Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Johns Hopkins , Big Ten Lacrosse and the future
Author Message
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Johns Hopkins , Big Ten Lacrosse and the future
For FY2015 total spending, APL was about $1.328B (which would be #2 behind Michigan), and JHU was about $978M (which would be #11 behind Harvard).
04-19-2017 01:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,784
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 73
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Johns Hopkins , Big Ten Lacrosse and the future
(04-19-2017 12:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And so, JHU's research puts it as the #11 ranked school, so I will refer to them as that going forward.

Derived from your interpretation.

Subjective.

Glad we agree.

Anyway, back to the meat and potatoes of this topic...does the ACC circle back and look at Hopkins if the Jays are still interested?

Or...maybe the Big East?
04-19-2017 01:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Johns Hopkins , Big Ten Lacrosse and the future
You can pretend to deny facts, but that is your personal agenda.


The thread quickly veered off from the question of the OP, because it is so cut and dried. Not really much to discuss. The Big Ten doesn't "need" JHU for lacrosse. I think at least one of the core schools will step up with a new men's team soon enough.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2017 01:18 PM by MplsBison.)
04-19-2017 01:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gitanole Offline
Bartender
*

Posts: 357
Joined: May 2016
Reputation: 63
I Root For: Florida State
Location: Beach Bohemia
Post: #34
RE: Johns Hopkins , Big Ten Lacrosse and the future
(04-18-2017 08:47 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I think Johns Hopkins wants to be in the ACC more than the Big Ten. Maybe the five-year window was more for the ACC to reexamine its decision than for Hopkins to assess theirs.

I hope you're right. Hopkins is a natural addition for the ACC.

Lacrosse is a great sport for a conference network operating in the mid-Atlantic region. It's a fast-growing sport. Enthusiasts really tune in.

ACC gains DC/Maryland assets, the Blue Jays gain the great lacrosse rivals they want, academic cred goes all around. Sign 'em up.
04-19-2017 01:39 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: #35
RE: Johns Hopkins , Big Ten Lacrosse and the future
(04-19-2017 01:04 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(04-19-2017 12:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And so, JHU's research puts it as the #11 ranked school, so I will refer to them as that going forward.

Derived from your interpretation.

Subjective.

Glad we agree.

Anyway, back to the meat and potatoes of this topic...does the ACC circle back and look at Hopkins if the Jays are still interested?

Or...maybe the Big East?

They 100% should, but I'm not sure if it will happen. JHU has a sweet spot, and the ACC might be stubborn.
04-19-2017 08:35 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: #36
RE: Johns Hopkins , Big Ten Lacrosse and the future
(04-19-2017 10:18 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Glad you now understand that research is a critically important factor for being added to conferences like the Big Ten and PAC, and to a lesser extent the rest of the P5 (would have said the ACC too, but high research adds like Pitt are offset by low research adds like Syracuse).
1. Yup. The ACC was too busy educating students. After all, *sonebody* has to work in management 03-razz

2. Ahhhh, the desperate personal attack.

You **still** have yet to put forth a coherent argument as to why research matters to a meaningful degree in the context of collegiate athletics. But you have, however slung several personal attacks and admitted that research at one school doesn't impact another.

3. My position is that research doesn't matter for conference affiliation. The B1G made a big deal about the CIC and AAU because research is the vaguely academic-sounding metric where the B1G excels. Therefore, it's s natural sales pitch to increase school pride. But at the end of the day, it has zero/very close to zero impact on the vast majority of student's educations, and one school's research prowess has virtually no impact on the research prowess of its conference mates. That truth extends beyond just conference affiliation to other organizations as well.

Every conference overplays the areas where they excel - as does virtually every organization on the planet. It's easy to score free points from people who drink the look aid by blurring causation and correlation.

And before you get high and mighty and start pounding your chest about <insert B1G school name here>'s research numbers, the B1G is good at research because it consists of HUGE state schools w/ mostly mediocre academics. The fact that they're big matters because they can spread the cost of research over a wide student base. The fact that they're public matters because public schools are far more likely to have mission statements that involving bettering the lives of state residents (vs the students) because the residents who shelled out tax dollars for the school want the highest RoI possible. And having a mission statement that focuses on bettering the lives of state residents is conducive to research because innovation is the result of research, and it leads to better goods and services and therefore more happiness amongst the general population. And lastly, being at least mediocre means that the schools aren't chronically under-funded.

The fact of the matter is that most students learn the most from on the job training after they graduate. And ignoring that learning, most students learn the most in school from text books (which are the same everywhere - from Harvard to the <insert terrible school here>) and from classmates. research doesn't play a huge role for a number of reasons, one of which being that you can't teach cutting edge concepts to students who have yet to understand the basics. It would be like building a house by starting w/ the roof (vs the foundation).
04-19-2017 09:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,005
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 163
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Johns Hopkins , Big Ten Lacrosse and the future
I see very little chance the current agreement is not renewed. It's been a good set-up. If they were doing it all over again and both were pursing, maybe they would go ACC, but I would be very surprised if they'd switch at this point.
04-19-2017 10:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,784
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 73
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Johns Hopkins , Big Ten Lacrosse and the future
(04-19-2017 01:39 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  
(04-18-2017 08:47 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I think Johns Hopkins wants to be in the ACC more than the Big Ten. Maybe the five-year window was more for the ACC to reexamine its decision than for Hopkins to assess theirs.

I hope you're right. Hopkins is a natural addition for the ACC.

Lacrosse is a great sport for a conference network operating in the mid-Atlantic region. It's a fast-growing sport. Enthusiasts really tune in.

ACC gains DC/Maryland assets, the Blue Jays gain the great lacrosse rivals they want, academic cred goes all around. Sign 'em up.

I remember when Hopkins announced they were shopping for a conference, and the venom from ACC team fans bristling at the addition. Not just not needing JHU to be a good conference, or needing AQ, but some general resentment towards them. This from Syracuse, Virginia, and UNC fans. And if their fans weren't fond of the idea, then or now, does it extend toward the decision makers at these places?

All seems well now for the Big Ten: good representation in the tournament, Hopkins doing well, UMD's strong... it's a good time for them. But is Hopkins happy? They can't be too unhappy... wlax joined not long after. UMD was extremely vocal in getting Hopkins into the Big Ten discussion; rumored to be a bargaining chip when considering the move to the Big Ten. If the arrangement doesn't extend, I wonder if Maryland doesn't commandeer the subject again with another program in mind.

Were the relationship to end, who replaces them? Go west and make Air Force's life a little better? Try to pick off Denver?
04-20-2017 04:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,983
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 102
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Johns Hopkins , Big Ten Lacrosse and the future
(04-19-2017 09:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  3. My position is that research doesn't matter for conference affiliation. The B1G made a big deal about the CIC and AAU because research is the vaguely academic-sounding metric where the B1G excels. Therefore, it's s natural sales pitch to increase school pride. But at the end of the day, it has zero/very close to zero impact on the vast majority of student's educations, and one school's research prowess has virtually no impact on the research prowess of its conference mates.
But this is criticizing a particular theory about why academic status matters for conference affiliation in many cases ... that it is about delivering benefits to students and benefits to researchers.

The decision makers here are University Presidents. And what a naive theory it would be that all decisions that University Presidents make are based on lofty objective of benefitting students and advancing knowledge for the greater social goods. University Presidents are politicians. Sure, they are academic politicians, and that changes the terrain in which they play their grubby political games, but they are still politicians.

Arguments like, "the CIC is not of earth shaking importance to academic research" miss the point. Of course it's window dressing. Remember that the CIC was created in the aftermath of the 1950's football factory scandals. The CIC has since its creation been window dressing to make the Big Ten conference affiliation more palatable to academic snobs. The question is whether it is effective at doing its job as window dressing.

Academic status of conference realignment choices matters to University Presidents to the extent that it is an issue that either presents or clears obstacles to pursuit of their political goals. The more power various researchers exercise in a University, due to the bucketloads of money they channel through the University in public and corporate research funding, the more convenient it is to be able to fob them off with things that make the conference look less like a machine for channeling money into the athletic department ... sometimes with a modest amount tossed off to the general funding in the wealthiest athletic departments to dress up the egregious amounts of money they spend running supposedly "amateur" athletic competitions, and much more often with various amounts tipped in by everyone else who is engaged in an arms race with those wealth departments.

Academic politicians using window dressing like the CIC to quell objections from within the University is pure spin: it's sold with examples of things they do, and each of the examples seems like a good thing to do, distracting from relatively minor total contribution made.
04-20-2017 06:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Phlipper33 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 402
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Texas A&M
Location: Arlington, TX
Post: #40
RE: Johns Hopkins , Big Ten Lacrosse and the future
I think research and academic rankings do matter a bit for some conferences. Not because it helps the other schools, but mainly because they want to associate with similar schools as themselves, and most people will assume all schools within a conference are similar to each other. High school students in Texas are more likely to assume that the other SEC schools are similar academically to A&M. This gives schools like the Mississippis a chance to get better students to attend their university.

The SEC adding two AAU schools greatly helps their perception, while there's less room to grow for the Big Ten. The Big Ten doesn't want to fall perception wise, and adding schools like Nebraska doesn't really hurt them, but doesn't help them get closer to (or ahead of) the Ivies. If there was Cal type school nearby they would've been grabbed much quicker, but there are no such other schools near the Midwest. Big Ten just wants to make sure they don't fall behind the ACC or any other conference in academic perception.

Conference affiliation isn't going to change the mind of very many perspective students when choosing their school, but it may affect a few. I wouldn't be surprised if the other SEC West schools were beginning to get more higher ranked Texas students for example. A&M and Mizzou have been in the SEC for the entirety of a current senior's high school years, so it's quite possible the move is already paying off for some of those schools.
04-20-2017 09:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2017 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.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.