JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,168
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7897
I Root For: SEC
Location: |
RE: What I would love to see as the SEC conference of the future.
(08-28-2014 07:17 AM)XLance Wrote: (08-27-2014 04:24 PM)JRsec Wrote: (08-27-2014 07:53 AM)XLance Wrote: (08-27-2014 06:25 AM)JRsec Wrote: (08-26-2014 08:50 PM)XLance Wrote: Over my lifetime I have found that I tend to gravitate to people that I consider to be my peers. Most of my friends are about my same age and have a similar socio economic background as I do. I have some friends a little older and some a little younger, some a little richer, some a little poorer.....but most of my friends look just like me.
The same thing applies to colleges an Universities. Your school (Auburn, I believe) selected 23 schools that Auburn thought were peer institutions. Of those 23, 5 selected Auburn as an institution they felt was a peer to them. Those 5 were Mississippi State, Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
Carolina's dual peers were Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Pitt, Texas, UVa,
Washington and Wisconsin. Florida was also on UVa's list, with Wisconsin, Washington, Pitt, Michigan among others. NC State's list included Georgia Tech, Georgia and Virginia Tech, while Georgia Tech listed NC State, Purdue, Michigan as well as Texas A&M. Virginia Tech chose Iowa State, NC State and Rutgers.
Are you starting to see a pattern here JR.
If the unthinkable ever happened and the ACC did "blow up", I think you would see a six school unit (Carolina, Dook, NC State, UVa, Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech) headed to the B1G. At that point I'm sure Clemson and Florida State would be waiting for the SEC's call.
Since the money would be about the same in the B1G and the SEC I would imagine that those six would rather spend time with their own kind.
It's a good thing that I don't believe the ACC would ever "blow up".
Interesting toy.
http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Does-Yo...nk/134262/
I have friends that are in government, in academics, in corporate life, one is a CMO inside the research triangle. She spent the weekend with my family a week ago while on a lobbying trip. I also have peers among the very middle class and among the poor. Because of that I am not ignorant of social trends that one day may bite me in the posterior. I have always found that those with no bridges to other social strata in life were ignorant of the world around them. Enjoy your insulation right up until the point that it bites you in the rear, for it surely will.
I am happy to have known the poor, every part of the middle class, played tennis with a governor's daughter, had a governor as a mentor, a member of the Senate Sub Committee on Un-American activities as a teacher, had a 30 minute conversation with a first lady, a former President teach one of my graduate classes on three occasions, to have met the foreign minister of the Soviet Union, talked with religious leaders from two continents other than my own, known a couple of TV personalities and still found myself to be a regular Joe who loves to garden and doesn't give a damn about the trinkets some think they need to be successful, or piled up the debt to fit inside a certain social strata. I have plenty, have been blessed, and drive the cheapest vehicles I can buy outright. You know why? At the end of 7 years they are all worth about the same no matter how much you paid originally.
I have always found the super wealthy to be rather uncomplicated other than their radar for those angling for favors. I find the poor to be similar in that regard only their radar is for those who think they can shyster them. What I have never been able to stomach is the nouveau riche and their insecurity around anyone except those like themselves. I find them to be dull, unimaginative, and completely without any real sense of themselves outside of status and possessions. It's really rather sad. I also find them to be the only intolerable snobs of all of those I've mentioned.
My grandfather instilled in me at the tender age of 12 that there were in our town rich and poor, black and white, men and women, and the only ones worth having as friends were those who honored their word and dealt with others honestly. In other words people of integrity which my grandfather pointed out came in all colors, in all socio economic groups, and in both genders. He also pointed out that skunks existed among all of them as well. It was the only lesson about class I ever needed. Think about that! Then relate it to institutions. Right now the appropriate reaction might be discerning between those of integrity and the skunks, no matter how heralded academically. Fraud my friend is not the aroma of integrity. But even in our ranks of affiliation there are skunks so it is not a condemnation of the ACC but rather an indication that those who keep close company with the leaders of Chapel Hill need a new peer group.
Quite a diatribe JR.
I thought is was a little scattered and wordy for my taste. And I'm not sure you established enough credibility to deliver it, but enough of that.
There are no indications that the core of the ACC does not intend to stay intact. A broad statement that claims that "it's just a matter of time" is a little dubious, especially when there are alternatives and concrete reasons to believe otherwise.
1. There is no credentialing on a message board.
2. I don't have to establish credibility for what I've lived because it is me, for better or worse. And because the only one that will ever accept or reject me who matters is God. People who are concerned with credibility (the better word here is "credentialing") are really only concerned with the perceptions that others have of them. But it is typical speak for academic and corporate structures where either degrees or seminars attended can establish a paper pedigree, which when you work with academics and corporate ladder climbers means absolutely nothing about what they know and even less about what they are capable of doing.
Living a life where you have to fit into a prescribed role is miserable and it flies in the face of the uniqueness which should be you (Imago Dei). To be concerned with what others think is to be a slave to the most fickle of masters, opinion. Who among your peers can truly understand the truth of who you are? Know the motivations of your heart? Know if or when an unpopular decision you made was really the one that you had to make to be able to live with yourself? The truth XLance is that not even our spouses ever fully understand such things, but they do know enough to trust us when we must stand by those decisions. It is then when you know who your friends truly are and which of your relatives actually love you. But knowing that is both bracing and empowering in ways so clear that it is worth the discovery and the likely painful process that led to it.
Whatever defines you outside of yourself (peer group, professional associations, degrees, awards, even friends) simply limit your freedom and what's worse is that you may never truly know who you are as long as your identity is wrapped around them (and yes that is Jungian).
3. What any of our conferences do is really ancillary to the forces compelling the change. Those forces are changing everything and more rapidly than can be acknowledged, or understood by any of us. I'm feebly trying to wrap my head around it just to help those I love avoid some of the painful consequences that are always associated with such shifts. So far all of my friends, regardless of profession or occupation, are still reactive and trying to understand them too, and that scares me.
4. In spite of our visceral differences on minor issues, take care. Just don't rely on your peer group too much, because I seriously doubt they are any more prepared than the rest of us to deal with what is coming. And by the way, in a real crisis there are no social classes, only survivors and casualties.
I spent most of my UG time with Skinner.
While to a certain extent it is true that we are products of our existential influences in as much as they do provoke predictable reactions, there is much more to people than conditioned response, unless of course they have all been rewarded for fitting the social norm. That does explain a peer group not dissimilar from one's self. Personally, while all theories are somewhat helpful, I find that the best way to reach a person is by getting them to reveal their personal value system. Some are totally material, some spiritual (although individualized and influenced by blending of concepts), and some are totally rationalized based upon external projections of success where the ideation of self replaces material goals. So to utilize Skinner I suppose one might say that it depends upon the type of reward being sought, although not all influences are limited to external influences. Internal chemistry is at play.
By the way did "time outs" work for your children? And remember that B.F. was kind of a totalitarian so I guess he would be happy right about now.
But enough of theories that try to explain why we are all so different (or similar). Let's examine those unifying principles that define us......totemism. We are really far more primitive. You worship under the symbol of a Ram, and I find unity under the Tiger. Although I must confess that the Auburn totem is somewhat confused as many identify with the Eagle. Enjoy the games.
|
|
/
What I would love to see as the SEC conference of the future.
