Can anyone tell me how your life would be altered if your alma mater can no longer compete with the biggest schools athletically? For the number of people who bust on Rice, Tulane, Northwestern or Duke when it comes to FB, I would have no qualms getting a diploma from any of those schools. While it's fun to see your school do well in sports, I see no benefit or loss from my school's athletic teams performing at the highest levels or doing terribly. I can't help but chuckle whenever anyone tries to talk smack about my school's FB, BB or especially WBB teams. Sure, I want to see my school do well in sports. But if they don't...so what?

At the end of the day, what is the primary purpose of your school? To educate students or to run sports teams? So whenever I see threads lamenting how much money this conference will make over that conference, I have to wonder why do you care? If the party ends, it ends. It won't change my job or my financial obligations either way.

That's true, but it assumes that the two are not linked.

Its a big deal for schools to be seen as "on the same level" as the schools they think of as their peers. Athletics is the front porch that raises that awareness.

For example did you know 21k UT Dallas is one of the most highly ranked and selective public schools in TX? Almost no one does (even inside the state) because their visibility is pretty much zero and their Comets (yes thats their name) playing in D3 is a big part of that.

(04-27-2014 05:34 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  That's true, but it assumes that the two are not linked.

Its a big deal for schools to be seen as "on the same level" as the schools they think of as their peers. Athletics is the front porch that raises that awareness.

For example did you know 21k UT Dallas is one of the most highly ranked and selective public schools in TX? Almost no one does (even inside the state) because their visibility is pretty much zero and their Comets (yes thats their name) playing in D3 is a big part of that.

If they are so selective, then a lot of people do know about them and the quality of education you can get there in order to turn so many people away.

A good question. As the graduate of one school that has FBS football (Cincinnati) and another school that doesn't (Case Western), I can probably answer better than most.

The entertainment aspect is one thing. I think it's a large recruiting tool for big-time schools. There's a huge difference in the student experience between schools with big-time sports and schools without it. Dropping big-time sports would reduce the ability of UC to recruit top students, and we'd probably lose a lot of them to Indiana, Kentucky, or Ohio State.

If your school dropped big-time sports it would probably lower the value of your degree. For example, I've heard Notre Dame alums say that if it weren't for football they'd be behind Marquette and Depaul alums on the job market. This doesn't matter for all alums, but it does if you're on the job market in certain fields. As a graduate of a school that has dropped from 23rd to 47th in USNWR rankings since I graduated, I can tell you first-hand that there's a big difference in your how HR people perceive you if your school goes downhill.

I'm not saying that it would be the end of the world. Just pointing out that there are negatives beyond being a bit more bored on Saturdays.

Well, my alma maters GWU (BA 1995) and George Mason (MA 1998) already can't keep up, barring an occassional NCAA tournament run.

If St John's, my mother's alma mater, dropped to their level, I'd have a lot less interest in college basketball, and little to no interest in St John's.

(04-27-2014 05:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Can anyone tell me how your life would be altered if your alma mater can no longer compete with the biggest schools athletically? For the number of people who bust on Rice, Tulane, Northwestern or Duke when it comes to FB, I would have no qualms getting a diploma from any of those schools. While it's fun to see your school do well in sports, I see no benefit or loss from my school's athletic teams performing at the highest levels or doing terribly. I can't help but chuckle whenever anyone tries to talk smack about my school's FB, BB or especially WBB teams. Sure, I want to see my school do well in sports. But if they don't...so what?

At the end of the day, what is the primary purpose of your school? To educate students or to run sports teams? So whenever I see threads lamenting how much money this conference will make over that conference, I have to wonder why do you care? If the party ends, it ends. It won't change my job or my financial obligations either way.

Wouldn't be the end of the world for me but it would be hard for my school. Athletics keeping me engaged is why I send money for academics. Out of sight out of mind for many people.

CB, I understand your POV, but I have not experienced that personally. I went to Pitt during their darkest FB in a long time. It did not affect my degree nor the school's ranking. I think big time FB was huge for ND, but I consider them to be a special case. Most FBS schools are regional in nature. Right off the bat, much of the student body will be based on the region from the start. Combine that with schools investing in improving the various schools within the university is a greater impact than sports. I put Pitt and PSU as the direct comparison. Both schools showed the same trajectory and perception in research, academic achievement and selectivity. One school was in the mighty B1G while the other was in the lowly BE. Despite the big differences, employers KNOW if your school is strong or weak in a subject of study. At least that's been my experience.

(04-27-2014 05:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:34 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  That's true, but it assumes that the two are not linked.

Its a big deal for schools to be seen as "on the same level" as the schools they think of as their peers. Athletics is the front porch that raises that awareness.

For example did you know 21k UT Dallas is one of the most highly ranked and selective public schools in TX? Almost no one does (even inside the state) because their visibility is pretty much zero and their Comets (yes thats their name) playing in D3 is a big part of that.

If they are so selective, then a lot of people do know about them and the quality of education you can get there in order to turn so many people away.

You'd think so given the numbers.

But the truth is most Texans have never heard of UT Dallas.

(04-27-2014 06:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:34 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  That's true, but it assumes that the two are not linked.

Its a big deal for schools to be seen as "on the same level" as the schools they think of as their peers. Athletics is the front porch that raises that awareness.

For example did you know 21k UT Dallas is one of the most highly ranked and selective public schools in TX? Almost no one does (even inside the state) because their visibility is pretty much zero and their Comets (yes thats their name) playing in D3 is a big part of that.

If they are so selective, then a lot of people do know about them and the quality of education you can get there in order to turn so many people away.

You'd think so given the numbers.

But the truth is most Texans have never heard of UT Dallas.

Because most people aren't in the market for a highly selective education.

Wow, that's a little delusional. I would trade my UA degree in a microsecond for one from Rice, Northwestern, Tulane or Duke.

(04-28-2014 07:32 AM)Proud Bammer Wrote:  Wow, that's a little delusional. I would trade my UA degree in a microsecond for one from Rice, Northwestern, Tulane or Duke.

This

(04-27-2014 05:57 PM)miko33 Wrote:  CB, I understand your POV, but I have not experienced that personally. I went to Pitt during their darkest FB in a long time. It did not affect my degree nor the school's ranking. I think big time FB was huge for ND, but I consider them to be a special case. Most FBS schools are regional in nature. Right off the bat, much of the student body will be based on the region from the start. Combine that with schools investing in improving the various schools within the university is a greater impact than sports. I put Pitt and PSU as the direct comparison. Both schools showed the same trajectory and perception in research, academic achievement and selectivity. One school was in the mighty B1G while the other was in the lowly BE. Despite the big differences, employers KNOW if your school is strong or weak in a subject of study. At least that's been my experience.

C'mon miko33. That's quite a patronizing statement. There's a world of difference between Pitt going through a dry spell on-the-field or even being the member of a weaker power conference than being completely structurally relegated altogether out of your control (or even in spite of great success like UConn basketball). Sure, there is a very small handful of schools where academic prestige is so great that sports can be completely ignored in terms of branding (the Ivy League, MIT, Cal Tech, University of Chicago, etc.). For everyone else, though, being in a power athletic conference is a pretty massive differentiatior in the educational marketplace. Just because something (athletics) doesn't rise to the level of life or death in importance (and if you're fortunate to be healthy, non-life-or-death situations constitute about 99% of what we spend our time on for the most part) doesn't mean that it isn't pretty important for the institutions involved.

"For everyone else, though, being in a power athletic conference is a pretty massive differentiatior in the educational marketplace."

I don't think that's true, at least around here. There's no comparison in athletics between UA and UAB, but UAB's academic rep is way better than UA's despite investments/improvements on the undergrad side that probably put UA ahead there. UAB is a world-class research institution and anyone in this state who can spell "research institution" knows that. As for the drunken idiots killing trees, teabagging drunks and flinging their firm hot bodies at opposing fans, when they need to have an opinion The Machine will tell them what that opinion is.

(04-28-2014 07:50 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 05:57 PM)miko33 Wrote:  CB, I understand your POV, but I have not experienced that personally. I went to Pitt during their darkest FB in a long time. It did not affect my degree nor the school's ranking. I think big time FB was huge for ND, but I consider them to be a special case. Most FBS schools are regional in nature. Right off the bat, much of the student body will be based on the region from the start. Combine that with schools investing in improving the various schools within the university is a greater impact than sports. I put Pitt and PSU as the direct comparison. Both schools showed the same trajectory and perception in research, academic achievement and selectivity. One school was in the mighty B1G while the other was in the lowly BE. Despite the big differences, employers KNOW if your school is strong or weak in a subject of study. At least that's been my experience.

C'mon miko33. That's quite a patronizing statement. There's a world of difference between Pitt going through a dry spell on-the-field or even being the member of a weaker power conference than being completely structurally relegated altogether out of your control (or even in spite of great success like UConn basketball). Sure, there is a very small handful of schools where academic prestige is so great that sports can be completely ignored in terms of branding (the Ivy League, MIT, Cal Tech, University of Chicago, etc.). For everyone else, though, being in a power athletic conference is a pretty massive differentiatior in the educational marketplace. Just because something (athletics) doesn't rise to the level of life or death in importance (and if you're fortunate to be healthy, non-life-or-death situations constitute about 99% of what we spend our time on for the most part) doesn't mean that it isn't pretty important for the institutions involved.

Frank, I think this is a little backwards. The power conferences exist because the majority of schools in them are high quality. Yes, they are a marketing gimmick used by the bigger schools. If you take the sports away, people will still know the good schools from the weaker ones - academically speaking. If you thrust a regional school into a P5 confrernce, it will not automatically become a top notch nationally ranked university. It's silly to put so much credence to the role athletics play in the academic world. The people in the know or whose job it is to know the real academic worth of a university do not care about athletic conferences.

(04-28-2014 08:16 AM)Proud Bammer Wrote:  "For everyone else, though, being in a power athletic conference is a pretty massive differentiatior in the educational marketplace."

I don't think that's true, at least around here. There's no comparison in athletics between UA and UAB, but UAB's academic rep is way better than UA's despite investments/improvements on the undergrad side that probably put UA ahead there. UAB is a world-class research institution and anyone in this state who can spell "research institution" knows that. As for the drunken idiots killing trees, teabagging drunks and flinging their firm hot bodies at opposing fans, when they need to have an opinion The Machine will tell them what that opinion is.

I agree.

I could see it harming the P5 schools a lot more than the G5. Alabama's acceptance rate is down over 10% since Saban became head coach. Their out of state enrollment has tippled. I have no doubt that Alabama is a fine school, but you take away their athletic department and do you still see all of those out of state students come in? Probably not. Significant runs in sports have contributed creating more competitive admissions at several schools in the past. With the higher quality students comes more $$, research, etc..

All you have to do is look to the student section on game day to determine how important athletics are to the school. ECU has put 15k in the student section for a Thursday night game. That's a very significant amount of the student population. Other schools see even higher percentages in attendance.

"I have no doubt that Alabama is a fine school, but you take away their athletic department and do you still see all of those out of state students come in? Probably not."

There's been a very hard marketing push for out of state students, Texas has been a big target. Football definitely helped but it's not pure coincidence.

(04-28-2014 04:34 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  I could see it harming the P5 schools a lot more than the G5. Alabama's acceptance rate is down over 10% since Saban became head coach. Their out of state enrollment has tippled. I have no doubt that Alabama is a fine school, but you take away their athletic department and do you still see all of those out of state students come in? Probably not. Significant runs in sports have contributed creating more competitive admissions at several schools in the past. With the higher quality students comes more $$, research, etc..

All you have to do is look to the student section on game day to determine how important athletics are to the school. ECU has put 15k in the student section for a Thursday night game. That's a very significant amount of the student population. Other schools see even higher percentages in attendance.

Same thing happened to App when their football program was having a lot of success. Their acceptance rate dropped considerably in the years following the championships and the Michigan win.

(04-28-2014 05:21 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 04:34 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  I could see it harming the P5 schools a lot more than the G5. Alabama's acceptance rate is down over 10% since Saban became head coach. Their out of state enrollment has tippled. I have no doubt that Alabama is a fine school, but you take away their athletic department and do you still see all of those out of state students come in? Probably not. Significant runs in sports have contributed creating more competitive admissions at several schools in the past. With the higher quality students comes more $$, research, etc..

All you have to do is look to the student section on game day to determine how important athletics are to the school. ECU has put 15k in the student section for a Thursday night game. That's a very significant amount of the student population. Other schools see even higher percentages in attendance.

Same thing happened to App when their football program was having a lot of success. Their acceptance rate dropped considerably in the years following the championships and the Michigan win.

Didn't we see this happen at VT once Frank Beamer got the ball rolling? Same with FSU in the '90s.

(04-28-2014 05:27 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 05:21 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 04:34 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  I could see it harming the P5 schools a lot more than the G5. Alabama's acceptance rate is down over 10% since Saban became head coach. Their out of state enrollment has tippled. I have no doubt that Alabama is a fine school, but you take away their athletic department and do you still see all of those out of state students come in? Probably not. Significant runs in sports have contributed creating more competitive admissions at several schools in the past. With the higher quality students comes more $$, research, etc..

All you have to do is look to the student section on game day to determine how important athletics are to the school. ECU has put 15k in the student section for a Thursday night game. That's a very significant amount of the student population. Other schools see even higher percentages in attendance.

Same thing happened to App when their football program was having a lot of success. Their acceptance rate dropped considerably in the years following the championships and the Michigan win.

Didn't we see this happen at VT once Frank Beamer got the ball rolling? Same with FSU in the '90s.

Big time football doesn't explain how Pitt did the same thing on the academic side. PB mentioned that Alabama made a big push to get more out of state students prior to Saban becoming head coach. But seriously, how many top end students select schools based on sports teams? I don't know of any personally. Also, there are a whole slew of other factors that I think explain schools becoming more selective over time. Much of it has to do with the explosion of student loans being accessible to more kids than ever before. Couple that with the massive push by the high schools to shoe horn as many students into 4 year degree granting institutions as possible, and it's no surprise that most schools became more selective.

There is no doubt in my mind that we have an education bubble that became very apparent with the recession of 2008-2009. The recession reset the labor market to the point that your typical 4 year BA/BS degrees in sociology, history, ________ studies, general business majors, etc. no longer cut it as desirable degrees for entry level jobs. IMHO, expect to see a contraction within higher education. We sent too many unqualified kids to get bullsh!t degrees instead of steering these kids to votech careers where they could have flourished.

Why I think this is important is as follows: P5 status may have meant more earlier when the bubble was inflating and universities were competing to get the best they could given a "diverse" pool of students. All these kids coming into higher education as a result of easy money that had zero connection to actual intelligence and achievement, resulted in them flooding schools with applications. So much for "more selective". Naturally, where do most of these "scholars" try for first? Of course, the big state school in the area you live! Since the state schools have more to choose from, they send the dummies to the rest of the schools. Why do you think the USNWR had to do a rankings reset of their own and greatly expand the "tier1" and "tier2" rankings??? It looks bad when you have so many schools in lower tiers and all these students going to them.

Let's face it. The large state schools and the current high quality schools we have today were pulling in good quality students then. A number of schools made strides in improving the academic side of their schools and have become more selective on that front - legitimately. Other schools have become "more selective" simply because more students of dubious quality had to be turned away due to capacity issues. For the most part, if athletic achievement is playing a role in making schools more selective, it's affecting the lower quality students. The higher quality students have been doing their due diligence researching the best schools for the areas they may have or do have an interest in studying. Whether Alabama, Michigan or Florida State wins the national title is irrelevant to the majority of the better quality students who will pick a school only if it ranks strong in the fields they want to pursue.