Am I the only one troubled by the fact that many of these selective and highly selective institutions were sold to the taxpayers as an investment of their tax dollars to create institutions of higher education that would make such an education more accessible to the masses both in admissions and cost.

Then the school leadership chooses to raise their standards so that many if not most of those who were their early students would never have been let in.

(04-28-2014 08:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Am I the only one troubled by the fact that many of these selective and highly selective institutions were sold to the taxpayers as an investment of their tax dollars to create institutions of higher education that would make such an education more accessible to the masses both in admissions and cost.

Then the school leadership chooses to raise their standards so that many if not most of those who were their early students would never have been let in.

When I was in school in Michigan - I raised this question with several Michigander's and their usual response was to shrug their shoulders. I cannot fathom not being able to attend the state university that I wanted as long as I met base qualifications.

(04-28-2014 09:33 PM)sigmachi272injunjoe Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 08:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Am I the only one troubled by the fact that many of these selective and highly selective institutions were sold to the taxpayers as an investment of their tax dollars to create institutions of higher education that would make such an education more accessible to the masses both in admissions and cost.

Then the school leadership chooses to raise their standards so that many if not most of those who were their early students would never have been let in.

When I was in school in Michigan - I raised this question with several Michigander's and their usual response was to shrug their shoulders. I cannot fathom not being able to attend the state university that I wanted as long as I met base qualifications.

Should Texas A&M expand to 250,000 students? As long as there are plenty of other options in a state, I don's see the problem with a large flagship being capped in enrollment.

(04-28-2014 10:25 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 09:33 PM)sigmachi272injunjoe Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 08:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Am I the only one troubled by the fact that many of these selective and highly selective institutions were sold to the taxpayers as an investment of their tax dollars to create institutions of higher education that would make such an education more accessible to the masses both in admissions and cost.

Then the school leadership chooses to raise their standards so that many if not most of those who were their early students would never have been let in.

When I was in school in Michigan - I raised this question with several Michigander's and their usual response was to shrug their shoulders. I cannot fathom not being able to attend the state university that I wanted as long as I met base qualifications.

Should Texas A&M expand to 250,000 students? As long as there are plenty of other options in a state, I don's see the problem with a large flagship being capped in enrollment.

Realistically, most schools keep a hard cap in mind. They need to be prepared for a sustainable level new students coming in and departing. If you let enrollment float, then you either have 1) a lot of freshmen looking for student housing in boom years and 2) a lot of empty dorm rooms during the bust years.

My school made a commitment to not keep up athletically. Unfortunately, they are likely going to use the "financially unsustainable" argument before it is legitimate to explain why they don't want to be an FBS school when they have every single resource possible for it.

Is it the end of the world? No...but will I eventually withdraw all donations?....Maybe.

It would not affect it at all. It would suck in a way, but in the end this is all entertainment and I would find other ways to spend my time. Kansas sports doesn't put food on my table or a roof over my head.

The uncertainty of FBS football makes me wonder about the G5 schools who have a heavy commitment. Houston and CSU with expensive new stadiums and Boise who supposedly is bonded out for athletic facilities.

I know you have to at least invest to a minimum which Idaho needs to do. Going forward the schools with less debt and operating costs may end up better off. Sounds like G5 could become glorified FCS . I don't think thats how it will work but it is a balance of enough to be competitive. Spending to compete at a higher level when there is ceiling to how high you get.

(04-29-2014 02:34 AM)MJG Wrote:  The uncertainty of FBS football makes me wonder about the G5 schools who have a heavy commitment. Houston and CSU with expensive new stadiums and Boise who supposedly is bonded out for athletic facilities.

I know you have to at least invest to a minimum which Idaho needs to do. Going forward the schools with less debt and operating costs may end up better off. Sounds like G5 could become glorified FCS . I don't think thats how it will work but it is a balance of enough to be competitive. Spending to compete at a higher level when there is ceiling to how high you get.

To the vast majority of the country, it already is.

I don't blame the world for any of my problems - I take responsibility for any issues.

Likewise, I don't blame the P5 for being greedy and kicking out the little guys - I blame my alma mater for not realizing sooner that this sea change was coming, and for doing nothing to improve our fate over the last 30 years since the Death Penalty.

It will be sad for me personally to see SMU permanently relegated, and I will likely watch way less CFB than I do now and instead watch more NFL -- but this is America and what is happening in NCAA athletics is capitalism at its finest.

I did not attend the University of Cincinnati due to their athletic success - I chose UC because they're a Top 20 Aerospace Engineering program.

Anyone who chooses their college based on how many FB or BB championships they win will, undoubtedly, have little success in the real world.

(04-29-2014 10:35 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  I did not attend the University of Cincinnati due to their athletic success - I chose UC because they're a Top 20 Aerospace Engineering program.

Anyone who chooses their college based on how many FB or BB championships they win will, undoubtedly, have little success in the real world.

I don't think too many people choose college based solely on that...I do know a handful of people who refused to go to a school for undergrad if they didn't have a football team or didn't play in a BCS conference. While it is rarely a deciding factor in a college selection, many people use athletics as a selector to some degree.

Good God a reasonable post from Miko!

The dropping of big time sports effecting a school probably depends on the type of school you are. If you are an academic powerhouse, dropping big time sports probably would have little effect. Schools like NYU, UChi, Hopkins and the Ivies were all able to do so. There was some sort term adjustment, but long term they all actually did quite well concentrating on academic s and research. Most if not all of those mentioned have far larger endowments than big state schools. On the other hand, if you are an average, second teer school, big time athletics is a must for exposure that goes far beyond what can be paid for with advertising. That exposure helps to bring in a larger and more desirable applicant pool that is more likely to support the institution as alumni.

(05-01-2014 04:02 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  Good God a reasonable post from Miko!

The dropping of big time sports effecting a school probably depends on the type of school you are. If you are an academic powerhouse, dropping big time sports probably would have little effect. Schools like NYU, UChi, Hopkins and the Ivies were all able to do so. There was some sort term adjustment, but long term they all actually did quite well concentrating on academic s and research. Most if not all of those mentioned have far larger endowments than big state schools. On the other hand, if you are an average, second teer school, big time athletics is a must for exposure that goes far beyond what can be paid for with advertising. That exposure helps to bring in a larger and more desirable applicant pool that is more likely to support the institution as alumni.

That paradigm will last as long as there is still easy money to fuel student loans and the demand to attend a 4 year brick and mortar university is still high. I expect both to change in the near future. Add in to the mix the trends for lower attendance to live CFB games plus the lower participation rates in pop warner FB and you will see the deemphasis of sports in our lives as a culture. People don't relate to their alma maters like they used to.

Perception is significantly affected by football, especially for smaller state schools.

Try to guess how these three schools rank academically:

Idaho State University
Boise State University
University of Idaho

It's probably not very obvious if you don't live in the northwest.

(04-29-2014 11:35 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:35 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  I did not attend the University of Cincinnati due to their athletic success - I chose UC because they're a Top 20 Aerospace Engineering program.

Anyone who chooses their college based on how many FB or BB championships they win will, undoubtedly, have little success in the real world.

I don't think too many people choose college based solely on that...I do know a handful of people who refused to go to a school for undergrad if they didn't have a football team or didn't play in a BCS conference. While it is rarely a deciding factor in a college selection, many people use athletics as a selector to some degree.

I think that it's advertising more than anything. It's a way to get prospective students to look at a school, and then the academic departments are on their own to sell the school. However, getting the initial foot in the door can be the hardest move sometimes.

(05-02-2014 07:14 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Perception is significantly affected by football, especially for smaller state schools.

Try to guess how these three schools rank academically:

Idaho State University
Boise State University
University of Idaho

It's probably not very obvious if you don't live in the northwest.

University of Idaho #1, Idaho State University #2, and BSU #3?
(This is just a guess)

(05-04-2014 01:38 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:35 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:35 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  I did not attend the University of Cincinnati due to their athletic success - I chose UC because they're a Top 20 Aerospace Engineering program.

Anyone who chooses their college based on how many FB or BB championships they win will, undoubtedly, have little success in the real world.

I don't think too many people choose college based solely on that...I do know a handful of people who refused to go to a school for undergrad if they didn't have a football team or didn't play in a BCS conference. While it is rarely a deciding factor in a college selection, many people use athletics as a selector to some degree.

I think that it's advertising more than anything. It's a way to get prospective students to look at a school, and then the academic departments are on their own to sell the school. However, getting the initial foot in the door can be the hardest move sometimes.

I agree that it's about advertising. However, is this advertising campaign paying off in the end? The only tangible thing that I see generated thru athletics is having more prospective students apply, which ultimately makes the school appear more selective. Does that affect the quality of the education? In theory yes because the larger the candidate pool the better quality student body you should have. It sounds great in theory, but I don't think it pans out in practice. The best and brightest students tend to be doing all their research on prospective schools. They learn which schools having stronger engineering schools, med schools, economics departments, etc. and apply to those schools that meet their criteria. The other way most students choose the schools is based on distance from home, eligibility of in-state tuition costs and if your family has a legacy with that school or not. What I think is happening is that more students are being pushed to pursue bachelor degrees. And as a result of this push plus easy access to student aid/loans, the lower quality students are making choices based on atmosphere alone and therefore are swayed by the sports teams. Ultimately, P5 schools reap the rewards of appearing more exclusive. But the overall quality of the students aren't that much better, and I'd even argue that we're seeing a dilution effect among the U.S. based students. The overall "quality increase" is probably due to higher levels of foreign born students coming to American universities, and I don't think the Asian and Indian students give a rip about Alabama football...

I don't know the answer to this question myself, but I have a strong hunch that I know the answer. Are there any P5 and G5 schools out there that has run at "below capacity"? I think it would be very very rare to see a case like this, and if so then I can see advertising being effective. But if the schools are already at capacity, you won't get much bang for your buck. The best candidates research the schools and know which ones are good in which fields, and sports most likely do not factor into the equation.

(05-05-2014 12:31 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 01:38 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:35 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:35 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  I did not attend the University of Cincinnati due to their athletic success - I chose UC because they're a Top 20 Aerospace Engineering program.

Anyone who chooses their college based on how many FB or BB championships they win will, undoubtedly, have little success in the real world.

I don't think too many people choose college based solely on that...I do know a handful of people who refused to go to a school for undergrad if they didn't have a football team or didn't play in a BCS conference. While it is rarely a deciding factor in a college selection, many people use athletics as a selector to some degree.

I think that it's advertising more than anything. It's a way to get prospective students to look at a school, and then the academic departments are on their own to sell the school. However, getting the initial foot in the door can be the hardest move sometimes.

I agree that it's about advertising. However, is this advertising campaign paying off in the end? The only tangible thing that I see generated thru athletics is having more prospective students apply, which ultimately makes the school appear more selective. Does that affect the quality of the education? In theory yes because the larger the candidate pool the better quality student body you should have. It sounds great in theory, but I don't think it pans out in practice. The best and brightest students tend to be doing all their research on prospective schools. They learn which schools having stronger engineering schools, med schools, economics departments, etc. and apply to those schools that meet their criteria. The other way most students choose the schools is based on distance from home, eligibility of in-state tuition costs and if your family has a legacy with that school or not. What I think is happening is that more students are being pushed to pursue bachelor degrees. And as a result of this push plus easy access to student aid/loans, the lower quality students are making choices based on atmosphere alone and therefore are swayed by the sports teams. Ultimately, P5 schools reap the rewards of appearing more exclusive. But the overall quality of the students aren't that much better, and I'd even argue that we're seeing a dilution effect among the U.S. based students. The overall "quality increase" is probably due to higher levels of foreign born students coming to American universities, and I don't think the Asian and Indian students give a rip about Alabama football...

I don't know the answer to this question myself, but I have a strong hunch that I know the answer. Are there any P5 and G5 schools out there that has run at "below capacity"? I think it would be very very rare to see a case like this, and if so then I can see advertising being effective. But if the schools are already at capacity, you won't get much bang for your buck. The best candidates research the schools and know which ones are good in which fields, and sports most likely do not factor into the equation.

In a sense, but athletic successes do bring positive exposure which can be used properly to increase academic profile as well. I know that 20 years ago Virginia Tech wasn't considered that good of a school, but ever since they've been a consistent Top 20ish football team, they've raised their profile from average public to one of the top 25 or so public universities. The difference in perception of that school academically now versus 25 years ago is vastly different. Is the actual "education" better now? I have no idea, but the perception that it is sure is.

Bump. Everyone is getting their panties wadded up over what the Big12 will do or what will its fate be. No matter what happens, your life will not change. Who knows, your fall weekends may actually have more meaning.

Hell I didn't know about the death penalty until a few weeks in at SMU. Don't care, still go to every home game.