JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,299
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 8005
I Root For: SEC
Location: |
RE: What I would love to see as the SEC conference of the future.
(08-27-2014 07:53 AM)XLance Wrote: (08-27-2014 06:25 AM)JRsec Wrote: (08-26-2014 08:50 PM)XLance Wrote: (08-26-2014 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: (08-26-2014 08:13 AM)XLance Wrote: The "REAL" money is in research dollars. The two main catalyst for the bulk of the Research money for the North Carolina schools comes from the Research Triangle Park which is "owned" by Carolina, Dook and NC State). And the Medical Research conducted by UNC, Dook and Wake Forest.
There is nothing in the SEC that would enhance the research efforts of the North Carolina schools.
The best thing the North Carolina schools can do for the SEC is to keep it separated from the B1G.
http://www.rtp.org/about-rtp/rtp-companies
XLance, the whole purpose of realignment is to maximize revenue streams. The Big 10 doesn't give the research triangle anything it doesn't already have. The Big 10 offers the same thing the SEC does. More television revenue. If the presidents of UVa and U.N.C. and Duke want to enhance revenue then joining either the Big 10 or the SEC is the way to do it. They will still have all of their research dollars and will get to supplement all of those Title 9 programs they are so proud of with more television revenue for their athletic departments.
The question is whether travel to the North or to the West and South is preferable. Weather and distance says travel to the West into Tennessee and South into Alabama and Georgia is easier and that Florida remains a great travel destination. Recruiting says the same. Maybe the SEC can't turn the wine and cheese crowd into avid football fans, but the SEC brand can sure help Virginia and North Carolina hang onto its 5 star recruits and a better product on the field will draw just like it did for George Welsh at Virginia.
Whether the core stays together or not will be the ultimate question that decides whether or not the ACC is poachable. If either the Big 10 or SEC offers U.Va, Duke, U.N.C. and Virginia Tech and N.C. State an in I think the money will speak for itself. And who knows at that point even N.D. might make one of them a sixth.
Over my lifetime I have found that I tend to gravitate to people that I consider to be my peers. Most of my friends are about my same age and have a similar socio economic background as I do. I have some friends a little older and some a little younger, some a little richer, some a little poorer.....but most of my friends look just like me.
The same thing applies to colleges an Universities. Your school (Auburn, I believe) selected 23 schools that Auburn thought were peer institutions. Of those 23, 5 selected Auburn as an institution they felt was a peer to them. Those 5 were Mississippi State, Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
Carolina's dual peers were Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Pitt, Texas, UVa,
Washington and Wisconsin. Florida was also on UVa's list, with Wisconsin, Washington, Pitt, Michigan among others. NC State's list included Georgia Tech, Georgia and Virginia Tech, while Georgia Tech listed NC State, Purdue, Michigan as well as Texas A&M. Virginia Tech chose Iowa State, NC State and Rutgers.
Are you starting to see a pattern here JR.
If the unthinkable ever happened and the ACC did "blow up", I think you would see a six school unit (Carolina, Dook, NC State, UVa, Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech) headed to the B1G. At that point I'm sure Clemson and Florida State would be waiting for the SEC's call.
Since the money would be about the same in the B1G and the SEC I would imagine that those six would rather spend time with their own kind.
It's a good thing that I don't believe the ACC would ever "blow up".
Interesting toy.
http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Does-Yo...nk/134262/
I have friends that are in government, in academics, in corporate life, one is a CMO inside the research triangle. She spent the weekend with my family a week ago while on a lobbying trip. I also have peers among the very middle class and among the poor. Because of that I am not ignorant of social trends that one day may bite me in the posterior. I have always found that those with no bridges to other social strata in life were ignorant of the world around them. Enjoy your insulation right up until the point that it bites you in the rear, for it surely will.
I am happy to have known the poor, every part of the middle class, played tennis with a governor's daughter, had a governor as a mentor, a member of the Senate Sub Committee on Un-American activities as a teacher, had a 30 minute conversation with a first lady, a former President teach one of my graduate classes on three occasions, to have met the foreign minister of the Soviet Union, talked with religious leaders from two continents other than my own, known a couple of TV personalities and still found myself to be a regular Joe who loves to garden and doesn't give a damn about the trinkets some think they need to be successful, or piled up the debt to fit inside a certain social strata. I have plenty, have been blessed, and drive the cheapest vehicles I can buy outright. You know why? At the end of 7 years they are all worth about the same no matter how much you paid originally.
I have always found the super wealthy to be rather uncomplicated other than their radar for those angling for favors. I find the poor to be similar in that regard only their radar is for those who think they can shyster them. What I have never been able to stomach is the nouveau riche and their insecurity around anyone except those like themselves. I find them to be dull, unimaginative, and completely without any real sense of themselves outside of status and possessions. It's really rather sad. I also find them to be the only intolerable snobs of all of those I've mentioned.
My grandfather instilled in me at the tender age of 12 that there were in our town rich and poor, black and white, men and women, and the only ones worth having as friends were those who honored their word and dealt with others honestly. In other words people of integrity which my grandfather pointed out came in all colors, in all socio economic groups, and in both genders. He also pointed out that skunks existed among all of them as well. It was the only lesson about class I ever needed. Think about that! Then relate it to institutions. Right now the appropriate reaction might be discerning between those of integrity and the skunks, no matter how heralded academically. Fraud my friend is not the aroma of integrity. But even in our ranks of affiliation there are skunks so it is not a condemnation of the ACC but rather an indication that those who keep close company with the leaders of Chapel Hill need a new peer group.
Quite a diatribe JR.
I thought is was a little scattered and wordy for my taste. And I'm not sure you established enough credibility to deliver it, but enough of that.
There are no indications that the core of the ACC does not intend to stay intact. A broad statement that claims that "it's just a matter of time" is a little dubious, especially when there are alternatives and concrete reasons to believe otherwise.
1. There is no credentialing on a message board.
2. I don't have to establish credibility for what I've lived because it is me, for better or worse. And because the only one that will ever accept or reject me who matters is God. People who are concerned with credibility (the better word here is "credentialing") are really only concerned with the perceptions that others have of them. But it is typical speak for academic and corporate structures where either degrees or seminars attended can establish a paper pedigree, which when you work with academics and corporate ladder climbers means absolutely nothing about what they know and even less about what they are capable of doing.
Living a life where you have to fit into a prescribed role is miserable and it flies in the face of the uniqueness which should be you (Imago Dei). To be concerned with what others think is to be a slave to the most fickle of masters, opinion. Who among your peers can truly understand the truth of who you are? Know the motivations of your heart? Know if or when an unpopular decision you made was really the one that you had to make to be able to live with yourself? The truth XLance is that not even our spouses ever fully understand such things, but they do know enough to trust us when we must stand by those decisions. It is then when you know who your friends truly are and which of your relatives actually love you. But knowing that is both bracing and empowering in ways so clear that it is worth the discovery and the likely painful process that led to it.
Whatever defines you outside of yourself (peer group, professional associations, degrees, awards, even friends) simply limit your freedom and what's worse is that you may never truly know who you are as long as your identity is wrapped around them (and yes that is Jungian).
3. What any of our conferences do is really ancillary to the forces compelling the change. Those forces are changing everything and more rapidly than can be acknowledged, or understood by any of us. I'm feebly trying to wrap my head around it just to help those I love avoid some of the painful consequences that are always associated with such shifts. So far all of my friends, regardless of profession or occupation, are still reactive and trying to understand them too, and that scares me.
4. In spite of our visceral differences on minor issues, take care. Just don't rely on your peer group too much, because I seriously doubt they are any more prepared than the rest of us to deal with what is coming. And by the way, in a real crisis there are no social classes, only survivors and casualties.
(This post was last modified: 08-27-2014 06:40 PM by JRsec.)
|
|
/
What I would love to see as the SEC conference of the future.
