nzmorange
Heisman
Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
|
RE: Why did FSU & GT sign the ACC Grant of Rights?
(04-25-2015 10:54 PM)omniorange Wrote: (04-25-2015 10:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote: (04-25-2015 11:05 AM)omniorange Wrote: (04-25-2015 10:50 AM)nzmorange Wrote: (04-25-2015 10:44 AM)omniorange Wrote: If you have to ask then I can't help you. And since I don't want to continue a discussion about the limited value of either I won't respond to any more posts in this thread around this particular topic.
However, you may want to research how the current ACCIAC, which started as an ACC international student focused consortium morphed into its current version and precisely how long the current model has been in place versus how long the current CIC model has been in place. Let's just say the ACCIAC has some catching up to do and leave it at that though it shouldn't take long precisely due to the limited value of both organizations.
Cheers,
Neil
Founding dates are entirely irrelevant to their operation, and I never said anything about the founding date (without looking I am going to say that the CIC was founded in 1961-1963 - am I right? And, does that somehow magically give me credibility?). What specifically did I say that's wrong?
In my first post on the subject, I said:
"The ACC has a counter to the CIC called the ACCIAC, so the conferences do pretty much the same thing. These conference academic organizations shouldn't be overblown, though."
Now you're calling me wrong and saying "I don't want to continue a discussion about the limited value of either...," meaning you admit that they both exist (my first claim) and that they're tangibly the same thing (my second claim) because if they are of limited value, by definition, they can't have material differences.
So please, once again, what did I say that was wrong? Cite one specific thing.
Okay, once more, and then I am done. You are making the claim of equal value between the two organizations but are now trying to say "founding dates" don't matter. I suspect you truly had no idea about the history of the ACCIAC or its very recent morphing into the current model, but it could be that you were aware and truly simply have a mind block when it comes to this topic.
I will try to put this into context that an SU fan can probably understand. When UConn went 1A football, was their value equal to that of SU's in football? When UConn hired Jim Calhoun was their value equal to that of SU's in basketball? The answer is 'No' in both cases.
Now in terms of the latter, they have now caught up (and most would say have surpassed SU) by proving it on the court, but that took time. Just morphing a consortium that dealt with entirely other issues into one that is trying to align undergraduate research programs can't possibly make it the equivalent of another consortium that has been doing that for decades in terms of overall value at this point in time.
And if you think that it does, then again, I can't help you.
Peace,
Neil
You do realize that you're logic is not internally consistent (i.e. these cannot be immaterial and have material differences in relation to their impact - that is a logical contradiction), and that you are using an arbitrary valuation valuation metric that isn't used in any setting (time - Also, the NPV of SU bball > UConn bball. How you're valuing that differently is...creative).
The fact of the matter is that these organizations aren't significant enough to have material differences, and even if they did, they do 95% of the same things and those things (i.e. pooled purchasing) don't take decades to master. The ACCIAC and the CIC are virtually the same, as is any other conference academic consortium (i.e. the SEC's). In no material way, share, or form are these real differentiators.
If you believe educational institutions can simply come together and magically agree upon vision, mission plan, policies, procedures, goals, objectives, communication plans, etc. than I question your previously stated experience. Singular educational institutions struggle with this on a continuous basis and fail most of the time in achieving it and yet 15 disparate institutions with a lot of diversity will manage to accomplish this in three years time? At least the B1G CIC is very similar in terms of institutional types - the ACC is far more diverse.
Cheers,
Neil
Do you even know what these things do? The meat and potatoes for these things is generic (i.e. pooled purchasing, IT infrastructure, library pooling, study abroad pooling, etc.). It doesn't take years to align incentives. Most of it already exists in organizations that literally comprise hundreds of universities. Don't believe me, though. Walk into *any* university library and ask what resources are at their disposal to order a book not in their library. I can guarantee you that the librarian will start rattling off library alliances. SU shares books with everyone from Ivy's to community colleges. That's how much diversity matters when you establish these alliances. For the most part, these organizations are about as unique as having a campus blue light system. Yeah, they're great, but if you think that there are tangible differences that have material impacts on the schools to which they're attached, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell...
*I chose the pooled library example because that is literally a service that the CIC provides and advertises heavily.
|
|