(06-03-2016 09:29 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 03:34 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  From Jeremy Fowler at CBS:

"A prominent official from an ACC school told me Louisville and UConn both have something to offer but stressed academics will matter to presidents. This favors UConn, widely considered a top-75 national university. The Hartford area also is larger than Louisville's, but the Cardinals have a strong football/basketball product and aggressive AD Tom Jurich"

This was reported a few days before Louisville was invited to join The ACC.

http://www.theuconnblog.com/2012/11/26/3...in/3431031

All true. But: 1) the ACC was just raided by the Big 10 and 2) BC was blackballing UConn.

Completely different situation.

Not that time they weren't.

(06-03-2016 10:07 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 09:41 AM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 09:06 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 06:50 AM)TopperCard Wrote:  Academics are very important to conferences, but at the end of the day, these are sports decision, otherwise the Ivy League would be a P5 conference.

To be fair, if the Ivy Leagues decided they wanted to compete with the P5 today, in ten years they would be one of the top three conferences. Every Ivy League school has more money than all but 3-4 of the P5 schools, and their top 3-4 schools have more money than EVERY P5 school. If they decided they wanted to compete, and invested in it, they'd be competitive like they were earlier in the last century.

What exactly are you basing that off? Endowment?

I'm sure its endowment and if so that's definitely true outside perhaps Stanford, whom I believe is right there in the mix. These are schools with tens of billions of dollars in endowments. I doubt they'd be a top 3 conference within 10 years, but they could be one of the major conferences in a hurry if they chose to reestablish high level athletics in the revenue sports. Fortunately for the existing northeastern schools in major conferences (or with major conference quality athletic departments) that's not happening. Remember the Ivies outside of football, men's and women's basketball and baseball/softball already have some highly competitive teams.

HYP (Harvard-Yale-Princeton) have ginormous endowments. Those three plus Stanford and the University of Texas system have endowments of more than $20 billion each. (source) The other Ivies have large endowments but a couple dozen other private and public universities are on the same level.

(06-03-2016 10:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 09:06 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 06:50 AM)TopperCard Wrote:  Academics are very important to conferences, but at the end of the day, these are sports decision, otherwise the Ivy League would be a P5 conference.

To be fair, if the Ivy Leagues decided they wanted to compete with the P5 today, in ten years they would be one of the top three conferences. Every Ivy League school has more money than all but 3-4 of the P5 schools, and their top 3-4 schools have more money than EVERY P5 school. If they decided they wanted to compete, and invested in it, they'd be competitive like they were earlier in the last century.

No. They couldn't hide the "student"-athletes in their programs. They would be like Northwestern, Vanderbilt and Stanford. Sometimes success. But with all 8, it would thin out that pool of athletes who were also outstanding at academics.

I said they "could," not that they "would.

(06-03-2016 10:38 AM)Wedge Wrote:  HYP (Harvard-Yale-Princeton) have ginormous endowments. Those three plus Stanford and the University of Texas system have endowments of more than $20 billion each. (source) The other Ivies have large endowments but a couple dozen other private and public universities are on the same level.

The Ivy advantage is endowment per student. They're half of the top 10 and a majority of the top 15 among schools that sponsor D1 sports.

Its funny.. Rankings only matter to academics..

Ive never hired a guy (even straight out of college) based off what school he went too.

The students I want are the ones who did internships, Co-ops, or worked while in school. Because they show drive. Getting a degree in 4 years doesnt matter either. Those guys who got it in 7 or 8 years part-time, because they had to work full time during school is the kind of employee I would prefer. Again, it shows drive and effort.

As the working world gravitates more towards wanting folks with experience, you will start to see a lot of urban universities start to outpace those who are 100 miles from the nearest major metropolitan center. Its easier to find a internship or whatever in those places, than the latter.

(06-03-2016 11:27 AM)muffinman Wrote:  Its funny.. Rankings only matter to academics..

Ive never hired a guy (even straight out of college) based off what school he went too.

The students I want are the ones who did internships, Co-ops, or worked while in school. Because they show drive. Getting a degree in 4 years doesnt matter either. Those guys who got it in 7 or 8 years part-time, because they had to work full time during school is the kind of employee I would prefer. Again, it shows drive and effort.

As the working world gravitates more towards wanting folks with experience, you will start to see a lot of urban universities start to outpace those who are 100 miles from the nearest major metropolitan center. Its easier to find a internship or whatever in those places, than the latter.

Not necessarily true. Some of the elite employers only recruit graduates from certain universities. You have a much much lower chance of getting hired if you don't attend one of those target schools.

(06-03-2016 11:27 AM)muffinman Wrote:  Its funny.. Rankings only matter to academics..

Ive never hired a guy (even straight out of college) based off what school he went too.

The students I want are the ones who did internships, Co-ops, or worked while in school. Because they show drive. Getting a degree in 4 years doesnt matter either. Those guys who got it in 7 or 8 years part-time, because they had to work full time during school is the kind of employee I would prefer. Again, it shows drive and effort.

It DOES matter in the top, most competitive fields, and when it comes to moving up the corporate ladder. Go and look at the top doctor's and lawyers, and those recruited by the most firms and hospitals, and you will find a direct correlation in a lot of cases to their alma mater.

It matters less for other fields and industries, but that is not the case among the more competitive fields.

(06-03-2016 11:31 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 11:27 AM)muffinman Wrote:  Its funny.. Rankings only matter to academics..

Ive never hired a guy (even straight out of college) based off what school he went too.

The students I want are the ones who did internships, Co-ops, or worked while in school. Because they show drive. Getting a degree in 4 years doesnt matter either. Those guys who got it in 7 or 8 years part-time, because they had to work full time during school is the kind of employee I would prefer. Again, it shows drive and effort.

It DOES matter in the top, most competitive fields, and when it comes to moving up the corporate ladder. Go and look at the top doctor's and lawyers, and those recruited by the most firms and hospitals, and you will find a direct correlation in a lot of cases to their alma mater.

It matters less for other fields and industries, but that is not the case among the more competitive fields.

Yes in some fields it does matter for only the TOP employer in that field. Doctors trained at Johns Hopkins (or a peer) will be able to get a job at a top hospital. But thats it...

All the other doctors trained at all of the other medical schools will find jobs somewhere, due to the supply being lower than the demand.

But if your a Doctor and your not trying to work at Boston General, Mayo Clinic, or the like. Then your fine going to your local medical school to work at the hospital or medical office down the street. At this point, its based on experience.

(06-03-2016 09:55 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 11:32 PM)IAH Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 10:40 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If it makes a Houston guy feel better about himself, then yes, Memphis was a long shot. It's going to be UC and UConn, or BYU football only. That's really the only play. If I were a president, I stay at 10 and go with the status quo.

Rutgers got in the Big10 ... I guess anything is possible

This. LOL.

How about this:
Rutgers ranking #72 worldwide

or this:
AAU Member Institutions -- Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

or more winning than losing football seasons in the 7 years prior to the invite.

There was more to our invite than the number of eyeballs in the New York DMA.

Academic rankings matter to the school chancellors and presidents who are voting on expansion -- at least in the ACC and Big 10.. Even as flawed as USN&WR can be (they place a lot of emphasis on endowment, and tend to downplay "commuter" schools), by any measurable standard we're in with peer universities.

Harvard to the big 12. Dumb coog. Lol

(06-03-2016 11:56 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 09:55 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 11:32 PM)IAH Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 10:40 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If it makes a Houston guy feel better about himself, then yes, Memphis was a long shot. It's going to be UC and UConn, or BYU football only. That's really the only play. If I were a president, I stay at 10 and go with the status quo.

Rutgers got in the Big10 ... I guess anything is possible

This. LOL.

How about this:
Rutgers ranking #72 worldwide

or this:
AAU Member Institutions -- Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

or more winning than losing football seasons in the 7 years prior to the invite.

There was more to our invite than the number of eyeballs in the New York DMA.

Academic rankings matter to the school chancellors and presidents who are voting on expansion -- at least in the ACC and Big 10.. Even as flawed as USN&WR can be (they place a lot of emphasis on endowment, and tend to downplay "commuter" schools), by any measurable standard we're in with peer universities.

There had to be more to your invite then number of NY eyeballs....

Good job coming up with time stretch where Rutgers had a winning record.

(06-03-2016 02:10 PM)IAH Wrote:  There had to be more to your invite then number of NY eyeballs....

It has to be because of a massive B1G Alumni Base in the area. Possible TV sets is way down the list for them

(06-02-2016 10:35 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Leaving aside what a longshot Houston is . . .

I have Memphis friends who are convinced that Memphis has a Big 12 invite in hand.

Boren said today "We want to make sure the expansion schools are not dilutive in academics, media market, type of research."

Memphis is 1) not ranked in the ARWU, 2) not ranked in USNWR, 3) not ranked in Carnegie's highest research classification 4) while the rest of the candidates are all of the above.

UT has thumbed its nose at joining the SEC in part because they look down their nose academically at the Ole Miss's of the world. Why would they want to be associated with Memphis?

We know Gordon Gee is an academic snob from his comments about the SEC and Louisville during his Ohio State tenure.

And now these comments from Boren.

I just can't imagine the Big 12 has spent even 5 minutes discussing Memphis. If they have, it's only because of Fred Smith's bribe.

1. How much of an academic snob could you possibly be and still be in the Big XII. SEC academics > Big XII academics.

2. How much of an academic snob could you possibly be and still be WVU's president/chancellor?

(06-03-2016 12:28 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Academics can always be fixed.

All it takes is a couple of mega donors and before you know it there is the endowment to buy a nice student profile.

The thing that can't be fixed, or at least is very difficult to fix is media market.

^ you are joking right???
Cheers!

(06-03-2016 02:10 PM)IAH Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 11:56 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 09:55 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 11:32 PM)IAH Wrote:  

(06-02-2016 10:40 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  If it makes a Houston guy feel better about himself, then yes, Memphis was a long shot. It's going to be UC and UConn, or BYU football only. That's really the only play. If I were a president, I stay at 10 and go with the status quo.

Rutgers got in the Big10 ... I guess anything is possible

This. LOL.

How about this:
Rutgers ranking #72 worldwide

or this:
AAU Member Institutions -- Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

or more winning than losing football seasons in the 7 years prior to the invite.

There was more to our invite than the number of eyeballs in the New York DMA.

Academic rankings matter to the school chancellors and presidents who are voting on expansion -- at least in the ACC and Big 10.. Even as flawed as USN&WR can be (they place a lot of emphasis on endowment, and tend to downplay "commuter" schools), by any measurable standard we're in with peer universities.

There had to be more to your invite then number of NY eyeballs....

Good job coming up with time stretch where Rutgers had a winning record.

Not a Rutgers fan, but they have by far the most fans in NYC of any school. They hover around 650k Rutgers football fans while schools like Syracuse and UConn hover around 150k NYC football fans. Syracuse is in the same state however which is where their conference network value lies.

I don't think academic prowess should be connected with athletics. That is the old ways. You need to look at how to present the sports. You go with who is hot, not who is cold. PAC 12 made the mistake by adding Colorado instead of Boise State. Colorado had really no history with PAC 12 schools except for Utah. Boise have played games with the PAC 12 north a lot. They gain a lot of wins including the wins over the Mighty Ducks of Oregon. Who would you want to see on tv? Your team playing a loser like Colorado or play against an undefeated Boise State? People would chose Boise State over Colorado to watch. Same with Memphis.

(06-03-2016 02:30 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I don't think academic prowess should be connected with athletics. That is the old ways. You need to look at how to present the sports. You go with who is hot, not who is cold. PAC 12 made the mistake by adding Colorado instead of Boise State. Colorado had really no history with PAC 12 schools except for Utah. Boise have played games with the PAC 12 north a lot. They gain a lot of wins including the wins over the Mighty Ducks of Oregon. Who would you want to see on tv? Your team playing a loser like Colorado or play against an undefeated Boise State? People would chose Boise State over Colorado to watch. Same with Memphis.

"Why should we have to go to class if we came here to play FOOTBALL, we ain't come to play SCHOOL classes are POINTLESS," Cardale Jones

"We have a big AAU school football battle coming on Saturday...."

-said no one ever

(06-03-2016 03:01 PM)shere khan Wrote:  "We have a big AAU school football battle coming on Saturday...."

-said no one ever

Actually Rice said that to Tulane once.
Cheers!

(06-03-2016 03:01 PM)shere khan Wrote:  "We have a big AAU school football battle coming on Saturday...."

-said no one ever

You're so funny! Is this guy great or what?