Can somebody give me a good reason why it matters in conference realignment? And I'm not talking about Presidential, egotistical circlejerks either. It seems that with all the blatant scandals, cheating, the joke of the entire concept of "student athlete", etc. that the curtain has been pulled back at this point. Do the presidents of universities REALLY believe the public buys into the charade?

If you exclude the presidents and bigwigs running the show then no it really doesn't matter.

But the fact is they are running the show and it's they get what they want. The presidents want to associate their schools with like minded institutions. They want great academics, nationally relevant athletics, and a way to draw in the best students, best athletes and most funding. What they're really after is prestige(maybe) and money(definitely). They want to be the best of all three worlds... Smart, Rich and Athletic. So they associate with other schools that they think will increase their attractiveness as a whole.

As far as the public.......hmm.....I don't think that they necessarily have to buy (or not buy) into the charade. People pick universities for any number of reasons (many for the wrong reasons). The student athlete debacle going on across the country is probably one of the last thing to sway the opinion of a prospective student. A student athlete? Maybe... depends on their character.... hell I feel like some recruits see it as a good thing that they'll have all of their papers written for them. Sadly it takes away from all of the hard work other students do...

(11-12-2013 01:43 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Do the presidents of universities REALLY believe the public buys into the charade?

does it matter? they get funding. they get their constituents to buy into it, no? In a world where we're subjected to scary commercials by teachers whining about cuts to education funding, we still see expansions of stadiums, don't we?

As long as presidents are the gate keepers, it matters because it matters to them.

Now what we do have is conferences like the B1G and ACC being less inflexible with academic requirements in order to secure big prizes, so there IS an element of pragmatism.

In addition to what others have said, there's also certainly a correlation (as opposed to causation) aspect here: the most valuable schools for sports tend to be flagship universities, and those flagship universities tend have better academic reputations than their non-flagship counterparts since they are much more research-focused.

At the same time, sports are the "front porch" for most universities outside of the Ivy League. As a result, academic prestige still matters. Michigan wants to hang out with schools that look like Michigan, UCLA wants to hang out with schools that look like UCLA, etc. Now, sometimes the money is such an overriding factor that it can trump academic interests (i.e. the ACC with Louisville or the continued presence of Texas in the Big 12), but make no mistake about it - if you're a top academic school, you'll have a lot more opportunities and options than those without the same credentials.

The other issue is admission standards. They don't really want to be in a conference with schools who can take a lot of players who they wouldn't even come close to considering because they wouldn't be able to stay eligible. A school like Stanford can't take players that a regional open admissions school would take.

admission standards.

Look guys, I get it from the presidential and "image" aspect. What I'm MOST curious about is why it "matters" to the posters on this board. Every single one of you know that athletes aren't held to the same standard as students. Do any of the athletes on a P5 roster contribute to the CIC membership for the B10 in any way, shape or form? Of course they don't, so what difference does it make? Another example, UConn's not in the AAU, so they're screwed if you believe some of their rival fans. Why can't we just say what it is at this point?

It's extremely ironic to me that we have presidents ranting about budget cuts, yet they rake in tens of millions of dollars every year via athletics as they continue to expand facilities; pay coaches more than perhaps most of the professors combined; have scandal after scandal, etc. etc. etc.

My point is why keep the ridiculous charade going? Do they honestly think the American public is this stupid? We all know what the deal really is at this point. All you have to do is listen to post-game interviews to realize at least 60% of the revenue athletes couldn't give a rip about grades. I can look in my own state at the hypocrisy that exists, especially in the P5. Practically nothing (of substance) has happened from the UNC cheating scandal and nobody really gives a **** because they're a "national name brand". Yet, at ECU in just the past 3 years, we have suspended multiple (revenue) players for just skipping a few classes, kicked players off baseball & tennis teams for cheating on papers, kicked players off the football team for behavioral issues, etc. To be blunt, some of these guys are / were big losses. Honestly, I'm extremely PROUD of that for my university but it's not something I notice around the country very much unless it's a BIG deal type of scandal, even then...... sometimes it gets UNC'd (aka, swept under the rug).

So, in a nutshell, why the hell do some of YOU (not Presidents) pretend like academics matters in all of your pissing matches here?

(11-12-2013 10:56 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:   admission standards.

Look guys, I get it from the presidential and "image" aspect. What I'm MOST curious about is why it "matters" to the posters on this board. Every single one of you know that athletes aren't held to the same standard as students. Do any of the athletes on a P5 roster contribute to the CIC membership for the B10 in any way, shape or form? Of course they don't, so what difference does it make? Another example, UConn's not in the AAU, so they're screwed if you believe some of their rival fans. Why can't we just say what it is at this point?

It's extremely ironic to me that we have presidents ranting about budget cuts, yet they rake in tens of millions of dollars every year via athletics as they continue to expand facilities; pay coaches more than perhaps most of the professors combined; have scandal after scandal, etc. etc. etc.

My point is why keep the ridiculous charade going? Do they honestly think the American public is this stupid? We all know what the deal really is at this point. All you have to do is listen to post-game interviews to realize at least 60% of the revenue athletes couldn't give a rip about grades. I can look in my own state at the hypocrisy that exists, especially in the P5. Practically nothing (of substance) has happened from the UNC cheating scandal and nobody really gives a **** because they're a "national name brand". Yet, at ECU in just the past 3 years, we have suspended multiple (revenue) players for just skipping a few classes, kicked players off baseball & tennis teams for cheating on papers, kicked players off the football team for behavioral issues, etc. To be blunt, some of these guys are / were big losses. Honestly, I'm extremely PROUD of that for my university but it's not something I notice around the country very much unless it's a BIG deal type of scandal, even then...... sometimes it gets UNC'd (aka, swept under the rug).

So, in a nutshell, why the hell do some of YOU (not Presidents) pretend like academics matters in all of your pissing matches here?

I tend to pull for teams like Stanford, Northwestern, etc...over some others whose grad rates are lower and who apparently care less about academics. I always have.

(11-12-2013 10:56 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  So, in a nutshell, why the hell do some of YOU (not Presidents) pretend like academics matters in all of your pissing matches here?

I get your point; if Shane Carden were caught with impermissible loaner cars with guns and drugs in the vehicle he would no longer be on the team, but that's just not a big deal at UNC... Heck, the UNC scandal is so big that it has it's own section on the N&O website ( http://www.newsobserver.com/unc-scandal/ ). And somehow it probably hasn't hurt the perception of the university from an academic perspective except in the minds of NC State and ECU students/fans.

But I think in the "pissing matches" here people are trying to come up with the most realistic expansion/realignment scenarios, and to do that, you have to put yourself in the shoes of presidents, not fans.

And presidents are concerned with perception.

The good news (or bad news, depending on what side of the fence you sit on) is that I think Louisville's acceptance into the ACC has proven that at some point, revenue does become more important than historical academic reputation.

(11-12-2013 11:11 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I tend to pull for teams like Stanford, Northwestern, etc...over some others whose grad rates are lower and who apparently care less about academics. I always have.

Perhaps I am naive, but I think all schools care very deeply about academics. However, some schools are more concerned with educating different populations. I wonder how the average income and education level of the parents of Stanford and Northwestern students stack up against the averages of other "lesser" institutions.

(11-12-2013 10:56 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  admission standards.

Look guys, I get it from the presidential and "image" aspect. What I'm MOST curious about is why it "matters" to the posters on this board. Every single one of you know that athletes aren't held to the same standard as students. Do any of the athletes on a P5 roster contribute to the CIC membership for the B10 in any way, shape or form? Of course they don't, so what difference does it make? Another example, UConn's not in the AAU, so they're screwed if you believe some of their rival fans. Why can't we just say what it is at this point?

It's extremely ironic to me that we have presidents ranting about budget cuts, yet they rake in tens of millions of dollars every year via athletics as they continue to expand facilities; pay coaches more than perhaps most of the professors combined; have scandal after scandal, etc. etc. etc.

My point is why keep the ridiculous charade going? Do they honestly think the American public is this stupid? We all know what the deal really is at this point. All you have to do is listen to post-game interviews to realize at least 60% of the revenue athletes couldn't give a rip about grades. I can look in my own state at the hypocrisy that exists, especially in the P5. Practically nothing (of substance) has happened from the UNC cheating scandal and nobody really gives a **** because they're a "national name brand". Yet, at ECU in just the past 3 years, we have suspended multiple (revenue) players for just skipping a few classes, kicked players off baseball & tennis teams for cheating on papers, kicked players off the football team for behavioral issues, etc. To be blunt, some of these guys are / were big losses. Honestly, I'm extremely PROUD of that for my university but it's not something I notice around the country very much unless it's a BIG deal type of scandal, even then...... sometimes it gets UNC'd (aka, swept under the rug).

So, in a nutshell, why the hell do some of YOU (not Presidents) pretend like academics matters in all of your pissing matches here?

Look - I get the disconnect. There's a wide gulf between the academic activities of actual athletes at a place like UNC than there is with the general student population (where UNC is one of the toughest public schools in the country to gain admission to). When people talk about the academic reputations of schools in conference realignment, it's completely about the institutions overall as opposed to the specific academic performance of athletes. We've seen most of the very top 10 academic schools in the 5 power conferences (i.e. USC, UCLA, Michigan, UNC, etc.) have academic issues with athletes, and we're talking about legitimately elite institutions overall.

Even with that acknowledged disconnect, as a Big Ten grad, yes, the academics matter to me. Being a "Big Ten school" is an inextricable part of the overall institutional *identity* for its members (not just for sports). At least for our conference, every single member (from Northwestern to Nebraska) will state that it's a "Big Ten school" within the first paragraph of the first page of all of those glossy marketing materials that they send out to prospective students. As a random example, I recall a recent Wall Street Journal article in the lifestyle section about college student substance abuse programs that had nothing to do with sports. It was completely about education news. They referenced a number of power schools, such as UNC, UCLA, Texas and Georgia Tech. However, when Penn State and Ohio State were mentioned, they were further identified as "Big Ten schools" in the same way that Harvard and Yale were identified as "Ivy League schools" (but wasn't done for the ACC with respect to UNC and Georgia Tech). There's an overall identity that Big Ten schools have that go beyond sports.

Now, that doesn't mean that all conferences are the same way. The AAC and MWC, for instance, don't really have a choice to make those academic distinctions in realignment decisions at this point - they have to take the best available sports programs on the table no matter what their academics might be. However, the power conferences inherently have a lot more criteria that they have the ability to take into account in realignment, so academics would certainly be one of them. The more options and power that a conference has, the pickier it can be on all of its metrics (whether it's academics, TV market, national brand name, etc.).

Even though schools take risks, its still tougher to keep an athlete eligible at Georgia Tech or Stanford or Illinois (seems to be pretty easy at UNC) than at an open admissions school where the average student is not as strong academically. So those schools can't take as many marginal students. And what's marginal to them, in some cases, is mainstream to an open admissions school. Especially an open admissions school that is not a flagship. A school like WVU has a different mission than UVA, but still is the flagship and gets more of the best and brightest of the state than Northeast Southwest commuter State U.

(11-12-2013 11:22 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 11:11 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I tend to pull for teams like Stanford, Northwestern, etc...over some others whose grad rates are lower and who apparently care less about academics. I always have.

Perhaps I am naive, but I think all schools care very deeply about academics. However, some schools are more concerned with educating different populations. I wonder how the average income and education level of the parents of Stanford and Northwestern students stack up against the averages of other "lesser" institutions.

Well, we disagree then.

I have strongly believed for almost five decades that some schools are mostly concerned with maintaining athletes' eligibility versus educating and graduating them.

(11-12-2013 01:49 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 11:22 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 11:11 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I tend to pull for teams like Stanford, Northwestern, etc...over some others whose grad rates are lower and who apparently care less about academics. I always have.

Perhaps I am naive, but I think all schools care very deeply about academics. However, some schools are more concerned with educating different populations. I wonder how the average income and education level of the parents of Stanford and Northwestern students stack up against the averages of other "lesser" institutions.

Well, we disagree then.

I have strongly believed for almost five decades that some schools are mostly concerned with maintaining athletes' eligibility versus educating and graduating them.

Actually, I do not disagree with you on that. I believe that I read your initial post incorrectly....thought you were talking about the entire universities rather than the athletic departments.

Universities are clubish places. American's like to fool themselves into thinking we don't have a societal caste system but we do and often it is invisible to those on the outside of the "club".

The old confernces, the ones that have been around in one form or another for over 100 years - are clubs.

The SEC and ACC are just like the old southern Cotillion clubs where you present your daughter when she is 19 and finished her freshman year in college. This club formed in the 1890's as the SIAA, this club split off in 1933, and again in 1953, but they are the same club and even though they have invited displaced Yankees, the Yankees' wallets and general breeding were inspected.

The Western Conference is the same old Chicago Club that formed in the 1890's. The children of rich industrialists that supplied WWI and won WWII.

The Pacific Conference is the that same old Chicago Club that moved out to California.

These are the four stable "stable" clubs.

The problems inside the B12 is the merger of the Oil Barons' club and the Midwestern Magnates club did not go well.

The Big East was never a solid club and could not be as it was undercut as a club before it ever formed by the ACC, B10, and the Ivy League clubs.

These clubs, these caste systems - they are real.

This is what those outside the B-5 are up against. This is what is at the root of the anger WVa and UConn have toward the ACC. They see the ACC as a second tier club - not an Ivy League intellectual club, nor a B10/SEC athletic club, yet they see themselves as being snubbed, not by the top club, but by a secondary club and that stings. Then they see Louisville who is the social equivalent of bastard step child get into the club just because she is good looking and recently made money in the new economy.

If I were a UConn or WVa supporter - I would be pissed at the ACC as well. Especially since I know UNC has been a road whore for years and everyone just looks away because she has old money.

(11-12-2013 11:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Being a "Big Ten school" is an inextricable part of the overall institutional *identity* for its members (not just for sports).

Number of Big Ten schools that currently (Nov 12, 4pm-5pm) have "Big Ten" or a Big Ten logo or a "CIC" anywhere on the front home page of their website (including all rotating front page stories), arguably their most visible and important marketing tool:

2: Nebraska and Wisconsin. Wisconsin's page includes a small athletics story window that had the following headline "Nov. 12: Borland named Big Ten co-Defensive Player of the Week". So really only Nebraska has any mention of the Big Ten in the context of branding or identity for the overall school on their homepage, and it is at the very bottom of their home page.

Within academia, the Big Ten in not talked about in an academic context outside of the Big Ten itself. It simply isn't.

Look - I get the disconnect. There's a wide gulf between the academic activities of actual athletes at a place like UNC than there is with the general student population (where UNC is one of the toughest public schools in the country to gain admission to). When people talk about the academic reputations of schools in conference realignment, it's completely about the institutions overall as opposed to the specific academic performance of athletes. We've seen most of the very top 10 academic schools in the 5 power conferences (i.e. USC, UCLA, Michigan, UNC, etc.) have academic issues with athletes, and we're talking about legitimately elite institutions overall.

Even with that acknowledged disconnect, as a Big Ten grad, yes, the academics matter to me. Being a "Big Ten school" is an inextricable part of the overall institutional *identity* for its members (not just for sports). At least for our conference, every single member (from Northwestern to Nebraska) will state that it's a "Big Ten school" within the first paragraph of the first page of all of those glossy marketing materials that they send out to prospective students. As a random example, I recall a recent Wall Street Journal article in the lifestyle section about college student substance abuse programs that had nothing to do with sports. It was completely about education news. They referenced a number of power schools, such as UNC, UCLA, Texas and Georgia Tech. However, when Penn State and Ohio State were mentioned, they were further identified as "Big Ten schools" in the same way that Harvard and Yale were identified as "Ivy League schools" (but wasn't done for the ACC with respect to UNC and Georgia Tech). There's an overall identity that Big Ten schools have that go beyond sports.

Now, that doesn't mean that all conferences are the same way. The AAC and MWC, for instance, don't really have a choice to make those academic distinctions in realignment decisions at this point - they have to take the best available sports programs on the table no matter what their academics might be. However, the power conferences inherently have a lot more criteria that they have the ability to take into account in realignment, so academics would certainly be one of them. The more options and power that a conference has, the pickier it can be on all of its metrics (whether it's academics, TV market, national brand name, etc.).
[/quote]

Well said. We all love our sports and want our teams and conferences to be the best but at the end of the day they are students first and athletes second. 98% of college athletes do not go pro; so the eduction they get and the reputation of the school and sometimes conference can translate into more money and better job opportunities.

yeah i agree with hoosier/frank here. i come from a b10 family and graduating from a b10 school especially post grad is considered a big deal. the mentality of "i go to a b10 school" really does exist and is unseen among the sec, pac12, or acc

(11-13-2013 10:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  yeah i agree with hoosier/frank here. i come from a b10 family and graduating from a b10 school especially post grad is considered a big deal. the mentality of "i go to a b10 school" really does exist and is unseen among the sec, pac12, or acc

Thanks,
I had a buddy that graduated from Wabash College in Finance. He went to work for a big drug company and him and a co- worker (who did the exact same job and was hired at same time) went out for a few beers and started talking about what they made. Come to find out his co- worker made 2x what he made. He asked his boss why and he said " he graduated from Northwestern and you graduated from Wabash. Don't get me wrong Wabash College is a really good school but it kinda opens your eyes to academic reputation!

(11-13-2013 11:05 PM)Hoosier Hysteria Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 10:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  yeah i agree with hoosier/frank here. i come from a b10 family and graduating from a b10 school especially post grad is considered a big deal. the mentality of "i go to a b10 school" really does exist and is unseen among the sec, pac12, or acc

Thanks,
I had a buddy that graduated from Wabash College in Finance. He went to work for a big drug company and him and a co- worker (who did the exact same job and was hired at same time) went out for a few beers and started talking about what they made. Come to find out his co- worker made 2x what he made. He asked his boss why and he said " he graduated from Northwestern and you graduated from Wabash. Don't get me wrong Wabash College is a really good school but it kinda opens your eyes to academic reputation!

No, that's a good example of improperly applying for a job. People seem to forget that people in HR are infamous for getting bonuses for "saving the company money" by negotiating down a new employee's salary. I have seen it done many times where 70,000 was the expected pay by the employer and the idiots come in the interview and say they expect to to make 40,000.

I'm not saying that going to Northwestern will not give you a leg up on other potential candidates but that's completely your buddies fault. If you can do the job as good as someone else you can either demand equality or take your talents elsewhere and let them have to deal with potentially having to pay someone new more money and take the cost of hiring them.