(06-08-2014 04:44 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 04:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 04:03 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:41 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Nope, that wasn't the point. SU's bottom line is fine in the scenario I gave. Our competitiveness has dropped off and thus may be hurting the conference's image, but we are still making a little money.

We just aren't trying as hard in the given scenario. In the meantime, all of our partners are trying harder, spending more, and not making much in-roads on their overall bottom line because they chose to pay full cost of attendance scholarships while SU chose not to do so.

Cheers,
Neil

I doubt, in this scenario, SU would be allowed to not pay full cost. That would be a conference decision and not a school decision.

Well that is a different argument then you have been presenting. So, in this scenario, it is now appropriate for the conference to decide a minima on this particular expense?

Cheers,
Neil

They could as long as it fell in line with the NCAA. ACC has already said they support full cost which would include every team in the conference. Every school in the ACC makes enough to cover this so the path you are trying to lead me down is moot.

Actually the path I led you down is not moot, but extremely relevant. It establishes for all to recognize that the NCAA already has set maxima in terms of number of scholarships for each sport and a minimum in terms of number of sports to be sponsored and the balancing act of Title IX in terms of both the above.

And now, in this example you have indicated that the conference as a whole, possibly over the objections of some of its members will likely enforce the full cost of scholarships agenda item, whatever that eventually turns out to be.

This notion by some on this board that athletic departments at these universities just set up boards and then throw darts at them in this haphazard way to determine how much to expend on athletics is incorrect.

Athletic budgets are already mostly influenced in numerous ways via NCAA athletic regulations (and not individual campus faculty politics) and what the universities peers are doing. They will continue to be mostly based upon this moreso in the future, even if a Division IV is developed with its own set of regulations.

To pretend that each university is somehow autonomous now in this regard is the mistaken notion. The debate in the future will be how much of this will be left up to individual universities interpretation versus how much will be done in a formalized method as the NCAA starts to lose whatever teeth is has left in this regard and a new Division IV takes shape is the debate. Not that it can't be done, but rather how far will it go is the true debate.

Cheers,
Neil

So the conclusion is the same....Wake goes nowhere.

Wake adds no tradition or rivalries to the ACC as far as I'm concerned. You can repeat that bit about Wake having some wins against FSU until your face is blue, it doesn't change the reality that Wake is clearly the dregs of the conference.

(06-08-2014 01:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:49 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  A conference should set a minimum budget for athletics, don't you think?

Maybe you forgot the ACC is an academic conference.

There's no such thing as an "academic conference".

(06-08-2014 02:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 02:20 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:49 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  A conference should set a minimum budget for athletics, don't you think?

Maybe you forgot the ACC is an academic conference.

First and foremost, the ACC is an athletics conference. It is secondarily an academic conference.

Didn't South Carolina withdraw from the ACC due to a dispute over a self-imposed conference academic minima?

Why is setting up a self-imposed conference academic minima different from what Wilkie is suggesting?

Cheers,
Neil

The ACC has more private schools than any other conference combined. That was done to preserve the academic focus of the conference. Imposing an athletics minimum goes against what the ACC holds most dear.

At the time the ACC only had two private universities, Wake and Duke. So what you said isn't accurate. And you're only kidding yourself if you think "academics" are what the ACC holds "most dear". That's ridiculous.

(06-08-2014 03:58 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:55 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 02:41 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 02:35 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Well, we agree that some sort of minimum standards for Athletics has to be put in place, After all we have to have standards and bench marks!

Yes, and if the ACC didn't cave in to one of theirs...L'Ville wouldn't have been invited.

Oh, we are not like the North Carolina of values of giving nonexistent classes as passing grades for athletes. Real high standards NC dude, you opened the door on this!

Please. The % of student athletes impacting by that is so freakin' small it's ridiculous. It only sounds big because it's NORTH CAROLINA. When your school is able to make it into the top 50, then let's have a casual conversation.

And the percentage of football and basketball players involved isn't nearly as small... But if you want to add lacrosse, baseball, soccer, tennis, golf, etc athletes that typically come from more affluent and more educated and stable backgrounds than the revenue-earning sports, by all means, distort the facts.

Is jaminandjachin really a Wake fan, acting like he is a Tar Heel fan.

(06-08-2014 10:48 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Wake adds no tradition or rivalries to the ACC as far as I'm concerned. You can repeat that bit about Wake having some wins against FSU until your face is blue, it doesn't change the reality that Wake is clearly the dregs of the conference.

That's to you. Clearly other programs in the league think otherwise. To say Wake adds no tradition or rivalries to the ACC is ridiculous.

(06-08-2014 10:51 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:49 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  A conference should set a minimum budget for athletics, don't you think?

Maybe you forgot the ACC is an academic conference.

There's no such thing as an "academic conference".

Academics meaning it's a priority focus. You know...that thing that almost kept Louisville from getting an invite.

(06-08-2014 10:55 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 02:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 02:20 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:57 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 01:49 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  A conference should set a minimum budget for athletics, don't you think?

Maybe you forgot the ACC is an academic conference.

First and foremost, the ACC is an athletics conference. It is secondarily an academic conference.

Didn't South Carolina withdraw from the ACC due to a dispute over a self-imposed conference academic minima?

Why is setting up a self-imposed conference academic minima different from what Wilkie is suggesting?

Cheers,
Neil

The ACC has more private schools than any other conference combined. That was done to preserve the academic focus of the conference. Imposing an athletics minimum goes against what the ACC holds most dear.

At the time the ACC only had two private universities, Wake and Duke. So what you said isn't accurate. And you're only kidding yourself if you think "academics" are what the ACC holds "most dear". That's ridiculous.

Ummmm...why are you even commenting on the ACC again? You clearly don't know anything about the league...

Wake - private
Duke - private
Miami - private
Syracuse - private
Boston College - private
Notre Dame (all sports + 5 games football) - private
Pitt - private/public hybrid

Not to mention there are schools like Ga Tech who even though they are public, it's a technical school with high academic standards.

(06-08-2014 11:01 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:58 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:55 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 02:41 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 02:35 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Well, we agree that some sort of minimum standards for Athletics has to be put in place, After all we have to have standards and bench marks!

Yes, and if the ACC didn't cave in to one of theirs...L'Ville wouldn't have been invited.

Oh, we are not like the North Carolina of values of giving nonexistent classes as passing grades for athletes. Real high standards NC dude, you opened the door on this!

Please. The % of student athletes impacting by that is so freakin' small it's ridiculous. It only sounds big because it's NORTH CAROLINA. When your school is able to make it into the top 50, then let's have a casual conversation.

And the percentage of football and basketball players involved isn't nearly as small... But if you want to add lacrosse, baseball, soccer, tennis, golf, etc athletes that typically come from more affluent and more educated and stable backgrounds than the revenue-earning sports, by all means, distort the facts.

So what are the facts? What % of football and basketball players benefited from this? Short answer....you don't know. You only know what the media tells you to hype it up.

(06-09-2014 02:06 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:   Is jaminandjachin really a Wake fan, acting like he is a Tar Heel fan.

Tar Heel and ACC fan. You're not even in the league yet and are already out of control. Here are a couple of items to keep in mind:

1) The ACC voted to admit you. That would include Wake Forest. Maybe you should be a little more appreciative considering you're not even officially in the league yet.

2) The ACC would have rather kept Maryland. Remember that.

(06-09-2014 07:35 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 11:01 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:58 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:55 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 02:41 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Yes, and if the ACC didn't cave in to one of theirs...L'Ville wouldn't have been invited.

Oh, we are not like the North Carolina of values of giving nonexistent classes as passing grades for athletes. Real high standards NC dude, you opened the door on this!

Please. The % of student athletes impacting by that is so freakin' small it's ridiculous. It only sounds big because it's NORTH CAROLINA. When your school is able to make it into the top 50, then let's have a casual conversation.

And the percentage of football and basketball players involved isn't nearly as small... But if you want to add lacrosse, baseball, soccer, tennis, golf, etc athletes that typically come from more affluent and more educated and stable backgrounds than the revenue-earning sports, by all means, distort the facts.

So what are the facts? What % of football and basketball players benefited from this? Short answer....you don't know. You only know what the media tells you to hype it up.

Well, it is pie in your face not us!

(06-09-2014 07:42 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 07:35 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 11:01 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:58 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 03:55 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Oh, we are not like the North Carolina of values of giving nonexistent classes as passing grades for athletes. Real high standards NC dude, you opened the door on this!

Please. The % of student athletes impacting by that is so freakin' small it's ridiculous. It only sounds big because it's NORTH CAROLINA. When your school is able to make it into the top 50, then let's have a casual conversation.

And the percentage of football and basketball players involved isn't nearly as small... But if you want to add lacrosse, baseball, soccer, tennis, golf, etc athletes that typically come from more affluent and more educated and stable backgrounds than the revenue-earning sports, by all means, distort the facts.

So what are the facts? What % of football and basketball players benefited from this? Short answer....you don't know. You only know what the media tells you to hype it up.

Well, it is pie in your face not us!

This is true and it sucks.

(06-09-2014 07:42 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 02:06 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:   Is jaminandjachin really a Wake fan, acting like he is a Tar Heel fan.

Tar Heel and ACC fan. You're not even in the league yet and are already out of control. Here are a couple of items to keep in mind:

1) The ACC voted to admit you. That would include Wake Forest. Maybe you should be a little more appreciative considering you're not even officially in the league yet.

2) The ACC would have rather kept Maryland. Remember that.

1. That is true that is why I find it amazing that Wilkie is doing this...the vote was 11-0 with Wake supporting UofL inclusion and now Wilkie is suggesting the ACC kick out a founding member and we are 21 Days before we officially join for a school-(UConn) that would make Boston College, Florida State and Clemson revolt....my guess he just wants to stir the pot and it is silly....

2. After what has happened in the Lawsuit...right now doubt the ACC would want them back....

Would a UConn-for-Wake Forest swap financially benefit the conference? Probably. While football is about the same in terms of quality, UConn's basketball programs are much better than Wake's. UConn is better positioned to compete athletically (large student body, large athletic budget, etc). Furthermore, UConn would add a new market to the conference where Wake really only adds duplicate shares of a market that the ACC already dominates (NC).

That said, the argument for replacing Wake with UConn could just as easily be applied to most other schools in the conference (e.g. Notre Dame-for-Louisville, Florida-for-Louisville, etc). Wake is a founding member of the conference and the only way they'd be out of the ACC is if they either a) voluntarily left or b) completely quit on trying to run a competitive athletic department. Until one of those two things happens, Wake is an ACC school.

Also Wilkie, the ACC didn't even want us until Maryland left. The Big 12 also passed us over. What does that tell you about our desirability?

(06-09-2014 08:38 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  Would a UConn-for-Wake Forest swap financially benefit the conference? Probably. While football is about the same in terms of quality, UConn's basketball programs are much better than Wake's. UConn is better positioned to compete athletically (large student body, large athletic budget, etc). Furthermore, UConn would add a new market to the conference where Wake really only adds duplicate shares of a market that the ACC already dominates (NC).

That said, the argument for replacing Wake with UConn could just as easily be applied to most other schools in the conference (e.g. Notre Dame-for-Louisville, Florida-for-Louisville, etc). Wake is a founding member of the conference and the only way they'd be out of the ACC is if they either a) voluntarily left or b) completely quit on trying to run a competitive athletic department. Until one of those two things happens, Wake is an ACC school.

Also Wilkie, the ACC didn't even want us until Maryland left. The Big 12 also passed us over. What does that tell you about our desirability?

Some of us need to remember this...UofL was thisclose to be left in the wilderness....

Wake has a historically bad football tradition. Anyone who tries to argue to the contrary (and I'm not saying anyone is) would be lying to themselves. So, kudos to those of you who cracked that nut.

However, since the conference's division era, Wake's administration has made a concerted effort to improve football. Deacon tower, other upgrades to Groves Stadium and Bridger Field House are examples of those efforts. There is currently a move to improve weight room and locker room facilities. Wake has also begun paying its football coaches more in line with ACC standards. Grobe was making over a million dollars when he resigned. So, the effort is being made. Wake just has a lot of ground to make up, but I think Grobe proved you can win at Wake, and he did raise the expectations. The fan base is no longer content to just field a competitive team. They expect to consistently be in bowl games. So, while criticism of Wake's overall football product going back to the start of the league are well deserved, if you look at what they have accomplished since they started making a more concerted effort, it certainly is not the embarrassment everyone portrays. 2006-2008 were very good years, and in 2011 had we beat Clemson at Clemson on November 12th (a 31-28 loss), we would have been in the championship game again. Wake still has one more conference championship in the division era than several of the larger and more well thought of schools.

Although Wake's basketball team has fallen on hard times recently, it has historically put together very good teams and has had some very good players (Tim Duncan, Rodney Rogers, Chris Paul, Josh Howard, Jeff Teague). So, criticism of the current state of the basketball program is deserved, but I think every school has had bad coaching hires, and Wake just got rid of probably the worst coach in the history of the program. It will take them a little while to get back on track. But Wake's basketball program as a whole has been solid. Any criticism of the program as a whole is due to a very short look-back.

Nevertheless, Wake Forest will never deliver the state of North Carolina, and the other North Carolina schools would easily deliver the Winston-Salem market for television purposes if Wake were gone. Those of you making those points are 100% accurate.

So, if all college athletics means now is maximizing revenue, then Wake Forest should be asked to leave the conference immediately.

Lets tone it down on these issues. The ACC invited our schools (UL/Pitt/Cuse) and really didn't have to. Any talk of trading Wake for UConn is just stupid especially considering the fact that Wake is a charter member of the conference.

I feel like Wilkie's been running wild for a while now. Tone it down, brother.

In the future, after the media right escalations and conference consolidation era subsides, WFU will still be in a conference with UNC, Duke, NCSU, UVa, Clemson, and GT. Not as sure about the more recent additions.