confer a quality education. Also, depending on the rankings, employment rates and average starting salary are also measured.

Wrong - US News Does Not Measure This

Washington Monthly measure that.

RE US News: Do you think that only some of the schools know that? Only some schools attempt to game the rankings - some don't care.

RE AAU: When UC joins you can rub it in my face. However, in reality, their chance of joining is roughly the same as UCONN and that is 0%. Anyway, AAU DOESN'T MATTER. It only seems to matter because the B1G used it as a selling point and people who have never done any academic research bought into it.

You miss the point. Perhaps that is why AAU tossed Syracuse out?

RE UCONN: Evidently you missed the part where I said "some ACC schools probably would have left."

No, you said that UConn would be voted in and then that some would leave. You have the horse and the cart confused.

Big 10 schools rank from number 3 to number 65 in the production of doctoral students. That's all 14 including Rutgers and MD. The research intensive part of the ACC ranks 23-59 in doctoral production despite having less than half the overall number of students.

UNC -23
NCSU - 34
GT - 36
VT - 37
Pitt - 39
UVa - 49
FSU -50
Duke - 59

The undergraduate focused part of the ACC is mostly new.

Miami - 96
Clemson - 100
Louisville - 105
ND - 107
Syracuse - 114
BC - 116
Wake Forest - 240

Adding Syracuse has not changed the ACC's overall culture, and the ACC's culture is set by the schools in North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia. You might begin to chap at that in the coming years.

Anyway, Cincinnati, with a doctoral production at 88, is right in the middle of the bifurcated academic profile of ACC schools and more like the research schools than you. Indeed, when you get right down to it, you and BC are the real outliers.

(09-08-2013 12:24 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-08-2013 12:08 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  RE "Southern part of Ohio": Syracuse University is in the middle of the state of NY, but that doesn't make us Midwestern...

RE Outputs: "research, publishing, awards, grants, doctoral production, etc." And ALL of those are completely irrelevant to the quality of education conferred and are only of questionable relevance to the school's reputation to confer a quality education. Also, depending on the rankings, employment rates and average starting salary are also measured.

Wrong - US News Does Not Measure This

Washington Monthly measure that.

RE US News: Do you think that only some of the schools know that? Only some schools attempt to game the rankings - some don't care.

RE AAU: When UC joins you can rub it in my face. However, in reality, their chance of joining is roughly the same as UCONN and that is 0%. Anyway, AAU DOESN'T MATTER. It only seems to matter because the B1G used it as a selling point and people who have never done any academic research bought into it.

You miss the point. Perhaps that is why AAU tossed Syracuse out?

RE UCONN: Evidently you missed the part where I said "some ACC schools probably would have left."

No, you said that UConn would be voted in and then that some would leave. You have the horse and the cart confused.

Big 10 schools rank from number 3 to number 65 in the production of doctoral students. That's all 14 including Rutgers and MD. The research intensive part of the ACC ranks 23-59 in doctoral production despite having less than half the overall number of students.

UNC -23
NCSU - 34
GT - 36
VT - 37
Pitt - 39
UVa - 49
FSU -50
Duke - 59

The undergraduate focused part of the ACC is mostly new.

Miami - 96
Clemson - 100
Louisville - 105
ND - 107
Syracuse - 114
BC - 116
Wake Forest - 240

Adding Syracuse has not changed the ACC's overall culture, and the ACC's culture is set by the schools in North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia. You might begin to chap at that in the coming years.

Anyway, Cincinnati, with a doctoral production at 88, is right in the middle of the bifurcated academic profile of ACC schools and more like the research schools than you. Indeed, when you get right down to it, you and BC are the real outliers.

RE US News: Huh? I never said that it did.

RE AAU: I am absolutely certain that my existence had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not SU was, is, or will be in the AAU. And, for what it's worth, SU was in the AAU when I was there and so was PSU (which actually still is). I may be a lot of things, but I am not a reason for the AAU to drop a school.

RE UCONN: No. This is a stupid argument, but my exact words were "UCONN would have been chosen and some ACC schools probably would have left." Notice how that is different from "UCONN would have been chosen and then some ACC schools probably would have left?" It's weird how the presence of one word can alter the entire meaning of a sentence, isn't it? Either way, that's why reading is important. make sure you decode all them there squiggilies.

RE SU add: "Adding Syracuse has not changed the ACC's overall culture." I never said that it did. SU is very much in line with ACC culture. That's why we got a call in '91 and then again in the early '00's, and then again in '11.

RE ACC culture: No. Those schools may have a disproportionate amount of influence, but they do not determine ACC culture any more than 5-6 other ACC schools.

RE Doctoral students: This is absolutely irrelevant to everything. You cherry picked 10 schools and then found a random stat that they all have in common. Clemson and SU both wear a lot of orange, which goes really well with those turkeys in Virginia. Does that suggest that the University of Tennessee might be jumping to the ACC in the immediate future?

Btw, I'm guessing that you're a NCSU fan. Am I right?

(09-07-2013 11:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 11:52 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  You know next to nothing about the ACC, which is to be expected from a Syracuse fan.

Compelling argument. NCSU fan?

This new ACC isn't the ACC he once knew. He'll discover that shortly...

The ACC sold out it's academic credentials when it added UofL.

(09-06-2013 03:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:44 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:28 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that UC deserves to be in a power conference, and I wish UC all the luck in the world joining the Big XII and prospering there. However, the idea of the ACC adding UC needs to be put to rest. Don't get me wrong, UC fields great teams and has great potential. It just isn't a good cultural fit for the ACC, and that's important. None the less, I think that it would be an excellent cultural fit for the Big XII, it would be a great traveling partner for WVU, and it would elevate the competitiveness of the conference. If Memphis can figure out how to consistently field a competitive football team, I can see the Big XII adding Memphis and Cincinnati and both schools doing very well there.

Can you explain how Notre Dame and Louisville, no offense meant towards those schools, are better cultural fits than UC?

I would have to question the cultural reference also.

I honestly don't know the reasons one school gets picked over another.

I suppose there is some rhyme or reason... TV Networks, athletic budget, AAU, Research.

I guess the rather odd thing about the ACC latest choice, in my mind, would be the high regard the conference (ACC) seems to hold and tout in academics. Given UC more than doubles the latest ACC choice in Research, $411M to $190M (go ahead and add that athletic budget for UL onto that $190M), it seems a shift away from any kind of culture and more to a pure athletic driven decision.

In any event, there is no crying in realignment. I don't think the ACC has any incentive to expand unless the other conferences go to 16... we'll have to wait for the Jan P5 meetings to get some kind of direction. We may not be going anywhere...

The ACC isn't jam-packed with big state-funded degree mills that can spread the costs associated with developing a strong research mechanism over a billion students (i.e. like many of the schools in the B1G) and thus doesn't market itself as a premier research conference. It markets itself as the premier academic conference. Look at the slogan of it's academic consortium. It doesn't even mention research. It talks about academic rankings. It says "[o]nly the Ivy League includes more top 40 universities (as ranked by US News)." That's how little research matters. Marketing aside, research funding of one school means almost nothing to the other schools in the conference. In fact, I saw somewhere that the CIC saves something like $19 million. I'm not sure if that's per year, or since the beginning of time, but $19 million split twelve-fourteen ways isn't impressive, especially assuming that every other major conference research consortium is at least half that (guess). Each B1G school gets a couple hundred thousand dollar advantage. In the grand scheme of PSU's $4+ billion operating budget, how much do you think that matters? I'm guessing that you will agree with me when I say that it's worth less than a year's worth of well placed advertisements. However, academic ratings mean a lot. The high caliber kids who are interested in going to BC, ND, Pitt, Miami, and Duke who watch SU play those schools sit through SU advertisements and are more likely to consider going to SU. The same goes for the high caliber undergrads at those schools in relation to SU grad schools.

I guess that's the long way of me saying that UC's research spending is only relevant in my mind to the extent that it influences the UC's academic ranking, which isn't bad, but is more in line with the Big XII than the ACC.

If you don't think research, and graduate research in particular matters to UNC, Duke, Pitt, GT, NC State, VT, FSU, Clemson, and UVa, you really are out of touch.

Surely you can understand that the league office will hunt and peck to find a blurb that covers all the schools to stick on the website and since you, BC, Wake Forest, ND, and to a lesser degree Miami, are focused mainly at the undergraduate level, talking about the research punch of the other schools would leave them on the sideline of the descriptors.

(09-08-2013 01:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  The ACC sold out it's academic credentials when it added UofL.

Somewhat, but Louisville's undergraduate academics are an asterisk compared to their medical school. Like Pitt, UNC, Duke, WF, and UVa, the core of the University of Louisville is the medical school and everything that surrounds the medical school.

The league knew Louisville has a mission to educate students from the State of Kentucky and in that sense, Louisville is different from the rest of the ACC. However, it was the medical school that made the pill easier to swallow for certain league members.

Cincinnati also has a medical school and it's academic undergraduate profile is better than Louisville's. Cincy would not have been out of step with the culture of the ACC, just not in the top two/thirds.

(09-08-2013 02:57 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-08-2013 01:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  The ACC sold out it's academic credentials when it added UofL.

Somewhat, but Louisville's undergraduate academics are an asterisk compared to their medical school. Like Pitt, UNC, Duke, WF, and UVa, the core of the University of Louisville is the medical school and everything that surrounds the medical school.

The league knew Louisville has a mission to educate students from the State of Kentucky and in that sense, Louisville is different from the rest of the ACC. However, it was the medical school that made the pill easier to swallow for certain league members.

Cincinnati also has a medical school and it's academic undergraduate profile is better than Louisville's. Cincy would not have been out of step with the culture of the ACC, just not in the top two/thirds.

Wow and you bought that line?
UofL's medical school drives the bus? Really?

#UofL is ranked #76. Yes, that's right #76.
If #76 is a bragging point how bad is the rest of UofL?
If UofL's medical school is driving the bus for it's UG programs, it must be the little yellow school bus.
And the med school is not the core of the school. UofL has over 22k students of those 22K students, only 597 are medical students.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandre...ngs/page+3
http://louisville.edu/about/profile.html#enrollment

Wake Forest College of Med is #46. That is the closest ACC Medical school to UofL and 30 points isn't close.

And if you are arguing UofL has an overall subpar academic profile because they have to educate KY residents you must be inferring that KY residents are stupid and uneducated and bringing UofL down.

UNCCH and NCST have the mission to educate residents of NC...so are you saying NC residents are smarter than KY?

How about UVA and VaTech? They have as their mission the education of the citizens of their states. Are VA residents smarter than KY residents?

FSU? Same thing public university to educate residents of FL.

Keep drinking the UofL koolaid.

BTW UC College of Med is ranked #42.

(09-08-2013 02:57 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-08-2013 01:30 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  The ACC sold out it's academic credentials when it added UofL.

Somewhat, but Louisville's undergraduate academics are an asterisk compared to their medical school. Like Pitt, UNC, Duke, WF, and UVa, the core of the University of Louisville is the medical school and everything that surrounds the medical school.

The league knew Louisville has a mission to educate students from the State of Kentucky and in that sense, Louisville is different from the rest of the ACC. However, it was the medical school that made the pill easier to swallow for certain league members.

Cincinnati also has a medical school and it's academic undergraduate profile is better than Louisville's. Cincy would not have been out of step with the culture of the ACC, just not in the top two/thirds.

The ACC sold out when they invited FSU. FSU's academics were worse than UofL's are now when they were first invited. It's been all downhill for the ACC's high standards since. UNC turned out to be the biggest academic cheater in the NCAA recently, and we've discovered that Miami isn't far behind...

As for providing sex for recruits, OSU still has much to learn. Miami and UNC could teach the Cowboys a bunch...