In the months since I've been here, one theme that has emerged with the arguments over what realignment is best is the conflict between those who look to perceived athletic prowess (or dominance, in particular to football) and those who insist in the accompanying academic element as the overriding principle (the student-athlete model).

There has what seems to be a sharp divide between those who donate for sports tickets, fans of several teams and those in academia/administrative level. What fascinates me is how this divide has been sharp despite 100+ of competition in the various disciplines. No matter what data one presents the main factions don't move much from their positions.

Do you consider yourself a populist or an elitist on the issue of importance of academics in college sports? Elaborate on your position if you can.

(08-12-2015 04:02 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  In the months since I've been here, one theme that has emerged with the arguments over what realignment is best is the conflict between those who look to perceived athletic prowess (or dominance, in particular to football) and those who insist in the accompanying academic element as the overriding principle (the student-athlete model).

There has what seems to be a sharp divide between those who donate for sports tickets, fans of several teams and those in academia/administrative level. What fascinates me is how this divide has been sharp despite 100+ of competition in the various disciplines. No matter what data one presents the main factions don't move much from their positions.

Do you consider yourself a populist or an elitist on the issue of importance of academics in college sports? Elaborate on your position if you can.

A lot of it is simply pointing out what the decision makers value. They are elitists.

what's the point in schools sponsoring athletics if there is no emphasis on school?

(08-12-2015 04:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 04:02 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  In the months since I've been here, one theme that has emerged with the arguments over what realignment is best is the conflict between those who look to perceived athletic prowess (or dominance, in particular to football) and those who insist in the accompanying academic element as the overriding principle (the student-athlete model).

There has what seems to be a sharp divide between those who donate for sports tickets, fans of several teams and those in academia/administrative level. What fascinates me is how this divide has been sharp despite 100+ of competition in the various disciplines. No matter what data one presents the main factions don't move much from their positions.

Do you consider yourself a populist or an elitist on the issue of importance of academics in college sports? Elaborate on your position if you can.

A lot of it is simply pointing out what the decision makers value. They are elitists.

This.

People forget that it's not the athletic directors but the school presidents that decide to invite you into their athletic conference which means their opinion of a candidates academics is always going to be a factor no matter how much a message board fanboy believes academics shouldn't be a factor in his school's candidacy to Power Conference X

(08-12-2015 04:02 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  In the months since I've been here, one theme that has emerged with the arguments over what realignment is best is the conflict between those who look to perceived athletic prowess (or dominance, in particular to football) and those who insist in the accompanying academic element as the overriding principle (the student-athlete model).

There has what seems to be a sharp divide between those who donate for sports tickets, fans of several teams and those in academia/administrative level. What fascinates me is how this divide has been sharp despite 100+ of competition in the various disciplines. No matter what data one presents the main factions don't move much from their positions.

Do you consider yourself a populist or an elitist on the issue of importance of academics in college sports? Elaborate on your position if you can.

I am both, slightly more on elitist side. But as others have said. The academia administration make the decisions, and a large majority are elitists.

As someone pointed it already, it's the presidents that make the decision. So ask yourself this, how much do they usually make, how educated are they, and what was their career/background prior to their tenure as president; and you'll have your answer.

(08-12-2015 05:15 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  As someone pointed it already, it's the presidents that make the decision. So ask yourself this, how much do they usually make, how educated are they, and what was their career/background prior to their tenure as president; and you'll have your answer.

And how many of them have blue field-turf lawns?

(08-12-2015 04:32 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 04:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 04:02 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  In the months since I've been here, one theme that has emerged with the arguments over what realignment is best is the conflict between those who look to perceived athletic prowess (or dominance, in particular to football) and those who insist in the accompanying academic element as the overriding principle (the student-athlete model).

There has what seems to be a sharp divide between those who donate for sports tickets, fans of several teams and those in academia/administrative level. What fascinates me is how this divide has been sharp despite 100+ of competition in the various disciplines. No matter what data one presents the main factions don't move much from their positions.

Do you consider yourself a populist or an elitist on the issue of importance of academics in college sports? Elaborate on your position if you can.

A lot of it is simply pointing out what the decision makers value. They are elitists.

This.

People forget that it's not the athletic directors but the school presidents that decide to invite you into their athletic conference which means their opinion of a candidates academics is always going to be a factor no matter how much a message board fanboy believes academics shouldn't be a factor in his school's candidacy to Power Conference X

Louisville was invited to join the ACC in total disregard to academics.
West Virginia was invited to join the Big 12 in total disregard to academics.
Academically minded university presidents will compromise in moments of despair.
Let's hide and watch...

There is no greater academic snob than U.N.C. and perhaps no greater hypocrisy than their bogus classes, with bogus instructors, all sanctioned by the bursars office.

What this means to me is that it is neither about the academics, although it is good PR to pretend it is, or purely about the athletics either. It is rather about television markets and money.

What has realignment shown us? If you are the Big 10 you can pretend it is about academics when what you are really going after is markets.

If you are the SEC you can pretend it is about athletics and academics as you go for the markets.

If you are the PAC you can pretend it is about future academics, or potential athletics but it is about the markets.

If you are the ACC you can pretend it is about academics, pretend it is about basketball, or football, and even pretend it is about the compromise between the two, but guess what? It's about markets.

Why? "Because it is about television dummy!" Everyone wants to claim it is about something other than money. Why? Because when they admit it is about the money they admit they are whores and then everything is just a matter of price and performance. Hardly is this the crass culture of which academics desire to profess inclusion.

So it's about money. It's about markets because of money. It's about markets because of TV money. But it's said to about athletics and academics, because lah di dah pseudo-aristocrats can't handle conceiving of themselves as whores cheaply pimping the entertainment value of their "student" "athletes".

The Big Ten is all about markets because Rutgers and Maryland have poor academics?

(08-12-2015 06:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There is no greater academic snob than U.N.C. and perhaps no greater hypocrisy than their bogus classes, with bogus instructors, all sanctioned by the bursars office.

What this means to me is that it is neither about the academics, although it is good PR to pretend it is, or purely about the athletics either. It is rather about television markets and money.

What has realignment shown us? If you are the Big 10 you can pretend it is about academics when what you are really going after is markets.

If you are the SEC you can pretend it is about athletics and academics as you go for the markets.

If you are the PAC you can pretend it is about future academics, or potential athletics but it is about the markets.

If you are the ACC you can pretend it is about academics, pretend it is about basketball, or football, and even pretend it is about the compromise of between the two, but guess what? It's about markets.

Why? "Because it is about television dummy!" Everyone wants to claim it about something other than money. Why? Because when they admit it is about the money they admit they are whores and then everything is just a matter of price and performance. Hardly the crass culture of which academics desire to profess inclusion.

So it's about money. It's about markets because of money. It's about markets because of TV money. But it's said to about athletics and academics, because lah di dah pseudo-aristocrats can't handle conceiving of themselves as whores cheaply pimping the entertainment value of their "student" "athletes".

Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel, JR.

(08-12-2015 06:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So it's about money. It's about markets because of money. It's about markets because of TV money. But it's said to about athletics and academics, because lah di dah pseudo-aristocrats can't handle conceiving of themselves as whores cheaply pimping the entertainment value of their "student" "athletes".

It's said to be about things other than money because presidents, ADs, coaches, etc. are trying to obscure the fact that even though it's all about money, they don't want to pay the athletes whose work generates the money.

Here is a thought; instead of the static view that schools are predestined by the Morrill Act to be the superior universities a better way of looking at it is that universities are good once they hit a threshold of $$$ they join the club.

TCU became an athletic monster out of nowhere with a $90 million dollar budget. Academics at TCU honestly aren't notable, its just another private school. Fundraising for athletics has shot threw the moon.

Louisville was not much more than Charlotte or UAB until the community pulled behind them and boosted their financial resources.

FBS schools rarely go backward financially or academically. Akron's financial dire straights are rare for this level. G5 schools have sound financial footing and are awaiting donors to come out of the woodwork to advance like TCU and Louisville have done before them.

(08-12-2015 06:17 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  Louisville was invited to join the ACC in total disregard to academics.
West Virginia was invited to join the Big 12 in total disregard to academics.
Academically minded university presidents will compromise in moments of despair.
Let's hide and watch...

When West Virginia accepted an invite to the B12 there was a press release stating how they were considered a peer worthy of the B12 as a land grant university with a $450 million dollar endowment at the time.

Once a school surges past a $500 million dollar endowment it becomes very difficult to make the arguement that its a poor academic school since very few schools have that level of endowment. $125 million is average. $250 million is above average. A half of a billion dollars is a big endowment. A billion dollars and you are one of the so called "rich" schools out there.

That is what happened to Oklahoma. The public considered Oklahoma a weak academic school for the longest time but they pulled together a billion dollar endowment and started buying up students. Today the PAC and B1G view Oklahoma worthy of expanding for. Almost all the SEC schools have close to a billion dollar endowment these days.

Academics have become more a function of money than tradition and reputation.

I'm not sure I understand the premise of this thread? If I do understand it, I'm not sure that it is fair to call the academic-minded people "elitists". Similarly, if I understand this premise, I am not sure that I would call the people who don't value academics "populists". I would probably choose a different word for them.

Well I can tell you is that I do not look at college football as minor league football and I think the people that are pushing that angle are making a terrible miscalculation. I mean who would rather watch the Birmingham Barons than the Chicago White Sox?

Look, I am not naïve. I understand that many of these players are essentially mercenaries. However, to completely take away the college part of college football would be an idiotic and catastrophic decision.

At that point, you no longer become an alternative to professional football – at least in most of this country. At that point, you become an inferior brand of professional football. That's not elitism, that's just plain old common sense.

I am all for the P5 leagues breaking away and forming their own division with their own set of rules. I am also for increased stipends for the kids who play for schools at that level. I am also in favor of increasing travel benefits for their families.

However, in return for those extra freedoms, I want more accountability among the institutions. I want the schools who compete at that level to reclaim their academic integrity. People say that horse has left the barn but that's completely absurd. Why in the hell couldn't some of the very best universities in this country reclaim their academic integrity? That is a complete copout and extremely wrongheaded on every level.

I want the rulebook to be streamlined. I want there to be far fewer penalties and far fewer rules. I also want the rules that are in place to make sense and be consistent with common sense.

However, I also want the schools that are caught breaking the rules to pay. And when I say pay, I mean really pay. I want the costs of cheating to outweigh the benefits of cheating. I want to see actual deterrents, not an endless array of slaps on the wrist - often dependent on the wealth and power of the schools involved. I want the central governing power, whomever it may be, to have subpoena power or something approximating it. I would like to see a central commissioner who oversees all five leagues and a few indies to help standardize them. And if they are caught cheating, I want that person or governing body to have the power to cripple programs that choose to betray that trust and hurt their own student-athletes.

If that makes me an "elitist" then so be it. I prefer to think of myself as an "ethicist" in a world that increasingly devalues that quality.

Well, conference realignment is certainly about the money.

The thing is that the money is generated by large brand name schools that are disproportionately flagships and top privates such as Notre Dame and USC, all of whom are in the upper tier academically. These aren't mutually exclusive issues - the money and academics go hand in hand. The power conference members are all old money people - you certainly need to bring in lots of money to get into a power conference, but you also need to be the "right" type of school, too.

Honestly, the only real outlier in power conference invites from the old Big East and MWC was Louisville in terms of academic profile. Rutgers, TCU and Utah all have excellent academics, while WVU has long considered to be in the old money group and is a flagship school. In Louisville's case, they brought *serious* money even with the subpar revenue that the old Big East brought in. So, you basically need the athletic department equivalent of Mark Zuckerberg money to break into the old money group in college sports.

I think UofL in the P5 and in particular the ACC offends certain people. I think it offends certain people because of what we may do. What we are aiming for and have on our horizon academically can be propelled by our athletics. It is right that multiple posters have brought this up.

(08-12-2015 09:37 PM)Dasville Wrote:  I think UofL in the P5 and in particular the ACC offends certain people. I think it offends certain people because of what we may do. What we are aiming for and have on our horizon academically can be propelled by our athletics. It is right that multiple posters have brought this up.

Also, what I think a lot of G5 people are missing when they say, "It's all about the money!" when pointing to Louisville is that they then can't show how the money they're making is anywhere close to what Louisivlle was able to do (and once again, this was even with the terrible old Big East TV deals). Like I said in my prior post, Louisville was bringing in SERIOUS money BEFORE it got invited to the ACC (as opposed to a G5 school hoping to start making serious money only AFTER they get s P5 invite). Louisville was a top 25 revenue generator even without getting propped up by large conference revenues, so I don't agree that many (if any) G5 schools come even close to that standard.

Only skimmed the thread......of course money is apart of it. Why wouldn't it be? You don't make changes to stress the system by taking revenue away. That goes against the way our country was built.

When B1G school Presidents vote a yes, they want to know what benefit the school is going to bring to the conference members beforehand.