CSNbbs

(10-01-2020 12:35 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]If they had to do it all over again, would Boston College be invited today? No.

Just curious—who would you have taken in 2003 that isn’t already in the ACC now? WVU?

BC had a pretty good run in the ACC early on but always seemed to be foiled by VT before their program nose dived into the dumpster fire it is now.

It’s too bad a partial merger wasn’t on the table—the 9 ACC schools plus the 7 BE football schools not named Temple.

Look for a volunteer for (or force Maryland into) the BE division and presto!

(10-01-2020 12:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 12:35 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]If they had to do it all over again, would Boston College be invited today? No.

Just curious—who would you have taken in 2003 that isn’t already in the ACC now? WVU?

BC had a pretty good run in the ACC early on but always seemed to be foiled by VT before their program nose dived into the dumpster fire it is now.

It’s too bad a partial merger wasn’t on the table—the 9 ACC schools plus the 7 BE football schools not named Temple.

Look for a volunteer for (or force Maryland into) the BE division and presto!

Dumpster Fire???? How exactly do you define a dumpster fire??

BC's W-L record the last 4 seasons:
6-7
7-5
7-6
7-6

While I would agree this is more or less a pedestrian record (reason why the HC was replaced), it is far from a dumpster fire. A number of programs in the ACC have fared worse over this time.

(10-01-2020 12:13 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 11:57 AM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2020 07:12 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2020 06:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]I think just adding Miami was tossed around in 2003 but I think ultimately the ACC and ESPN agreed it was in the best interest to go to 12 to capitalize on the CCG revenue and the northeastern markets.

Miami was amenable to coming into the ACC with a pair of northeastern schools because, while the football recruiting grounds were closer to home, the northeast is a region they draw a lot of students from.

The need to gain Virginia’s vote, and thus adding VT, meant they could only do one northeastern school and Boston has more TV sets than Western NY.

But Boston doesnt have more tv sets than Western, Central and Eastern NY, which are all areas that SU draws from, not to mention the couple million people in the North Country and the southern tier. What actually happened was that BC, after being rejected by the ACC, along with SU, went back to the ACC and asked to be admitted, after they and all the other BE fb schools had recommitted to the BE to stay together. SU never did this because they had given their word to the BE and were appalled that BC had gone back on their word and stabbed the league in the back.

Choosing BC over Syracuse was an interesting choice. BC did have a better football program back then. But Cuse had a good football history and more alumni. It is also closer to the ACC. BC is a geographical outlier. It is also catholic while some of the ACC schools have a historical ties with protestant churches.

Having said that, being catholic might actually have helped BC if the ACC was already eyeing ND back in 2004. I remember NC state voted no to BC as it wanted to keep 12th spot open in case ND joins. I thought it was very random.

No, BC did not have a better fb program back then. Syracuse didnt hit the worst 5 year period in its history until Gerg Robinson was hired which was a couple years after the first ACC raid. SU was a far better program at that time. Tom Obrien was just starting to lift BC

In the 10 years leading up to 2003, Syracuse won 44 conference games in the Big East. Boston College won 32 games in the same period. In the 10 years after BC was invited to the ACC, the Eagles won 42 conference games, while Syracuse won 22.

(10-01-2020 12:55 PM)Eagle78 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 12:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 12:35 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]If they had to do it all over again, would Boston College be invited today? No.

Just curious—who would you have taken in 2003 that isn’t already in the ACC now? WVU?

BC had a pretty good run in the ACC early on but always seemed to be foiled by VT before their program nose dived into the dumpster fire it is now.

It’s too bad a partial merger wasn’t on the table—the 9 ACC schools plus the 7 BE football schools not named Temple.

Look for a volunteer for (or force Maryland into) the BE division and presto!

Dumpster Fire???? How exactly do you define a dumpster fire??

BC's W-L record the last 4 seasons:
6-7
7-5
7-6
7-6

While I would agree this is more or less a pedestrian record (reason why the HC was replaced), it is far from a dumpster fire. A number of programs in the ACC have fared worse over this time.

Dumpster fire may be a bit too harsh. It was my recollection that there were some really down years after Matt Ryan left. Sitting just over the line bowl eligibility isn’t a bad place to be but I’m sure BC fans would like to be doing better than that. At last I checked, BC’s attendance is still in a slump and there’s a reputation that BC fans don’t travel well to bowl games.

(10-01-2020 12:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Just curious—who would you have taken in 2003 that isn’t already in the ACC now? WVU?

The ACC should have come off its high horse about WVU's academics. I don't see Clemson in the US News Top 25, either.

(10-01-2020 01:09 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 12:13 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 11:57 AM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2020 07:12 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2020 06:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]I think just adding Miami was tossed around in 2003 but I think ultimately the ACC and ESPN agreed it was in the best interest to go to 12 to capitalize on the CCG revenue and the northeastern markets.

Miami was amenable to coming into the ACC with a pair of northeastern schools because, while the football recruiting grounds were closer to home, the northeast is a region they draw a lot of students from.

The need to gain Virginia’s vote, and thus adding VT, meant they could only do one northeastern school and Boston has more TV sets than Western NY.

But Boston doesnt have more tv sets than Western, Central and Eastern NY, which are all areas that SU draws from, not to mention the couple million people in the North Country and the southern tier. What actually happened was that BC, after being rejected by the ACC, along with SU, went back to the ACC and asked to be admitted, after they and all the other BE fb schools had recommitted to the BE to stay together. SU never did this because they had given their word to the BE and were appalled that BC had gone back on their word and stabbed the league in the back.

Choosing BC over Syracuse was an interesting choice. BC did have a better football program back then. But Cuse had a good football history and more alumni. It is also closer to the ACC. BC is a geographical outlier. It is also catholic while some of the ACC schools have a historical ties with protestant churches.

Having said that, being catholic might actually have helped BC if the ACC was already eyeing ND back in 2004. I remember NC state voted no to BC as it wanted to keep 12th spot open in case ND joins. I thought it was very random.

No, BC did not have a better fb program back then. Syracuse didnt hit the worst 5 year period in its history until Gerg Robinson was hired which was a couple years after the first ACC raid. SU was a far better program at that time. Tom Obrien was just starting to lift BC

In the 10 years leading up to 2003, Syracuse won 44 conference games in the Big East. Boston College won 32 games in the same period. In the 10 years after BC was invited to the ACC, the Eagles won 42 conference games, while Syracuse won 22.

But when you look at the total number of games played in conference and out of conference you get the real picture of how the teams were viewed nationally. Beating each other up in conference is one thing but beating up other conferences is where respect is earned. SU overall 75-43-1 while BC was 65-55

(10-01-2020 01:21 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 12:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Just curious—who would you have taken in 2003 that isn’t already in the ACC now? WVU?

The ACC should have come off its high horse about WVU's academics. I don't see Clemson in the US News Top 25, either.

While Kap and I often fight, that academic shot at Clemson is bull ****. No school in the ACC has worked as diligently as Clemson to up it's academic game and it has reshaped itself as an almost private like, quasi-elite in South Carolina. There is no Duke, WF, Emory, or Davidson in SC. There is just no comparison between Clemson and WVa

(10-01-2020 03:23 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 01:21 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 12:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Just curious—who would you have taken in 2003 that isn’t already in the ACC now? WVU?

The ACC should have come off its high horse about WVU's academics. I don't see Clemson in the US News Top 25, either.

While Kap and I often fight, that academic shot at Clemson is bull ****. No school in the ACC has worked as diligently as Clemson to up it's academic game and it has reshaped itself as an almost private like, quasi-elite in South Carolina. There is no Duke, WF, Emory, or Davidson in SC. There is just no comparison between Clemson and WVa

Totally agree! Clemson may not be in the top 25 academically, but they are a highly respected university, which is TOTALLY the opposite of WV. I dont see how anyone would even want to go there. If WV were a member of the ACC, they would be the least academically respected program in the league by a long shot.

(10-01-2020 10:15 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 09:38 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 09:19 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]A question that would interest me is this. If Miami's original plan was carried out, and BC and Syracuse came along with them, what would the division alignment for the 12 school league have been? Or better yet, what should it have been?

There was actually a thread on this last year: https://csnbbs.com/thread-876599.html

I post more on the divisional alignment later in that thread: https://csnbbs.com/thread-876599-post-16...id16113541

Most of that thread dealt with what would have happened in conference realignment after such a move by the ACC. I wasn't going to read all 11 pages of posts to see if there were any more on ACC division alignment.

I found it interesting that your post assumed a fixed annual crossover game for each school (which is what happened after VT upset the initial plan). There are configurations in which no permanent crossovers would be needed.

I linked another post of mine later in the thread that also deals with the original ACC divisional alignment: https://csnbbs.com/thread-876599-post-16...id16168201

I hadn't heard anything about a plan that didn't involve protected crossovers, but that's interesting if true. I don't know if such a plan would have actually been adopted though, since no matter what the alignment of that ACC lineup was, they were going to need at least some protected crossovers to keep everyone happy ("happy"). At a bare minimum FSU/Miami, since the conference wanted to keep them in separate divisions (I think).

(10-01-2020 12:13 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 11:57 AM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2020 07:12 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2020 06:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]I think just adding Miami was tossed around in 2003 but I think ultimately the ACC and ESPN agreed it was in the best interest to go to 12 to capitalize on the CCG revenue and the northeastern markets.

Miami was amenable to coming into the ACC with a pair of northeastern schools because, while the football recruiting grounds were closer to home, the northeast is a region they draw a lot of students from.

The need to gain Virginia’s vote, and thus adding VT, meant they could only do one northeastern school and Boston has more TV sets than Western NY.

But Boston doesnt have more tv sets than Western, Central and Eastern NY, which are all areas that SU draws from, not to mention the couple million people in the North Country and the southern tier. What actually happened was that BC, after being rejected by the ACC, along with SU, went back to the ACC and asked to be admitted, after they and all the other BE fb schools had recommitted to the BE to stay together. SU never did this because they had given their word to the BE and were appalled that BC had gone back on their word and stabbed the league in the back.

Choosing BC over Syracuse was an interesting choice. BC did have a better football program back then. But Cuse had a good football history and more alumni. It is also closer to the ACC. BC is a geographical outlier. It is also catholic while some of the ACC schools have a historical ties with protestant churches.

Having said that, being catholic might actually have helped BC if the ACC was already eyeing ND back in 2004. I remember NC state voted no to BC as it wanted to keep 12th spot open in case ND joins. I thought it was very random.

No, BC did not have a better fb program back then. Syracuse didnt hit the worst 5 year period in its history until Gerg Robinson was hired which was a couple years after the first Acc raid. SU was a far better program at that time. Tom Obrien was just starting to lift BC

Got it. So maybe SU had a better program in both football and basketball.

Honest question then. Why did the ACC pick BC over Cuse? Is it because then Miami president pushed for it? Or because BC would generate more TV revenue? Or because of BC’s academics? Or maybe because of BC’s relationship with ND? Or as somebody said, the ACC was like a country club and the ACC presidents much preferred travelling to Boston over Syracuse?

Back then I was just happy that VT was in the ACC but this is an interesting question that I haven’t thought about much.

(10-01-2020 02:14 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 01:09 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 12:13 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 11:57 AM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2020 07:12 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]But Boston doesnt have more tv sets than Western, Central and Eastern NY, which are all areas that SU draws from, not to mention the couple million people in the North Country and the southern tier. What actually happened was that BC, after being rejected by the ACC, along with SU, went back to the ACC and asked to be admitted, after they and all the other BE fb schools had recommitted to the BE to stay together. SU never did this because they had given their word to the BE and were appalled that BC had gone back on their word and stabbed the league in the back.

Choosing BC over Syracuse was an interesting choice. BC did have a better football program back then. But Cuse had a good football history and more alumni. It is also closer to the ACC. BC is a geographical outlier. It is also catholic while some of the ACC schools have a historical ties with protestant churches.

Having said that, being catholic might actually have helped BC if the ACC was already eyeing ND back in 2004. I remember NC state voted no to BC as it wanted to keep 12th spot open in case ND joins. I thought it was very random.

No, BC did not have a better fb program back then. Syracuse didnt hit the worst 5 year period in its history until Gerg Robinson was hired which was a couple years after the first ACC raid. SU was a far better program at that time. Tom Obrien was just starting to lift BC

In the 10 years leading up to 2003, Syracuse won 44 conference games in the Big East. Boston College won 32 games in the same period. In the 10 years after BC was invited to the ACC, the Eagles won 42 conference games, while Syracuse won 22.

But when you look at the total number of games played in conference and out of conference you get the real picture of how the teams were viewed nationally. Beating each other up in conference is one thing but beating up other conferences is where respect is earned. SU overall 75-43-1 while BC was 65-55

The reason I used conference play only is because it takes out of play arguments about whose OOC schedules were tougher. In this case, both sets of data tell basically the same story. Syracuse was the stronger program during this period, not BC as was asserted in the underlying post. The poster's recollection was simply in error, likely the result of "recency bias" since after 2003 BC was clearly the stronger team.

(10-01-2020 03:41 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 10:15 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 09:38 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 09:19 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]A question that would interest me is this. If Miami's original plan was carried out, and BC and Syracuse came along with them, what would the division alignment for the 12 school league have been? Or better yet, what should it have been?

There was actually a thread on this last year: https://csnbbs.com/thread-876599.html

I post more on the divisional alignment later in that thread: https://csnbbs.com/thread-876599-post-16...id16113541

Most of that thread dealt with what would have happened in conference realignment after such a move by the ACC. I wasn't going to read all 11 pages of posts to see if there were any more on ACC division alignment.

I found it interesting that your post assumed a fixed annual crossover game for each school (which is what happened after VT upset the initial plan). There are configurations in which no permanent crossovers would be needed.

I linked another post of mine later in the thread that also deals with the original ACC divisional alignment: https://csnbbs.com/thread-876599-post-16...id16168201

I hadn't heard anything about a plan that didn't involve protected crossovers, but that's interesting if true. I don't know if such a plan would have actually been adopted though, since no matter what the alignment of that ACC lineup was, they were going to need at least some protected crossovers to keep everyone happy ("happy"). At a bare minimum FSU/Miami, since the conference wanted to keep them in separate divisions (I think).

That bolded statement is one that all conferences deal with: should you seek divisions that are as close to balanced, strength-wise, or should you try to give your stronger team the best possible strength of schedule for playoff consideration?

If you go with the latter, then one obvious alignment puts all the new teams in the same division:

Maryland, Virginia, UNC, Duke, NC State, and Wake Forest

Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Syracuse and Boston College

If you want strength balance, and are willing to have some teams play each other OOC every other year, you could have:

Miami (69), Syracuse (50), Virginia (46), UNC (39), Maryland (35) and Duke (13)

Florida State (74), Clemson (45), Georgia Tech (44), NC State (39), BC (37), Wake (20)

In parentheses is the number of conference wins in the preceding 10 years. In this scenario, FSU-Miami, UNC-NC State and BC-Syracuse are the only OOC games that would be required (1 1/2 games a year on average).

20-20 hindsight blurs analysis today, as evidenced by the fact that Clemson ranked 5th out of 12 teams in number of league wins, and Miami largely tanked almost as soon as they arrived.

(10-01-2020 03:48 PM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 12:13 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 11:57 AM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2020 07:12 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-30-2020 06:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]I think just adding Miami was tossed around in 2003 but I think ultimately the ACC and ESPN agreed it was in the best interest to go to 12 to capitalize on the CCG revenue and the northeastern markets.

Miami was amenable to coming into the ACC with a pair of northeastern schools because, while the football recruiting grounds were closer to home, the northeast is a region they draw a lot of students from.

The need to gain Virginia’s vote, and thus adding VT, meant they could only do one northeastern school and Boston has more TV sets than Western NY.

But Boston doesnt have more tv sets than Western, Central and Eastern NY, which are all areas that SU draws from, not to mention the couple million people in the North Country and the southern tier. What actually happened was that BC, after being rejected by the ACC, along with SU, went back to the ACC and asked to be admitted, after they and all the other BE fb schools had recommitted to the BE to stay together. SU never did this because they had given their word to the BE and were appalled that BC had gone back on their word and stabbed the league in the back.

Choosing BC over Syracuse was an interesting choice. BC did have a better football program back then. But Cuse had a good football history and more alumni. It is also closer to the ACC. BC is a geographical outlier. It is also catholic while some of the ACC schools have a historical ties with protestant churches.

Having said that, being catholic might actually have helped BC if the ACC was already eyeing ND back in 2004. I remember NC state voted no to BC as it wanted to keep 12th spot open in case ND joins. I thought it was very random.

No, BC did not have a better fb program back then. Syracuse didnt hit the worst 5 year period in its history until Gerg Robinson was hired which was a couple years after the first Acc raid. SU was a far better program at that time. Tom Obrien was just starting to lift BC

Got it. So maybe SU had a better program in both football and basketball.

Honest question then. Why did the ACC pick BC over Cuse? Is it because then Miami president pushed for it? Or because BC would generate more TV revenue? Or because of BC’s academics? Or maybe because of BC’s relationship with ND? Or as somebody said, the ACC was like a country club and the ACC presidents much preferred travelling to Boston over Syracuse?

Back then I was just happy that VT was in the ACC but this is an interesting question that I haven’t thought about much.

I don't have viewer data for the two, but I would be very surprised if BC attracted more eyeballs than Syracuse in 2003 in either revenue sport. Maybe recent data would shed some light on that.

(10-01-2020 04:29 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 03:41 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 10:15 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 09:38 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 09:19 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]A question that would interest me is this. If Miami's original plan was carried out, and BC and Syracuse came along with them, what would the division alignment for the 12 school league have been? Or better yet, what should it have been?

There was actually a thread on this last year: https://csnbbs.com/thread-876599.html

I post more on the divisional alignment later in that thread: https://csnbbs.com/thread-876599-post-16...id16113541

Most of that thread dealt with what would have happened in conference realignment after such a move by the ACC. I wasn't going to read all 11 pages of posts to see if there were any more on ACC division alignment.

I found it interesting that your post assumed a fixed annual crossover game for each school (which is what happened after VT upset the initial plan). There are configurations in which no permanent crossovers would be needed.

I linked another post of mine later in the thread that also deals with the original ACC divisional alignment: https://csnbbs.com/thread-876599-post-16...id16168201

I hadn't heard anything about a plan that didn't involve protected crossovers, but that's interesting if true. I don't know if such a plan would have actually been adopted though, since no matter what the alignment of that ACC lineup was, they were going to need at least some protected crossovers to keep everyone happy ("happy"). At a bare minimum FSU/Miami, since the conference wanted to keep them in separate divisions (I think).

That bolded statement is one that all conferences deal with: should you seek divisions that are as close to balanced, strength-wise, or should you try to give your stronger team the best possible strength of schedule for playoff consideration?

If you go with the latter, then one obvious alignment puts all the new teams in the same division:

Maryland, Virginia, UNC, Duke, NC State, and Wake Forest

Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Syracuse and Boston College

If you want strength balance, and are willing to have some teams play each other OOC every other year, you could have:

Miami (69), Syracuse (50), Virginia (46), UNC (39), Maryland (35) and Duke (13)

Florida State (74), Clemson (45), Georgia Tech (44), NC State (39), BC (37), Wake (20)

In parentheses is the number of conference wins in the preceding 10 years. In this scenario, FSU-Miami, UNC-NC State and BC-Syracuse are the only OOC games that would be required (1 1/2 games a year on average).

20-20 hindsight blurs analysis today, as evidenced by the fact that Clemson ranked 5th out of 12 teams in number of league wins, and Miami largely tanked almost as soon as they arrived.

I don't think strength of schedule was the only reason they wanted to separate FSU and Miami. I think it was also because all teams wanted to play in Florida for recruiting purposes, and having both FL teams in the same division would give an edge to whomever else was in that division.

Forcing strong rivals in the same conference to play OOC if they wanted to play annually simply wouldn't fly. That's why you don't see that at all.

(10-01-2020 03:23 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]While Kap and I often fight, that academic shot at Clemson is bull ****. No school in the ACC has worked as diligently as Clemson to up it's academic game and it has reshaped itself as an almost private like, quasi-elite in South Carolina. There is no Duke, WF, Emory, or Davidson in SC. There is just no comparison between Clemson and WVa

I think you missed the point. Clemson is a rising academic program and the ACC should not think any less of it, but the idea it can now only accept top 50 programs is a short sighted approach.

West Virginia isn't trying to be Duke. Its goal is to educate the adults of that state, which unfortunately ranks 44th of 50 nationally in education, 48th in health care and 50th in economic development. The snobbery that the Mountaineers aren't good enough to rub shoulders with Carolina and UVa. is unnecessary.

(10-01-2020 07:46 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 03:23 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]While Kap and I often fight, that academic shot at Clemson is bull ****. No school in the ACC has worked as diligently as Clemson to up it's academic game and it has reshaped itself as an almost private like, quasi-elite in South Carolina. There is no Duke, WF, Emory, or Davidson in SC. There is just no comparison between Clemson and WVa

I think you missed the point. Clemson is a rising academic program and the ACC should not think any less of it, but the idea it can now only accept top 50 programs is a short sighted approach.

West Virginia isn't trying to be Duke. Its goal is to educate the adults of that state, which unfortunately ranks 44th of 50 nationally in education, 48th in health care and 50th in economic development. The snobbery that the Mountaineers aren't good enough to rub shoulders with Carolina and UVa. is unnecessary.

TBH I have more respect for WVU's mission than most school's, Clemson included. The idea that a school who's mission is to educate everyone should be looked down upon is about as asinine as it gets. West Virginia's goals should be glorified, not shunned, and anyone who has a problem with WVU's academics should reevaluate their outlook.

(10-01-2020 12:35 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]If they had to do it all over again, would Boston College be invited today? No.

I understand that it is too late to put the Genie back into the bottle......but if we knew then what we know now......the ACC would have been much better off if we had just stopped at 11 (after inviting Virginia Tech and Miami). Louisville has proven to be an upgrade from Maryland.
If we could send back Pitt, Syracuse and Boston College for credit...we should.

(10-01-2020 11:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 07:46 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 03:23 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]While Kap and I often fight, that academic shot at Clemson is bull ****. No school in the ACC has worked as diligently as Clemson to up it's academic game and it has reshaped itself as an almost private like, quasi-elite in South Carolina. There is no Duke, WF, Emory, or Davidson in SC. There is just no comparison between Clemson and WVa

I think you missed the point. Clemson is a rising academic program and the ACC should not think any less of it, but the idea it can now only accept top 50 programs is a short sighted approach.

West Virginia isn't trying to be Duke. Its goal is to educate the adults of that state, which unfortunately ranks 44th of 50 nationally in education, 48th in health care and 50th in economic development. The snobbery that the Mountaineers aren't good enough to rub shoulders with Carolina and UVa. is unnecessary.

TBH I have more respect for WVU's mission than most school's, Clemson included. The idea that a school who's mission is to educate everyone should be looked down upon is about as asinine as it gets. West Virginia's goals should be glorified, not shunned, and anyone who has a problem with WVU's academics should reevaluate their outlook.

^^^^
This.

As a former resident of both Morgantown, and the State of West Virginia, WVU ought not be looked down upon because they maintain their commitment to the very reason they were founded: to provide for the education of every West (by God) Virginian.

(10-01-2020 11:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 07:46 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 03:23 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]While Kap and I often fight, that academic shot at Clemson is bull ****. No school in the ACC has worked as diligently as Clemson to up it's academic game and it has reshaped itself as an almost private like, quasi-elite in South Carolina. There is no Duke, WF, Emory, or Davidson in SC. There is just no comparison between Clemson and WVa

I think you missed the point. Clemson is a rising academic program and the ACC should not think any less of it, but the idea it can now only accept top 50 programs is a short sighted approach.

West Virginia isn't trying to be Duke. Its goal is to educate the adults of that state, which unfortunately ranks 44th of 50 nationally in education, 48th in health care and 50th in economic development. The snobbery that the Mountaineers aren't good enough to rub shoulders with Carolina and UVa. is unnecessary.

TBH I have more respect for WVU's mission than most school's, Clemson included. The idea that a school who's mission is to educate everyone should be looked down upon is about as asinine as it gets. West Virginia's goals should be glorified, not shunned, and anyone who has a problem with WVU's academics should reevaluate their outlook.

WVU's mission is admirable (https://www.wvu.edu/about-wvu/mission). But there's a reason they can do it and many state schools in the country can't. In theory Penn State would love to "advance education" ... "for all". But too many people want to go there (at least to the main campus).

Some admissions statistics I could find comparing the two schools:
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/...ass-stats/
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/...ass-stats/

West Virginia: Applicant Total 18,639, Accepted 15,211, Enrolled 4,732
Penn State: Applicant Total 52,742, Accepted 29,793, Enrolled 8,075

Penn State's acceptance rate is lower than West Virginia's (56.5% to 81.6%) but they accepted almost twice as many students and enrolled way more students. While Penn State is more selective than West Virginia, they've educated way more students and given more students a chance at an education than West Virginia has (a lot of students, over 21,000 didn't want it). Interesting fact, I applied and was accepted to Penn State as an undergraduate and didn't go and went to Illinois instead so I would've been in that category (but I went to grad school there so they got me eventually:)

For public universities, the #1 determining factor for admissions selectivity is how attractive they are to college students in terms of applications. Penn State has about 3 times as many applications as West Virginia so they can be more selective (in fact they can have about a 70% larger freshman class AND still be 25% more selective). In general, more populous states are going to have an advantage. Why are the California schools so selective? The student bodies of UCLA and Berkeley aren't much bigger than Penn State but they've got so many California high school seniors who want to go there not to mention out of staters who want to go there as well because of their reputations. Like it or not, not many out of staters want to go to the University of West Virginia and because few people live in the state they don't get as many applicants.

If West Virginia accepted 56.5% of its Fall 2019 applicants (18,639), they would have only accepted 10,531 approx. students. If 31% of them enrolled, West Virginia would have had a freshman class of approx, 3,265 (almost 1,500 less than actually enrolled or about 30% less). Do you think West Virginia would want to or could afford to cut 30% of its student enrollment? I doubt any college wants to cut enrollment. They like being more selective but the way to get more selective is to increase applications so your goal is to make your college/university more attractive to people. This is why I criticize the schools like West Virginia and my traditional punching bags of low academic status. If more students wanted to go there, they wouldn't be so low ranked.

(10-01-2020 07:46 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-01-2020 03:23 PM)Statefan Wrote: [ -> ]While Kap and I often fight, that academic shot at Clemson is bull ****. No school in the ACC has worked as diligently as Clemson to up it's academic game and it has reshaped itself as an almost private like, quasi-elite in South Carolina. There is no Duke, WF, Emory, or Davidson in SC. There is just no comparison between Clemson and WVa

I think you missed the point. Clemson is a rising academic program and the ACC should not think any less of it, but the idea it can now only accept top 50 programs is a short sighted approach.

West Virginia isn't trying to be Duke. Its goal is to educate the adults of that state, which unfortunately ranks 44th of 50 nationally in education, 48th in health care and 50th in economic development. The snobbery that the Mountaineers aren't good enough to rub shoulders with Carolina and UVa. is unnecessary.

A noble mission, but one of limited value, since there are few if any in-state opportunities for WVU grads. As a result, they leave for greener pastures. I'm amazed the powers-that-be don't acknowledge this and strive for a more holistic and/or competitive academic mission. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?