Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
From the ACC board: How I envision the power conferences
Author Message
ken d Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,334
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #21
RE: From the ACC board: How I envision the power conferences
Why do any OOC games need to be protected? With only 7 conference games and five OOC games, every game you show as protected can easily be accommodated as long as both schools want to schedule them.

Along that same line, why would anybody care about protecting Rutgers more than other FBS schools like Houston, UConn, Cincy, etc?
01-24-2016 05:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rjglassett Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 171
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #22
RE: From the ACC board: How I envision the power conferences
(01-24-2016 05:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why do any OOC games need to be protected? With only 7 conference games and five OOC games, every game you show as protected can easily be accommodated as long as both schools want to schedule them.

Along that same line, why would anybody care about protecting Rutgers more than other FBS schools like Houston, UConn, Cincy, etc?

Because they are being removed from Power status in this setup; for compensation they get 1/2 of a Big East schedule.
01-24-2016 07:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,334
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #23
RE: From the ACC board: How I envision the power conferences
(01-24-2016 07:52 PM)rjglassett Wrote:  
(01-24-2016 05:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why do any OOC games need to be protected? With only 7 conference games and five OOC games, every game you show as protected can easily be accommodated as long as both schools want to schedule them.

Along that same line, why would anybody care about protecting Rutgers more than other FBS schools like Houston, UConn, Cincy, etc?

Because they are being removed from Power status in this setup; for compensation they get 1/2 of a Big East schedule.

You mean as opposed to UConn and Cincinnati who had AQ status before the last major reorganization happened? Is the theory that if you throw Rutgers a bone they won't try to sue or take some other negative action? There's not much meat on that bone.
01-24-2016 09:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #24
RE: From the ACC board: How I envision the power conferences
(01-24-2016 05:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why do any OOC games need to be protected? With only 7 conference games and five OOC games, every game you show as protected can easily be accommodated as long as both schools want to schedule them.

Along that same line, why would anybody care about protecting Rutgers more than other FBS schools like Houston, UConn, Cincy, etc?

It's the only way to make sure that everyone either improves their position or approximates it. UConn would be hands down improving their position, and UC and Houston would be maintaining the status quo. Without a special arrangement, RU would be disadvantaging their position.
01-25-2016 01:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #25
RE: From the ACC board: How I envision the power conferences
(01-24-2016 09:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-24-2016 07:52 PM)rjglassett Wrote:  
(01-24-2016 05:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why do any OOC games need to be protected? With only 7 conference games and five OOC games, every game you show as protected can easily be accommodated as long as both schools want to schedule them.

Along that same line, why would anybody care about protecting Rutgers more than other FBS schools like Houston, UConn, Cincy, etc?

Because they are being removed from Power status in this setup; for compensation they get 1/2 of a Big East schedule.

You mean as opposed to UConn and Cincinnati who had AQ status before the last major reorganization happened? Is the theory that if you throw Rutgers a bone they won't try to sue or take some other negative action? There's not much meat on that bone.

That's not the theory. It's just that it's really hard to break up conferences, so anything that reduces transaction costs makes life easier for everyone involved.
01-25-2016 02:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #26
RE: From the ACC board: How I envision the power conferences
(01-24-2016 07:52 PM)rjglassett Wrote:  
(01-24-2016 05:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why do any OOC games need to be protected? With only 7 conference games and five OOC games, every game you show as protected can easily be accommodated as long as both schools want to schedule them.

Along that same line, why would anybody care about protecting Rutgers more than other FBS schools like Houston, UConn, Cincy, etc?

Because they are being removed from Power status in this setup; for compensation they get 1/2 of a Big East schedule.

-And a ton of money. If you take the 67% of the middle media contract and add in another ~20% for BIG EAST basketball membership, RU is getting ~87% of the Power TV deals and can still sell its football program's content. Media deals are roughly 20 mm right now, and the AAC is making roughly 2 mm/school and RU would be at the high end of program values if it was still in the AAC. So, I figure RU football could easily make 10-15% of the Power contract from selling content for its football program (if not more). ~87% + 10-15% = ~100% of a Power TV deal (with a very real potential of being over 100%).

RU's only losses are:
*It would have to schedule 3 additional games on its own (which is mitigated by the fact that UConn, BYU, and Army would essentially be in the same position)
*It would have a reduced cut of the playoff payouts (which is mitigated because this bowl structure is WAY more G5-friendly due to the limit of 3 P teams playing other P teams in bowls). Additionally, BIG EAST NCAA BBT credits would likely be higher than most other conferences on a per team basis, so RU would have an advantage there, which further mitigates any differences in playoff money.
*It wouldn't have a shot of winning a NC, but RU hasn't ever played for a NC since NC's have been awarded, so I think that this is only a paper loss.

All in all, I tried to set it up so that RU would come as close to breaking even as possible.
01-25-2016 02:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #27
RE: From the ACC board: How I envision the power conferences
(01-23-2016 07:46 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  
(01-23-2016 11:25 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  This is what I think should be, and to an extent, will be:

FOOTBALL

BIG EAST
1. Penn State
2. Syracuse
3. Boston College
4. Pitt
5. Notre Dame (protected USCali and Stanford games)
6. Maryland
7. Miami (protected FSU game)
8. West Virginia

*The BIG EAST would also commit to offer to play Rutgers in two home and two away games every year. The games would be chosen by the conference, and an away game could be substituted for a neutral game if one of the home games was substituted for a neutral game in the next year. However, RU is only required to accept such a substitution once every four years.
I believe most Maryland alumni and fans, myself included, would prefer the school to return to the ACC as it existed in 1991. That said, if Maryland were to join a northeast conference, I would not want either Miami or Notre Dame in the conference. I would add Rutgers, UConn, UMass, and Temple to get to ten.

With 5 OOC games, you could play each of the 8 ACC teams once every 4 years (and still have 3 free OOC games). I know that's not perfect, but I don't think that you're THAT far off. It's actually a faster rotation for GT, Duke, and UNC than you were getting in your last year in the ACC.
01-25-2016 02:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #28
RE: From the ACC board: How I envision the power conferences
(01-24-2016 02:06 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(01-23-2016 06:32 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(01-23-2016 05:39 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(01-23-2016 03:30 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(01-23-2016 02:30 PM)gopher952 Wrote:  No thanks no need for Iowa state. Kansas sure. Oklahoma maybe but idk since there not AAU. I would like to see the big 10 stick with good academic schools.

AAU membership is based on research prowess, not the school's ability to attract and educate high quality students. Furthermore, one school's research has little impact on any of their conference mate's. In fact, as far as I can tell, its impact is primarily limited to the budget benefits of pooled purchasing agreements. However, those agreements don't have to be based on conference affiliation. With that in mind, there's no reason why this realignment would have to have any impact the CIC's membership.

IMHO, conference affiliation impacts academics to the extent that it impacts who the school is able to advertise to, and where they're able to effectively advertise. Without looking, my guess is that Minnesota's strongest recruiting grounds are the Great Plains and the Great Lakes. This realignment would give them great exposure in the Great Plains against the best schools in the region, and decent exposure in the western Great Lakes against several of the premier schools in the region. Additionally, the a hotter schedule would give Minnesota increased flexibility to schedule games against select Great Lakes schools, thereby ensuring strong exposure in that region as well.

In the end, I have a hard time seeing why (or how) Minnesota's academics would be adversely affected.

the bold part is false the AAU gives a great deal of consideration to the academic metrics of incoming students and graduation rates, but they do so within the context of the mission of the university as well and comparisons to similar universities

Tell that to Notre Dame, Dartmouth, Wake Forest, Boston College, Williams (and countless other small schools), SUNY Buffalo, and SUNY Stonybrook.

Only one of the 8 criteria even considers undergraduate education and that isn't even until phase II. Even then, like you said, it's examined within the context of the school's mission, not an objective standard.

Reasonable minds can differ as to the exact balance, but I'd say it's ~90% research orientated and ~10% education orientated.

https://www.aau.edu/uploadedFiles/About/...Policy.pdf

Buffalo and Stony Brook are AAU members

Williams College barely offers any graduate degrees and has only 36 majors that is hardly a comprehensive university and "numerous other small colleges" are just that SMALL COLLEGES

the AAU is for research UNIVERSITIES and while research plays a factor you are not going to be able to conduct hundreds of millions of research while ignoring graduation rates, overall breadth and depth of programs, faculty quality, freshman metrics or many other factors to get into the AAU based on "research" nor are you going to get in based on a few other metrics

they are looking for well above average in all metrics not a few or not just in research

Boston College does a pittance in research so they are not even in consideration....and again research matters, but it is not a factor that you can just grow to some massive size and pretend you are getting into the AAU

also the factors listed are just the factors the AAU decided to publicly list and they state nothing about how they actually evaluate those factors which again starts with weighing them against peer schools

when you compare Boston College to peer private universities they are not that spectacular they are just another really good private school same with Wake Forest, Dartmouth and many others

when you compare them to PEER universities they are not in the very upper echelon they are down in the second tier and thus are not in the AAU

you can be a high quality university and still not be in the top of your PEER group

Bold: That's my point. They're also mediocre schools.

Underlined: It's also one of the best educational institutions in the country, and very much on par with Harvard.

Italics: That's kind of my point about BC. It's an elite academic institution that is ignored because of the AAU's focus on research instead of academics.

Bold Italics: Once again, this is my point. They are really good schools that can't get in because the AAU cares about research and not academics. If it was the other way around, they would be in and schools like KU, ISU, Purdue, Oregon, SUNY Buffalo, and SUNY Stony Brook would be out.

Italics Underlined: What peer universities are you talking about? Are you saying that Harvard/MIT > Dartmouth/BC, therefore Dartmouth/BC shouldn't get an invite, but KU > KSU, therefore KU is in? If so, then I think that I'm just going to rest my point.

To clarify, research is important. As an American and a human being in general, I am very thankful and appreciative of all the high quality research that American universities do every year, and all of the advancements that they make. Furthermore, I hope those universities keep going. It's benefiting me, and it's benefiting society as a whole. Additionally, I think that the AAU is a great institution. Among other things, it is the lobbying arm of those great research institution, and helps them further their research objectives.

However, all of that said, it still doesn't really measure academics in any meaningful way. My alma mater is Penn Sate. In terms of academics, we aren't better than Dartmouth, we aren't better than Notre Dame, and we aren't better than a whole host of very elite small schools. However, we are really, really big, so we are way better at research than all of those schools combined, and our academics weren't embarrassing. Therefore, we were granted AAU membership and they weren't.

P.S. My understanding of the initial poster's comments (see below) was that he was complaining about being in a conference with ISU because their academics were terrible and that he preferred an all AAU conference. It's worth pointing out that 1. ISU is in the AAU and 2. the B1G isn't all AAU anymore. So, logically, he can't think that ISU is bad and AAU membership means that a school is good. That alone pretty much proves my point, at least in the confines of the initial discussion.

https://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5474

(01-23-2016 02:30 PM)gopher952 Wrote:  No thanks no need for Iowa state ... I would like to see the big 10 stick with good academic schools.
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2016 02:44 AM by nzmorange.)
01-25-2016 02:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.