(08-01-2016 10:42 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 02:27 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  the fact that academics matter is easily the dumbest thing about realignment. like WVU and Louisville are Harvard and Yale. Give me a break.

Seriously, this is such an annoying topic. The ONLY time academics ever matter is when someone wants to justify why someone is not suitable. But when you look at schools who have been added to football conferences it is always those have have been very good or bring a good market. Look at West Virginia, Louisville, Utah, TCU, Texas A&M, Rutgers, Nebraska....none of those had anything to do with academics.

People are stuck in the past where top rated schools were the only one's who afford having good teams.

While I'm certain there were other "boxes to check", things like adding an AAU member, a #70 USNWR ranking, a #26 USNWR Top Public University ranking, a top 10 World ranked Engineering college ranking, a top 20 research university in research expenditures according to an NSF study as well as other high rankings didn't hurt Texas A&M's case for consideration. Adding two AAU universities in A&M and Missouri helped the SEC's academic standing.

(08-01-2016 11:20 AM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 10:42 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 02:27 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  the fact that academics matter is easily the dumbest thing about realignment. like WVU and Louisville are Harvard and Yale. Give me a break.

Seriously, this is such an annoying topic. The ONLY time academics ever matter is when someone wants to justify why someone is not suitable. But when you look at schools who have been added to football conferences it is always those have have been very good or bring a good market. Look at West Virginia, Louisville, Utah, TCU, Texas A&M, Rutgers, Nebraska....none of those had anything to do with academics.

People are stuck in the past where top rated schools were the only one's who afford having good teams.

While I'm certain there were other "boxes to check", things like adding an AAU member, a #70 USNWR ranking, a #26 USNWR Top Public University ranking, a top 10 World ranked Engineering college ranking, a top 20 research university in research expenditures according to an NSF study as well as other high rankings didn't hurt Texas A&M's case for consideration. Adding two AAU universities in A&M and Missouri helped the SEC's academic standing.

In reality, the A&M move was about moving into Texas. If it is an argument for anything it is an argument for the idea that everything else matters more. Only in retrospect did the SEC say, "oh yea and that too."

As for Missouri, I don't think anybody in the SEC felt as if they were somehow blessed by Mizzou's academic prestige--hardly in fact.

(08-01-2016 11:26 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:20 AM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 10:42 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 02:27 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  the fact that academics matter is easily the dumbest thing about realignment. like WVU and Louisville are Harvard and Yale. Give me a break.

Seriously, this is such an annoying topic. The ONLY time academics ever matter is when someone wants to justify why someone is not suitable. But when you look at schools who have been added to football conferences it is always those have have been very good or bring a good market. Look at West Virginia, Louisville, Utah, TCU, Texas A&M, Rutgers, Nebraska....none of those had anything to do with academics.

People are stuck in the past where top rated schools were the only one's who afford having good teams.

While I'm certain there were other "boxes to check", things like adding an AAU member, a #70 USNWR ranking, a #26 USNWR Top Public University ranking, a top 10 World ranked Engineering college ranking, a top 20 research university in research expenditures according to an NSF study as well as other high rankings didn't hurt Texas A&M's case for consideration. Adding two AAU universities in A&M and Missouri helped the SEC's academic standing.

In reality, the A&M move was about moving into Texas. If it is an argument for anything it is an argument for the idea that everything else matters more. Only in retrospect did the SEC say, "oh yea and that too."

As for Missouri, I don't think anybody in the SEC felt as if they were somehow blessed by Mizzou's academic prestige--hardly in fact.

On the other hand, I don't believe either Missouri or A&M would have even been in the discussion if their academic rankings were considerably lower than that of the existing conference members. Another university would have been looked at to move into Texas. There are several P5 universities in the state to choose from.

While academics is not the only criteria, a good ranking helps to "grease the skids" for a university trying to make its case. I think there are several other points of review which would take precedence over a university's academic status, but I do believe academics is a point if for nothing else than a means to help high-grade the list candidates.

(07-31-2016 02:31 PM)kardphan Wrote:  None of the recent teams involved in realignment the past 8 yrs were targeted for their academics. Its been all about athletics...Academics isn't drive the bus for any tv network. This is a foolish argument and yes maybe academics was important before money was driving the bus but its not.

None were targeted "for" academics, but of the teams that moved up to a P5 conference, or among P5 conferences, most were AAU schools (at the time), in Colorado. Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri, Syracuse, Pitt, Maryland, and Rutgers. Granted AAU is mostly about money, and the same characteristics that make you a good expansion candidate (landgrant or primary state school, large TV market, number of alums) are the items that tend to get you a higher endowment, which is the biggest driver of academic reputation, the point remains that most of the schools that moved "up," were elite academic schools.
The only ones who were not were TCU, West Virginia, and Louisville, which include two schools weighed down by their missions (I don't know much about TCU as an academic school).

Academics for a conference realignment are sort of like GPA for a football scholarship. A great one might not get you a scholarship, but a poor one can prevent you from getting one. But even then, there are exceptions. WV was an exception based on need. Their geography was more of an issue than their academics, but they had some immediate needs so neither mattered. Louisville was an exception based on need, compared to what the ACC was really looking for. it was also saved by the immense growth the school had done in the previous 15 years, where the school is not better than its reputation (non-traditional students will keep the school from ever being elite). But the lack of academic pedigree is why many thought UConn was the shoo-in for the ACC: so yes it does matter.

Big 12 wanted Air Force. Air Force is R3 on the Carnegie list. Boise State is R3 on Carnegie's as well. TCU was an R3 a few years ago. If academics were important? Neither TCU nor Air Force would get invites to the Big 12.

(08-01-2016 01:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big 12 wanted Air Force. Air Force is R3 on the Carnegie list. Boise State is R3 on Carnegie's as well. TCU was an R3 a few years ago. If academics were important? Neither TCU nor Air Force would get invites to the Big 12.

You aren't really comparing Boise State to the Air Force academically? The R3 category for Carnegie is a category, Doctorate with minimal research. Yes, Air Force is not a research based institution. They have a lot of other things going on...

Air Force, like the Naval and West Point is very highly regarded academically and very difficult to get into?

Boise State will not get an invite to the B12.

(08-01-2016 11:59 AM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:26 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 11:20 AM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 10:42 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 02:27 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  the fact that academics matter is easily the dumbest thing about realignment. like WVU and Louisville are Harvard and Yale. Give me a break.

Seriously, this is such an annoying topic. The ONLY time academics ever matter is when someone wants to justify why someone is not suitable. But when you look at schools who have been added to football conferences it is always those have have been very good or bring a good market. Look at West Virginia, Louisville, Utah, TCU, Texas A&M, Rutgers, Nebraska....none of those had anything to do with academics.

People are stuck in the past where top rated schools were the only one's who afford having good teams.

While I'm certain there were other "boxes to check", things like adding an AAU member, a #70 USNWR ranking, a #26 USNWR Top Public University ranking, a top 10 World ranked Engineering college ranking, a top 20 research university in research expenditures according to an NSF study as well as other high rankings didn't hurt Texas A&M's case for consideration. Adding two AAU universities in A&M and Missouri helped the SEC's academic standing.

In reality, the A&M move was about moving into Texas. If it is an argument for anything it is an argument for the idea that everything else matters more. Only in retrospect did the SEC say, "oh yea and that too."

As for Missouri, I don't think anybody in the SEC felt as if they were somehow blessed by Mizzou's academic prestige--hardly in fact.

On the other hand, I don't believe either Missouri or A&M would have even been in the discussion if their academic rankings were considerably lower than that of the existing conference members. Another university would have been looked at to move into Texas. There are several P5 universities in the state to choose from.

While academics is not the only criteria, a good ranking helps to "grease the skids" for a university trying to make its case. I think there are several other points of review which would take precedence over a university's academic status, but I do believe academics is a point if for nothing else than a means to help high-grade the list candidates.

I'd agree with that.

Still, the goal of athletic conferences is to strengthen their athletic brand.

I tend to downplay the value based on the metrics often put forward on a board such as this. But, that isn't to say they aren't important to a certain degree.

Ultimately, when the academic argument comes up the conferences are taking far more into account than are being expressed on this board.

They want programs/schools that resemble themselves in the end.

(07-31-2016 11:27 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Oh FFS. If the Big 12 cared about academics at all this round then Rice would be in instead of Houston.

Caring about academics is not the same as "only caring about academics"...

The institutional gap between Boise and Houston is pretty big.

(08-01-2016 01:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big 12 wanted Air Force. Air Force is R3 on the Carnegie list. Boise State is R3 on Carnegie's as well. TCU was an R3 a few years ago. If academics were important? Neither TCU nor Air Force would get invites to the Big 12.

There's a lot more to a school than Carnegie classification. Look at BSU's endowment and then look at TCU's endowment. Better yet, compare their graduation rates, USNews rankings, and Forbes rankings.

(08-01-2016 01:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big 12 wanted Air Force. Air Force is R3 on the Carnegie list. Boise State is R3 on Carnegie's as well. TCU was an R3 a few years ago. If academics were important? Neither TCU nor Air Force would get invites to the Big 12.

David, have you ever been to any of the service academies? If you think Boise and Air Force are in the same universe academically then Ford Focus = BMW. I suppose they are similar in that they both have tires.
Cheers!

(07-31-2016 11:27 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Oh FFS. If the Big 12 cared about academics at all this round then Rice would be in instead of Houston.

No one is saying that it is the ONLY determination, but a data point used in grading candidates.

And you have to think like the people that decide this - University Presidents.

(08-01-2016 05:20 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 01:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big 12 wanted Air Force. Air Force is R3 on the Carnegie list. Boise State is R3 on Carnegie's as well. TCU was an R3 a few years ago. If academics were important? Neither TCU nor Air Force would get invites to the Big 12.

There's a lot more to a school than Carnegie classification. Look at BSU's endowment and then look at TCU's endowment. Better yet, compare their graduation rates, USNews rankings, and Forbes rankings.

Nobody looks at US News Rankings or Forbes because they don't measure how good the schools are, but rep. Looking at them is like being prejudice towards others who are not up there high rankings. Boise State could be a better academics than Houston and so forth.

Everyone looks at US News... lol

(08-01-2016 06:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 05:20 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 01:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big 12 wanted Air Force. Air Force is R3 on the Carnegie list. Boise State is R3 on Carnegie's as well. TCU was an R3 a few years ago. If academics were important? Neither TCU nor Air Force would get invites to the Big 12.

There's a lot more to a school than Carnegie classification. Look at BSU's endowment and then look at TCU's endowment. Better yet, compare their graduation rates, USNews rankings, and Forbes rankings.

Nobody looks at US News Rankings or Forbes because they don't measure how good the schools are, but rep. Looking at them is like being prejudice towards others who are not up there high rankings. Boise State could be a better academics than Houston and so forth.

All signs point to no, even if you exclude USNews and Forbes. Graduation rate, endowment, post-graduation metrics, amount of money dedicated to instruction and research, etc. None of them indicate that BSU is a P5 caliber school. Their Carnegie classification isn't even favorable.

(08-03-2016 05:21 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 06:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 05:20 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(08-01-2016 01:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big 12 wanted Air Force. Air Force is R3 on the Carnegie list. Boise State is R3 on Carnegie's as well. TCU was an R3 a few years ago. If academics were important? Neither TCU nor Air Force would get invites to the Big 12.

There's a lot more to a school than Carnegie classification. Look at BSU's endowment and then look at TCU's endowment. Better yet, compare their graduation rates, USNews rankings, and Forbes rankings.

Nobody looks at US News Rankings or Forbes because they don't measure how good the schools are, but rep. Looking at them is like being prejudice towards others who are not up there high rankings. Boise State could be a better academics than Houston and so forth.

All signs point to no, even if you exclude USNews and Forbes. Graduation rate, endowment, post-graduation metrics, amount of money dedicated to instruction and research, etc. None of them indicate that BSU is a P5 caliber school. Their Carnegie classification isn't even favorable.

Poor guy has problems. It's not that he's a troll, he just has a "unique" way of thinking. He's improved a bit from the David Branisky days where he said he'd never heard of Auburn. One of my all time favorite DavidStisms.


Cheers!