(05-19-2013 06:29 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 06:14 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Call me biased, but I think DC makes more sense, especially if UVA continues to be on the radar and the B1G wants a front row ticket to federal research grants.

OK, you're biased. If you are aiming at becoming a two region conference, with the Midwest and Northeast, you'd have offices in New York and Chicago.

Also, the Big Ten conference office doesn't have anything to do with Federal research grants.

Which is why every lobbying and industry association has offices in new york...

(05-20-2013 01:50 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:01 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 12:39 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  Rutgers I totally get, there is some historical branding there. Buffalo? GTFO! Will never happen. Syracuse would have been the fit, but obviously Rutgers delivers NY. Buffalo would do a better job of delivering Canada..and we all know how important college football is in Canada....

How about being the University that brings a media market the same size as Louisville, New Orleans, Memphis, and Jacksonville when it finally found football championship success? We just need to find consistancy:

Buffalo has the market, but it isn’t marketable.... There is no reason why Buffalo can't dominate the MAC. The conference has 6 schools in one state competing for recruits. Consequently, Buffalo should have been more successful in the MAC. However, it can atone for past performances by shocking the B1G and B12 and beat Ohio St and Baylor next season. It also needs to play in and fill a bigger stadium

What you keep forgetting is these states like New York and Massachusetts don't play a high caliber of football like what is played in Ohio.

If it was that easy, I think Buffalo after 15 years in the MAC would have already developed a team on the level of Northern Illinois, IMO

(05-20-2013 08:17 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 06:29 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Also, the Big Ten conference office doesn't have anything to do with Federal research grants.

Which is why every lobbying and industry association has offices in new york...

Yes, which is why the media organization, the Big Ten, would have offices in New York, where lots of media organizations have offices, and if there was an organization that was going to have offices in DC, it would be the CIC, the lobbying and "Big Ten education industry" association.

(05-20-2013 10:54 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:50 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:01 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 12:39 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  Rutgers I totally get, there is some historical branding there. Buffalo? GTFO! Will never happen. Syracuse would have been the fit, but obviously Rutgers delivers NY. Buffalo would do a better job of delivering Canada..and we all know how important college football is in Canada....

How about being the University that brings a media market the same size as Louisville, New Orleans, Memphis, and Jacksonville when it finally found football championship success? We just need to find consistancy:

Buffalo has the market, but it isn’t marketable.... There is no reason why Buffalo can't dominate the MAC. The conference has 6 schools in one state competing for recruits. Consequently, Buffalo should have been more successful in the MAC. However, it can atone for past performances by shocking the B1G and B12 and beat Ohio St and Baylor next season. It also needs to play in and fill a bigger stadium

What you keep forgetting is these states like New York and Massachusetts don't play a high caliber of football like what is played in Ohio.

If it was that easy, I think Buffalo after 15 years in the MAC would have already developed a team on the level of Northern Illinois, IMO

This is in reference to your above statement regarding New York and Ohio football; let’s hypothetically place Syracuse in the MAC. It would probably dominate the MAC and compete for access to a Big Bowl almost every year. Moreover, Syracuse isn’t considered a dominating football program. Therefore, Buffalo should be able to have success in the MAC with better coaching and recruiting. Furthermore, the recruiting in Ohio is very diluted with Ohio St, UC, and six MAC schools.

(05-20-2013 11:47 AM)Underdog Wrote:  ... let’s hypothetically place Syracuse in the MAC. It would probably dominate the MAC and compete for access to a Big Bowl almost every year. Moreover, Syracuse isn’t considered a dominating football program ....

Yet while Syracuse is not considered a dominating football program on the national stage, it is the dominant football program in New York State, and Buffalo is unlikely to shoulder its way ahead of Syracuse.

As far as Ohio being "watered down" by all the recruiting attention it receives, that sounds a bit like the claim that nobody goes to downtown restaurants anymore, because they are too crowded. Its the depth of the recruiting pond that is the reason so many schools are fishing in it.

(05-19-2013 03:12 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 01:58 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 11:24 AM)omniorange Wrote:  New York and Massachusetts will NEVER fit the cookie-cutter mold of the flagship university paradigm. Buffalo comes the closest in stature, followed by Stony Brook, but Albany is where the power is.

UMass' own leadership pegged itself to PSU, Rutgers, and UMD back in the 90's.

Again, UMass today = Rutgers of the 1980's. Not a good place to be, but not a bad one, either.

UMass can peg itself all it wants, but Boston is where the power resides in the state of Massachusetts and the likes of Harvard, MIT, Tufts, Boston University, Brandeis, and BC are too much collectively for UMass to overcome.

Again, in Connecticut it's Yale and then UConn and in New Jersey it's Princeton and then Rutgers.

UMass in Massachusetts and the 4 SUNY University Centers in New York are too far down the pecking order to likely change the paradigm prior to 2050, if even by then. At least UMass is THE state public university, but that is still a tough nut to crack.

Cheers,
Neil

...and yet, UMass is still pursuing AAU designation; their efforts further inspired by Boston's invitation. One can choose to believe UMass is led by Don Quixote-types, and that the AAU is a windmill...but even so, that's what UMass is doing.

I agree that there is a ceiling to the SUNY schools. That's just how the system was chartered and structured. It's like a more elite version of the Cal State system...who in SUNY is SJSU and who is SDSU?

(05-20-2013 11:47 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 10:54 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:50 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:01 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 12:39 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  Rutgers I totally get, there is some historical branding there. Buffalo? GTFO! Will never happen. Syracuse would have been the fit, but obviously Rutgers delivers NY. Buffalo would do a better job of delivering Canada..and we all know how important college football is in Canada....

How about being the University that brings a media market the same size as Louisville, New Orleans, Memphis, and Jacksonville when it finally found football championship success? We just need to find consistancy:

Buffalo has the market, but it isn’t marketable.... There is no reason why Buffalo can't dominate the MAC. The conference has 6 schools in one state competing for recruits. Consequently, Buffalo should have been more successful in the MAC. However, it can atone for past performances by shocking the B1G and B12 and beat Ohio St and Baylor next season. It also needs to play in and fill a bigger stadium

What you keep forgetting is these states like New York and Massachusetts don't play a high caliber of football like what is played in Ohio.

If it was that easy, I think Buffalo after 15 years in the MAC would have already developed a team on the level of Northern Illinois, IMO

This is in reference to your above statement regarding New York and Ohio football; let’s hypothetically place Syracuse in the MAC. It would probably dominate the MAC and compete for access to a Big Bowl almost every year. Moreover, Syracuse isn’t considered a dominating football program. Therefore, Buffalo should be able to have success in the MAC with better coaching and recruiting. Furthermore, the recruiting in Ohio is very diluted with Ohio St, UC, and six MAC schools.

Syracuse would NOT dominate the MAC.

(05-20-2013 01:10 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 11:47 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 10:54 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:50 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:01 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  How about being the University that brings a media market the same size as Louisville, New Orleans, Memphis, and Jacksonville when it finally found football championship success? We just need to find consistancy:

Buffalo has the market, but it isn’t marketable.... There is no reason why Buffalo can't dominate the MAC. The conference has 6 schools in one state competing for recruits. Consequently, Buffalo should have been more successful in the MAC. However, it can atone for past performances by shocking the B1G and B12 and beat Ohio St and Baylor next season. It also needs to play in and fill a bigger stadium

What you keep forgetting is these states like New York and Massachusetts don't play a high caliber of football like what is played in Ohio.

If it was that easy, I think Buffalo after 15 years in the MAC would have already developed a team on the level of Northern Illinois, IMO

This is in reference to your above statement regarding New York and Ohio football; let’s hypothetically place Syracuse in the MAC. It would probably dominate the MAC and compete for access to a Big Bowl almost every year. Moreover, Syracuse isn’t considered a dominating football program. Therefore, Buffalo should be able to have success in the MAC with better coaching and recruiting. Furthermore, the recruiting in Ohio is very diluted with Ohio St, UC, and six MAC schools.

Syracuse would NOT dominate the MAC.

It would..... Maybe not ever year, but it would play for a MAC champ most years. Moreover, place NIU in the former Big East before the ACC, B1G, and B12 raids and guess where it would finish?

(05-20-2013 01:41 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:10 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 11:47 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 10:54 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:50 AM)Underdog Wrote:  Buffalo has the market, but it isn’t marketable.... There is no reason why Buffalo can't dominate the MAC. The conference has 6 schools in one state competing for recruits. Consequently, Buffalo should have been more successful in the MAC. However, it can atone for past performances by shocking the B1G and B12 and beat Ohio St and Baylor next season. It also needs to play in and fill a bigger stadium

What you keep forgetting is these states like New York and Massachusetts don't play a high caliber of football like what is played in Ohio.

If it was that easy, I think Buffalo after 15 years in the MAC would have already developed a team on the level of Northern Illinois, IMO

This is in reference to your above statement regarding New York and Ohio football; let’s hypothetically place Syracuse in the MAC. It would probably dominate the MAC and compete for access to a Big Bowl almost every year. Moreover, Syracuse isn’t considered a dominating football program. Therefore, Buffalo should be able to have success in the MAC with better coaching and recruiting. Furthermore, the recruiting in Ohio is very diluted with Ohio St, UC, and six MAC schools.

Syracuse would NOT dominate the MAC.

It would..... Maybe not ever year, but it would play for a MAC champ most years. Moreover, place NIU in the former Big East before the ACC, B1G, and B12 raids and guess where it would finish?

It would play for a division title every year, like about 3 other teams in each division. How can you even assume any more? Who from the MAC has Syracuse played lately? Mostly Akron, Buffalo, and Miami, none of whom have been among the better MAC teams in recent years, and Akron and Buffalo have been basement MAC teams. And 1 3-pt win over UT at home including a ridiculous call on a FG. And Toledo didn't win the MAC West even that year.

NIU wouldn't have done as well in the Big East of old, but Syracuse didn't fare too well either.

(05-20-2013 12:59 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 03:12 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 01:58 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 11:24 AM)omniorange Wrote:  New York and Massachusetts will NEVER fit the cookie-cutter mold of the flagship university paradigm. Buffalo comes the closest in stature, followed by Stony Brook, but Albany is where the power is.

UMass' own leadership pegged itself to PSU, Rutgers, and UMD back in the 90's.

Again, UMass today = Rutgers of the 1980's. Not a good place to be, but not a bad one, either.

UMass can peg itself all it wants, but Boston is where the power resides in the state of Massachusetts and the likes of Harvard, MIT, Tufts, Boston University, Brandeis, and BC are too much collectively for UMass to overcome.

Again, in Connecticut it's Yale and then UConn and in New Jersey it's Princeton and then Rutgers.

UMass in Massachusetts and the 4 SUNY University Centers in New York are too far down the pecking order to likely change the paradigm prior to 2050, if even by then. At least UMass is THE state public university, but that is still a tough nut to crack.

Cheers,
Neil

...and yet, UMass is still pursuing AAU designation; their efforts further inspired by Boston's invitation. One can choose to believe UMass is led by Don Quixote-types, and that the AAU is a windmill...but even so, that's what UMass is doing.

I agree that there is a ceiling to the SUNY schools.

UB and SB are already AAU, so I'm not sure that even if UMass were to gain AAU status with them it would change the dynamics in the state of Massachusetts that I am referring to anymore than it has changed the dynamics in New York.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-20-2013 02:10 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:41 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:10 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 11:47 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 10:54 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  What you keep forgetting is these states like New York and Massachusetts don't play a high caliber of football like what is played in Ohio.

If it was that easy, I think Buffalo after 15 years in the MAC would have already developed a team on the level of Northern Illinois, IMO

This is in reference to your above statement regarding New York and Ohio football; let’s hypothetically place Syracuse in the MAC. It would probably dominate the MAC and compete for access to a Big Bowl almost every year. Moreover, Syracuse isn’t considered a dominating football program. Therefore, Buffalo should be able to have success in the MAC with better coaching and recruiting. Furthermore, the recruiting in Ohio is very diluted with Ohio St, UC, and six MAC schools.

Syracuse would NOT dominate the MAC.

It would..... Maybe not ever year, but it would play for a MAC champ most years. Moreover, place NIU in the former Big East before the ACC, B1G, and B12 raids and guess where it would finish?

It would play for a division title every year, like about 3 other teams in each division. How can you even assume any more? Who from the MAC has Syracuse played lately? Mostly Akron, Buffalo, and Miami, none of whom have been among the better MAC teams in recent years, and Akron and Buffalo have been basement MAC teams. And 1 3-pt win over UT at home including a ridiculous call on a FG. And Toledo didn't win the MAC West even that year.

NIU wouldn't have done as well in the Big East of old, but Syracuse didn't fare too well either.

For the record, in the Big East of Old, Syracuse finished 5 seasons between 1993 and 2001 at 6-1 in conference, winning the conference title outright twice, sharing it twice, and finishing second to an undefeated NC Miami in 2001 (perhaps the single greatest team of all time), our last great season. In those 9 seasons we finished less than .500 in conference twice, both times with a 3-4 record. After Miami, we were the unquestioned 2nd best team of the conference during this time, edging out VT which really came into the conversation of 2nd best team in the league starting in 1999.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-19-2013 01:58 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 11:24 AM)omniorange Wrote:  New York and Massachusetts will NEVER fit the cookie-cutter mold of the flagship university paradigm. Buffalo comes the closest in stature, followed by Stony Brook, but Albany is where the power is.

UMass' own leadership pegged itself to PSU, Rutgers, and UMD back in the 90's.

Again, UMass today = Rutgers of the 1980's. Not a good place to be, but not a bad one, either.

Up until the late 90's, Maryland was universally considered a safety school. It's only been in the last ten years or so that admissions have become competitive.

A big part of that was funding from the state, exploiting advantages (like being the only major STEM research university inside the beltway), and focusing on branding. It's actually state law that only the flagship university in College Park and the med/law schools in Baltimore can call themselves the University of Maryland. All others have to use a a clarifying name.

(05-20-2013 02:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 02:10 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:41 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:10 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 11:47 AM)Underdog Wrote:  This is in reference to your above statement regarding New York and Ohio football; let’s hypothetically place Syracuse in the MAC. It would probably dominate the MAC and compete for access to a Big Bowl almost every year. Moreover, Syracuse isn’t considered a dominating football program. Therefore, Buffalo should be able to have success in the MAC with better coaching and recruiting. Furthermore, the recruiting in Ohio is very diluted with Ohio St, UC, and six MAC schools.

Syracuse would NOT dominate the MAC.

It would..... Maybe not ever year, but it would play for a MAC champ most years. Moreover, place NIU in the former Big East before the ACC, B1G, and B12 raids and guess where it would finish?

It would play for a division title every year, like about 3 other teams in each division. How can you even assume any more? Who from the MAC has Syracuse played lately? Mostly Akron, Buffalo, and Miami, none of whom have been among the better MAC teams in recent years, and Akron and Buffalo have been basement MAC teams. And 1 3-pt win over UT at home including a ridiculous call on a FG. And Toledo didn't win the MAC West even that year.

NIU wouldn't have done as well in the Big East of old, but Syracuse didn't fare too well either.

For the record, in the Big East of Old, Syracuse finished 5 seasons between 1993 and 2001 at 6-1 in conference, winning the conference title outright twice, sharing it twice, and finishing second to an undefeated NC Miami in 2001 (perhaps the single greatest team of all time), our last great season. In those 9 seasons we finished less than .500 in conference twice, both times with a 3-4 record. After Miami, we were the unquestioned 2nd best team of the conference during this time, edging out VT which really came into the conversation of 2nd best team in the league starting in 1999.

Cheers,
Neil

Ah, I wasn't going back that far. The question of Syracuse dominating the MAC hypothetically implied the current state of affairs, so I only looked at the recent years. Also, we don't know how NIU would do, as we rarely play anyone from the Big East.

(05-20-2013 02:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 02:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 02:10 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:41 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 01:10 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Syracuse would NOT dominate the MAC.

It would..... Maybe not ever year, but it would play for a MAC champ most years. Moreover, place NIU in the former Big East before the ACC, B1G, and B12 raids and guess where it would finish?

It would play for a division title every year, like about 3 other teams in each division. How can you even assume any more? Who from the MAC has Syracuse played lately? Mostly Akron, Buffalo, and Miami, none of whom have been among the better MAC teams in recent years, and Akron and Buffalo have been basement MAC teams. And 1 3-pt win over UT at home including a ridiculous call on a FG. And Toledo didn't win the MAC West even that year.

NIU wouldn't have done as well in the Big East of old, but Syracuse didn't fare too well either.

For the record, in the Big East of Old, Syracuse finished 5 seasons between 1993 and 2001 at 6-1 in conference, winning the conference title outright twice, sharing it twice, and finishing second to an undefeated NC Miami in 2001 (perhaps the single greatest team of all time), our last great season. In those 9 seasons we finished less than .500 in conference twice, both times with a 3-4 record. After Miami, we were the unquestioned 2nd best team of the conference during this time, edging out VT which really came into the conversation of 2nd best team in the league starting in 1999.

Cheers,
Neil

Ah, I wasn't going back that far. The question of Syracuse dominating the MAC hypothetically implied the current state of affairs, so I only looked at the recent years. Also, we don't know how NIU would do, as we rarely play anyone from the Big East.

thanks for the clarification. When a BE football fan thinks about the BE of Old, it's Miami, SU, VT, WVU, BC, and Pitt.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-20-2013 02:14 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 12:59 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  ...and yet, UMass is still pursuing AAU designation; their efforts further inspired by Boston's invitation. One can choose to believe UMass is led by Don Quixote-types, and that the AAU is a windmill...but even so, that's what UMass is doing.

I agree that there is a ceiling to the SUNY schools.

UB and SB are already AAU, so I'm not sure that even if UMass were to gain AAU status with them it would change the dynamics in the state of Massachusetts that I am referring to anymore than it has changed the dynamics in New York.

Ah I get what you have been referring to. The private-school dynamics which exist only in NY and MA, and the top-down approach to governance which exists via Albany/Boston. It's not that those things hinder(ed) creation of a flagship so much as Gov. Rochefellor's design. He believed in an excellent SUNY system overall, strong at the top with the Centers with no flagship. And he worked to balance that with privates with Bundy Aid and TAP after the mid-tier liberal arts private schools lobbied for help to compete (the research-focused privates gained as well though didn't push nearly as much).

And without a flagship some fans can't seem to seperate academics from athletics. Athletically no SUNY is a Michigan or Wisconsin, but Michigan and Wisconsin list both UB and Stony Brook as a peers. Alums of both schools would accept that 'ceiling'. Even if UB and SBU grew to match AAU's like Pitt, Purdue, or Iowa St athletically, we'd be pleased with that level, too.

Excellence in NY was much easier in comparison to Massachusetts where their system is much weaker, UMass didn't gain flagship status until the early 2000's, and has seen the campus receive far less funding than the SUNY Centers and UConn.

(05-20-2013 03:39 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 02:14 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 12:59 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  ...and yet, UMass is still pursuing AAU designation; their efforts further inspired by Boston's invitation. One can choose to believe UMass is led by Don Quixote-types, and that the AAU is a windmill...but even so, that's what UMass is doing.

I agree that there is a ceiling to the SUNY schools.

UB and SB are already AAU, so I'm not sure that even if UMass were to gain AAU status with them it would change the dynamics in the state of Massachusetts that I am referring to anymore than it has changed the dynamics in New York.

Ah I get what you have been referring to. The private-school dynamics which exist only in NY and MA, and the top-down approach to governance which exists via Albany/Boston. It's not that those things hinder(ed) creation of a flagship so much as Gov. Rochefellor's design. He believed in an excellent SUNY system overall, strong at the top with the Centers with no flagship. And he worked to balance that with privates with Bundy Aid and TAP after the mid-tier liberal arts private schools lobbied for help to compete (the research-focused privates gained as well though didn't push nearly as much).

And without a flagship some fans can't seem to seperate academics from athletics. Athletically no SUNY is a Michigan or Wisconsin, but Michigan and Wisconsin list both UB and Stony Brook as a peers. Alums of both schools would accept that 'ceiling'. Even if UB and SBU grew to match AAU's like Pitt, Purdue, or Iowa St athletically, we'd be pleased with that level, too.

Excellence in NY was much easier in comparison to Massachusetts where their system is much weaker, UMass didn't gain flagship status until the early 2000's, and has seen the campus receive far less funding than the SUNY Centers and UConn.

Exactly. UMass, UB, and SB are all fine academic institutions, but on a sports board, sports fans are used to THE flagship university of a state, particularly important sizeable states to automatically become the leading college athletics institution of the state as well.

That paradigm doesn't exist in the states of New York and Massachusetts. And likely never will in terms of athletics. And probably never fully will in terms of academics either. But since we are on a sports board, I'm limiting my reference solely to college athletics.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-20-2013 03:53 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 03:39 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 02:14 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 12:59 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  ...and yet, UMass is still pursuing AAU designation; their efforts further inspired by Boston's invitation. One can choose to believe UMass is led by Don Quixote-types, and that the AAU is a windmill...but even so, that's what UMass is doing.

I agree that there is a ceiling to the SUNY schools.

UB and SB are already AAU, so I'm not sure that even if UMass were to gain AAU status with them it would change the dynamics in the state of Massachusetts that I am referring to anymore than it has changed the dynamics in New York.

Ah I get what you have been referring to. The private-school dynamics which exist only in NY and MA, and the top-down approach to governance which exists via Albany/Boston. It's not that those things hinder(ed) creation of a flagship so much as Gov. Rochefellor's design. He believed in an excellent SUNY system overall, strong at the top with the Centers with no flagship. And he worked to balance that with privates with Bundy Aid and TAP after the mid-tier liberal arts private schools lobbied for help to compete (the research-focused privates gained as well though didn't push nearly as much).

And without a flagship some fans can't seem to seperate academics from athletics. Athletically no SUNY is a Michigan or Wisconsin, but Michigan and Wisconsin list both UB and Stony Brook as a peers. Alums of both schools would accept that 'ceiling'. Even if UB and SBU grew to match AAU's like Pitt, Purdue, or Iowa St athletically, we'd be pleased with that level, too.

Excellence in NY was much easier in comparison to Massachusetts where their system is much weaker, UMass didn't gain flagship status until the early 2000's, and has seen the campus receive far less funding than the SUNY Centers and UConn.

Exactly. UMass, UB, and SB are all fine academic institutions, but on a sports board, sports fans are used to THE flagship university of a state, particularly important sizeable states to automatically become the leading college athletics institution of the state as well.

That paradigm doesn't exist in the states of New York and Massachusetts. And likely never will in terms of athletics. And probably never fully will in terms of academics either. But since we are on a sports board, I'm limiting my reference solely to college athletics.

Cheers,
Neil

Right...but UMass is trying it anyway.

By most accounts, Rutgers has long suffered as a fallback to the likes of not just the nearby Ivies and NYU, but PSU, Lehigh, and Drexel, too. To this day, they are in this predicament, even with the AAU designation.

There was never any shortage of good schools from the Beltway on up, but that hasn't stopped schools from enhancing or distinguishing themselves. UMass may never be BU, but it doesn't have to be Maine or UNH, either.

(05-20-2013 04:40 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 03:53 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 03:39 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 02:14 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 12:59 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  ...and yet, UMass is still pursuing AAU designation; their efforts further inspired by Boston's invitation. One can choose to believe UMass is led by Don Quixote-types, and that the AAU is a windmill...but even so, that's what UMass is doing.

I agree that there is a ceiling to the SUNY schools.

UB and SB are already AAU, so I'm not sure that even if UMass were to gain AAU status with them it would change the dynamics in the state of Massachusetts that I am referring to anymore than it has changed the dynamics in New York.

Ah I get what you have been referring to. The private-school dynamics which exist only in NY and MA, and the top-down approach to governance which exists via Albany/Boston. It's not that those things hinder(ed) creation of a flagship so much as Gov. Rochefellor's design. He believed in an excellent SUNY system overall, strong at the top with the Centers with no flagship. And he worked to balance that with privates with Bundy Aid and TAP after the mid-tier liberal arts private schools lobbied for help to compete (the research-focused privates gained as well though didn't push nearly as much).

And without a flagship some fans can't seem to seperate academics from athletics. Athletically no SUNY is a Michigan or Wisconsin, but Michigan and Wisconsin list both UB and Stony Brook as a peers. Alums of both schools would accept that 'ceiling'. Even if UB and SBU grew to match AAU's like Pitt, Purdue, or Iowa St athletically, we'd be pleased with that level, too.

Excellence in NY was much easier in comparison to Massachusetts where their system is much weaker, UMass didn't gain flagship status until the early 2000's, and has seen the campus receive far less funding than the SUNY Centers and UConn.

Exactly. UMass, UB, and SB are all fine academic institutions, but on a sports board, sports fans are used to THE flagship university of a state, particularly important sizeable states to automatically become the leading college athletics institution of the state as well.

That paradigm doesn't exist in the states of New York and Massachusetts. And likely never will in terms of athletics. And probably never fully will in terms of academics either. But since we are on a sports board, I'm limiting my reference solely to college athletics.

Cheers,
Neil

Right...but UMass is trying it anyway.

By most accounts, Rutgers has long suffered as a fallback to the likes of not just the nearby Ivies and NYU, but PSU, Lehigh, and Drexel, too. To this day, they are in this predicament, even with the AAU designation.

There was never any shortage of good schools from the Beltway on up, but that hasn't stopped schools from enhancing or distinguishing themselves. UMass may never be BU, but it doesn't have to be Maine or UNH, either.

Agree with the last part of post.

The Rutgers analogy, however, is off, imho. In the state of New Jersey, it's Princeton and then Rutgers. And while people outside of the state prior to 2006 may not known Rutgers is THE state's flagship university, people inside the state know this and also know it's the second best institution in the state academically. Once the Ivies like Princeton made the decision not to compete at the very top level of college athletics they became the state's best potential for athletics.

All Rutgers needed was $$$ to leverage all of the above and their strategic geographical location into a P5 conference. And they almost went broke, but they managed it.

Best of luck to UMass, but fans of the sports programs should know their road will be much tougher than Rutgers or Connecticut.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-20-2013 04:40 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 03:53 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 03:39 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 02:14 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 12:59 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  ...and yet, UMass is still pursuing AAU designation; their efforts further inspired by Boston's invitation. One can choose to believe UMass is led by Don Quixote-types, and that the AAU is a windmill...but even so, that's what UMass is doing.

I agree that there is a ceiling to the SUNY schools.

UB and SB are already AAU, so I'm not sure that even if UMass were to gain AAU status with them it would change the dynamics in the state of Massachusetts that I am referring to anymore than it has changed the dynamics in New York.

Ah I get what you have been referring to. The private-school dynamics which exist only in NY and MA, and the top-down approach to governance which exists via Albany/Boston. It's not that those things hinder(ed) creation of a flagship so much as Gov. Rochefellor's design. He believed in an excellent SUNY system overall, strong at the top with the Centers with no flagship. And he worked to balance that with privates with Bundy Aid and TAP after the mid-tier liberal arts private schools lobbied for help to compete (the research-focused privates gained as well though didn't push nearly as much).

And without a flagship some fans can't seem to seperate academics from athletics. Athletically no SUNY is a Michigan or Wisconsin, but Michigan and Wisconsin list both UB and Stony Brook as a peers. Alums of both schools would accept that 'ceiling'. Even if UB and SBU grew to match AAU's like Pitt, Purdue, or Iowa St athletically, we'd be pleased with that level, too.

Excellence in NY was much easier in comparison to Massachusetts where their system is much weaker, UMass didn't gain flagship status until the early 2000's, and has seen the campus receive far less funding than the SUNY Centers and UConn.

Exactly. UMass, UB, and SB are all fine academic institutions, but on a sports board, sports fans are used to THE flagship university of a state, particularly important sizeable states to automatically become the leading college athletics institution of the state as well.

That paradigm doesn't exist in the states of New York and Massachusetts. And likely never will in terms of athletics. And probably never fully will in terms of academics either. But since we are on a sports board, I'm limiting my reference solely to college athletics.

Cheers,
Neil

Right...but UMass is trying it anyway.

By most accounts, Rutgers has long suffered as a fallback to the likes of not just the nearby Ivies and NYU, but PSU, Lehigh, and Drexel, too. To this day, they are in this predicament, even with the AAU designation.

There was never any shortage of good schools from the Beltway on up, but that hasn't stopped schools from enhancing or distinguishing themselves. UMass may never be BU, but it doesn't have to be Maine or UNH, either.

We are no fallback to Drexel, by any means. I'm a good case study. I applied, was admitted and was even given scholarship money to Drexel. I chose Rutgers because it was a better school where I also felt most comfortable.

On another note yes we've been a fallback for NYU, the Ivies. We're largely after the same students as PSU and Lehigh. Lehigh might attract some higher end students that won't give Rutgers a look.

UMass is an interesting case....but I just can't see that happening....

I'd say UConn and Kansas...both big time basketball adds that bring in new states and add markets and would both jump at the chance. When does the B12 GOR expire?