The ACC does have an identity, and thats basketball. They're the P5 League that takes it super seriously.

Now once upon a time they had the regional identity of "Southern Basketball" in the old 10 team ACC but now their identity is "eastern basketball"

(09-06-2013 03:57 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  The idea that the ACC has some sort of cultural identity is laughable. It's a hodge podge mix of two conferences (ACC, Big East) that has schools of high academic prestige and low academic prestige. It has schools that have been there for 1 year and some for 50. It has schools in Indiana and the southwest corner of Kentucky and Florida and Massachusetts. It's privates and publics. For God's sake 3 of the schools are from states that don't touch the Atlantic Coast.

ND (not a full member, but has a national following, especially in NYC)
UL (clear exception)
and
PA (which is as close as you can get without being on the Atlantic)

Also, UL aside every ACC school is in the top 100, or very close to it. FSU and NCSU are the two worst schools and they bounce around 100.

The ACC has more private/historically universities than every other P5 conference combined. (ND, SU, BC, Pitt [state-related and historically private], Duke, WF, Miami v. Vandy, NW, Stanford, USC, Baylor, TCU) Plus, many of the public schools in the ACC act like private schools (i.e. UVA).

The ACC is a hybrid of the BIG EAST and the old ACC, but those two conferences overlapped and were very similar. Your point about that doesn't prove anything. It would be like saying schools like FSU and Clemson wouldn't fit into the SEC from a cultural perspective because they have a history of being in the ACC.

The OP is just providing more proof that actual on the field performance is roughly 17th on the list of things that matter when it comes to conference affiliation.

(09-06-2013 03:57 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  For God's sake 3 of the schools are from states that don't touch the Atlantic Coast.

A good grief, the Port of Philadelphia is an Atlantic Port, and its only about 15 miles down the Delaware River before you are in the Delaware Bay. Pretending that Pennsylvania has stopped being a Mid-Atlantic State and that Temple or Nova are not Eastern schools because PA does not have an Atlantic Coast is just being silly.

Your argument would rather be that The City of Pittsburgh is inland rather than on the East Coast.

(09-06-2013 03:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:44 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:28 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that UC deserves to be in a power conference, and I wish UC all the luck in the world joining the Big XII and prospering there. However, the idea of the ACC adding UC needs to be put to rest. Don't get me wrong, UC fields great teams and has great potential. It just isn't a good cultural fit for the ACC, and that's important. None the less, I think that it would be an excellent cultural fit for the Big XII, it would be a great traveling partner for WVU, and it would elevate the competitiveness of the conference. If Memphis can figure out how to consistently field a competitive football team, I can see the Big XII adding Memphis and Cincinnati and both schools doing very well there.

Can you explain how Notre Dame and Louisville, no offense meant towards those schools, are better cultural fits than UC?

I would have to question the cultural reference also.

I honestly don't know the reasons one school gets picked over another.

I suppose there is some rhyme or reason... TV Networks, athletic budget, AAU, Research.

I guess the rather odd thing about the ACC latest choice, in my mind, would be the high regard the conference (ACC) seems to hold and tout in academics. Given UC more than doubles the latest ACC choice in Research, $411M to $190M (go ahead and add that athletic budget for UL onto that $190M), it seems a shift away from any kind of culture and more to a pure athletic driven decision.

In any event, there is no crying in realignment. I don't think the ACC has any incentive to expand unless the other conferences go to 16... we'll have to wait for the Jan P5 meetings to get some kind of direction. We may not be going anywhere...

The ACC isn't jam-packed with big state-funded degree mills that can spread the costs associated with developing a strong research mechanism over a billion students (i.e. like many of the schools in the B1G) and thus doesn't market itself as a premier research conference. It markets itself as the premier academic conference. Look at the slogan of it's academic consortium. It doesn't even mention research. It talks about academic rankings. It says "[o]nly the Ivy League includes more top 40 universities (as ranked by US News)." That's how little research matters. Marketing aside, research funding of one school means almost nothing to the other schools in the conference. In fact, I saw somewhere that the CIC saves something like $19 million. I'm not sure if that's per year, or since the beginning of time, but $19 million split twelve-fourteen ways isn't impressive, especially assuming that every other major conference research consortium is at least half that (guess). Each B1G school gets a couple hundred thousand dollar advantage. In the grand scheme of PSU's $4+ billion operating budget, how much do you think that matters? I'm guessing that you will agree with me when I say that it's worth less than a year's worth of well placed advertisements. However, academic ratings mean a lot. The high caliber kids who are interested in going to BC, ND, Pitt, Miami, and Duke who watch SU play those schools sit through SU advertisements and are more likely to consider going to SU. The same goes for the high caliber undergrads at those schools in relation to SU grad schools.

I guess that's the long way of me saying that UC's research spending is only relevant in my mind to the extent that it influences the UC's academic ranking, which isn't bad, but is more in line with the Big XII than the ACC.

the 19 million saved figured has to do with discarded research equipment that one school has that another school needs. any research equipment a school buys to fulfill a research grant that costs over $5,000 gets retained by the university. a lot of times this translates into stockpiles of equipment that a university doesnt need. one of the advantages of the CIC is that they lend this stuff to other schools instead of those schools having to buy it.

the 19 million is a pinprick in what the CIC does.

-the CIC combines their library system giving a nebraska student the same access as a northwestern student. this is the largest college library system in the US, they allow transferable credits between members, as well as temporary faculty transfers

-they real money has to do with research grants. the CIC gives them a major advantage when going after research grants and thats where the CIC racks in the cash.

(09-06-2013 05:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 03:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:44 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:28 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that UC deserves to be in a power conference, and I wish UC all the luck in the world joining the Big XII and prospering there. However, the idea of the ACC adding UC needs to be put to rest. Don't get me wrong, UC fields great teams and has great potential. It just isn't a good cultural fit for the ACC, and that's important. None the less, I think that it would be an excellent cultural fit for the Big XII, it would be a great traveling partner for WVU, and it would elevate the competitiveness of the conference. If Memphis can figure out how to consistently field a competitive football team, I can see the Big XII adding Memphis and Cincinnati and both schools doing very well there.

Can you explain how Notre Dame and Louisville, no offense meant towards those schools, are better cultural fits than UC?

I would have to question the cultural reference also.

I honestly don't know the reasons one school gets picked over another.

I suppose there is some rhyme or reason... TV Networks, athletic budget, AAU, Research.

I guess the rather odd thing about the ACC latest choice, in my mind, would be the high regard the conference (ACC) seems to hold and tout in academics. Given UC more than doubles the latest ACC choice in Research, $411M to $190M (go ahead and add that athletic budget for UL onto that $190M), it seems a shift away from any kind of culture and more to a pure athletic driven decision.

In any event, there is no crying in realignment. I don't think the ACC has any incentive to expand unless the other conferences go to 16... we'll have to wait for the Jan P5 meetings to get some kind of direction. We may not be going anywhere...

The ACC isn't jam-packed with big state-funded degree mills that can spread the costs associated with developing a strong research mechanism over a billion students (i.e. like many of the schools in the B1G) and thus doesn't market itself as a premier research conference. It markets itself as the premier academic conference. Look at the slogan of it's academic consortium. It doesn't even mention research. It talks about academic rankings. It says "[o]nly the Ivy League includes more top 40 universities (as ranked by US News)." That's how little research matters. Marketing aside, research funding of one school means almost nothing to the other schools in the conference. In fact, I saw somewhere that the CIC saves something like $19 million. I'm not sure if that's per year, or since the beginning of time, but $19 million split twelve-fourteen ways isn't impressive, especially assuming that every other major conference research consortium is at least half that (guess). Each B1G school gets a couple hundred thousand dollar advantage. In the grand scheme of PSU's $4+ billion operating budget, how much do you think that matters? I'm guessing that you will agree with me when I say that it's worth less than a year's worth of well placed advertisements. However, academic ratings mean a lot. The high caliber kids who are interested in going to BC, ND, Pitt, Miami, and Duke who watch SU play those schools sit through SU advertisements and are more likely to consider going to SU. The same goes for the high caliber undergrads at those schools in relation to SU grad schools.

I guess that's the long way of me saying that UC's research spending is only relevant in my mind to the extent that it influences the UC's academic ranking, which isn't bad, but is more in line with the Big XII than the ACC.

the 19 million saved figured has to do with discarded research equipment that one school has that another school needs. any research equipment a school buys to fulfill a research grant that costs over $5,000 gets retained by the university. a lot of times this translates into stockpiles of equipment that a university doesnt need. one of the advantages of the CIC is that they lend this stuff to other schools instead of those schools having to buy it.

the 19 million is a pinprick in what the CIC does.

-the CIC combines their library system giving a nebraska student the same access as a northwestern student. this is the largest college library system in the US, they allow transferable credits between members, as well as temporary faculty transfers

-they real money has to do with research grants. the CIC gives them a major advantage when going after research grants and thats where the CIC racks in the cash.

Virtually every school in the US has libraries that are already linked. I actually can't think of a single school that isn't apart of a substantial inter-library loan agreement that is irrelevant to athletic affiliation. For instance, I know SU shares library resources with IVY League institutions, but we are in the ACC.

And temporary faculty transfers already exist. Actually, my first class at SU was taught by a Michigan professor.

And finally, I have no idea if in-conference institutions are more likely to honor transferred credits, so maybe I'm wrong. However, I would be amazed if Michigan honors a higher percentage of Nebraska credits than they do Syracuse, Duke, UNC, UVA, Pitt, Boston College, Notre Dame, Wake Forest, Miami and so on credits.

I just find it hilarious that somebody would say Cincy doesn't fit the culture or identity of the ACC considering half the ACC was not even in the conference ten years ago. The ACC has about as much of an identity as the old Conference USA or the mish-mash hybrid Big East.

(09-06-2013 06:22 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  I just find it hilarious that somebody would say Cincy doesn't fit the culture or identity of the ACC considering half the ACC was not even in the conference ten years ago. The ACC has about as much of an identity as the old Conference USA or the mish-mash hybrid Big East.

Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Miami, Pitt, Boston College, and Notre Dame were all in the same conference 10 years ago.

Duke, UNC, NCSU, WF, Clemson, UVA, GT, and FSU were all in the same conference 10 years ago.

Which one of those schools is a crazy outlier?

All are located in the east, the two regions overlap, the two groups are relatively private-centric, the two groups have comparable football history, and the groups have comparable basketball talent.

Throw in the fact that Pitt and GT are VERY similar, Duke recruits heavily out of NYC, SU and ND both focus on NYC, UVA and VT share the same state, FSU and Miami share the same state, there are a ton of New Yorkers in south Florida, Pitt was instrumental in establishing Miami, and BC and Clemson have a football history that predates their common membership in the ACC (albeit this can easily be overstated) and there are a lot of ties between the two groups. In fact, Syracuse was called before FSU in '91 when the ACC decided to expand in response to PSU going to the BIG TEN.

(09-06-2013 03:57 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  The idea that the ACC has some sort of cultural identity is laughable. It's a hodge podge mix of two conferences (ACC, Big East) that has schools of high academic prestige and low academic prestige. It has schools that have been there for 1 year and some for 50. It has schools in Indiana and the southwest corner of Kentucky and Florida and Massachusetts. It's privates and publics. For God's sake 3 of the schools are from states that don't touch the Atlantic Coast.

Geography wasn't a strong suit of yours, was it? Until you can find Louisville on a map, I'm going to go ahead and discredit everything else you have to say.

(09-06-2013 01:59 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:51 PM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:22 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  UC is just as good a "cultural fit" for the ACC as Pittsburgh. And they're definitely more of one than Louisville!

I live in Kentucky and I appreciate what this state offers ...... but seriously, the "Atlantic Coast" Conference just added a school with a rather poor academic profile from Kentucky!

(09-06-2013 01:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that UC deserves to be in a power conference, and I wish UC all the luck in the world joining the Big XII and prospering there. However, the idea of the ACC adding UC needs to be put to rest. Don't get me wrong, UC fields great teams and has great potential. It just isn't a good cultural fit for the ACC, and that's important. None the less, I think that it would be an excellent cultural fit for the Big XII, it would be a great traveling partner for WVU, and it would elevate the competitiveness of the conference. If Memphis can figure out how to consistently field a competitive football team, I can see the Big XII adding Memphis and Cincinnati and both schools doing very well there.

Louisville and the state of Kentucky were settled by proud Virginians! They are much more of a cultural fit than anyone from Ohio! Or Pennsylvania!

You don't have any clue what you are talking about!

I know that, I know the history of my now home-state!

A true cultural fit would have been if the ACC invited the University of Kentucky. I'm sorry, but outside of Jefferson, Oldham and Bullitt Counties, Commonwealth residents simply don't pay attention to the Cardinals.

The next University of Louisville flag I see waving in my Northern Kentucky hometown will be the first. (insert comment here about how "Northern Kentucky isn't really part of Kentucky")

Since Tennessee was settled by North Carolinians --- I suppose that the ACC should invite the University of Memphis!

Sounds like you forgot to pack those high-focus observation glasses in your carpetbag, fella! The rest of the state of Kentucky pays close attention to what UofL is doing, largely in fear & loathing!

And Memphis would be a better cultural fit in the ACC than anything from up the way of your neck o' tha woods!

(09-06-2013 03:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:44 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:28 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that UC deserves to be in a power conference, and I wish UC all the luck in the world joining the Big XII and prospering there. However, the idea of the ACC adding UC needs to be put to rest. Don't get me wrong, UC fields great teams and has great potential. It just isn't a good cultural fit for the ACC, and that's important. None the less, I think that it would be an excellent cultural fit for the Big XII, it would be a great traveling partner for WVU, and it would elevate the competitiveness of the conference. If Memphis can figure out how to consistently field a competitive football team, I can see the Big XII adding Memphis and Cincinnati and both schools doing very well there.

Can you explain how Notre Dame and Louisville, no offense meant towards those schools, are better cultural fits than UC?

I would have to question the cultural reference also.

I honestly don't know the reasons one school gets picked over another.

I suppose there is some rhyme or reason... TV Networks, athletic budget, AAU, Research.

I guess the rather odd thing about the ACC latest choice, in my mind, would be the high regard the conference (ACC) seems to hold and tout in academics. Given UC more than doubles the latest ACC choice in Research, $411M to $190M (go ahead and add that athletic budget for UL onto that $190M), it seems a shift away from any kind of culture and more to a pure athletic driven decision.

In any event, there is no crying in realignment. I don't think the ACC has any incentive to expand unless the other conferences go to 16... we'll have to wait for the Jan P5 meetings to get some kind of direction. We may not be going anywhere...

The ACC isn't jam-packed with big state-funded degree mills that can spread the costs associated with developing a strong research mechanism over a billion students (i.e. like many of the schools in the B1G) and thus doesn't market itself as a premier research conference. It markets itself as the premier academic conference. Look at the slogan of it's academic consortium. It doesn't even mention research. It talks about academic rankings. It says "[o]nly the Ivy League includes more top 40 universities (as ranked by US News)." That's how little research matters. Marketing aside, research funding of one school means almost nothing to the other schools in the conference. In fact, I saw somewhere that the CIC saves something like $19 million. I'm not sure if that's per year, or since the beginning of time, but $19 million split twelve-fourteen ways isn't impressive, especially assuming that every other major conference research consortium is at least half that (guess). Each B1G school gets a couple hundred thousand dollar advantage. In the grand scheme of PSU's $4+ billion operating budget, how much do you think that matters? I'm guessing that you will agree with me when I say that it's worth less than a year's worth of well placed advertisements. However, academic ratings mean a lot. The high caliber kids who are interested in going to BC, ND, Pitt, Miami, and Duke who watch SU play those schools sit through SU advertisements and are more likely to consider going to SU. The same goes for the high caliber undergrads at those schools in relation to SU grad schools.

I guess that's the long way of me saying that UC's research spending is only relevant in my mind to the extent that it influences the UC's academic ranking, which isn't bad, but is more in line with the Big XII than the ACC.

LOL... I was feeling the vibe until you left out how the latest ACC pick better fits the academic profile that is desired.

You can use US News if you want.

I'm not sure how the B1G CIC got brought into the discussion when your claim was that UC better fit the Big 12 profile?

Degree mills? okay...

for those (Wilkie) that think OSU and ND 'own the market' in cincy...you are assuming that but it's just wrong. Cincinnati is it's own city state vs the rest of Ohio in terms of culture, people's likes, etc. People in cincy root for cincy and cincy teams. Every time they have a poll it's always Reds, Bengals, and Bearcats...always. OSU football is usually WAY down the list.

The most recent poll, as in last week I believe was who is your favorite college football team: UC beat Ohio State in that poll 50some% to 20some%...like usual. When the polls add all sports teams then Ohio state is pushed even further down the list (when Reds/bengals are brought into the question).

There are OSU fans in Cincy but it's not an OSU town or a B1G town that's for sure.

(09-06-2013 10:12 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 03:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:44 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:28 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that UC deserves to be in a power conference, and I wish UC all the luck in the world joining the Big XII and prospering there. However, the idea of the ACC adding UC needs to be put to rest. Don't get me wrong, UC fields great teams and has great potential. It just isn't a good cultural fit for the ACC, and that's important. None the less, I think that it would be an excellent cultural fit for the Big XII, it would be a great traveling partner for WVU, and it would elevate the competitiveness of the conference. If Memphis can figure out how to consistently field a competitive football team, I can see the Big XII adding Memphis and Cincinnati and both schools doing very well there.

Can you explain how Notre Dame and Louisville, no offense meant towards those schools, are better cultural fits than UC?

I would have to question the cultural reference also.

I honestly don't know the reasons one school gets picked over another.

I suppose there is some rhyme or reason... TV Networks, athletic budget, AAU, Research.

I guess the rather odd thing about the ACC latest choice, in my mind, would be the high regard the conference (ACC) seems to hold and tout in academics. Given UC more than doubles the latest ACC choice in Research, $411M to $190M (go ahead and add that athletic budget for UL onto that $190M), it seems a shift away from any kind of culture and more to a pure athletic driven decision.

In any event, there is no crying in realignment. I don't think the ACC has any incentive to expand unless the other conferences go to 16... we'll have to wait for the Jan P5 meetings to get some kind of direction. We may not be going anywhere...

The ACC isn't jam-packed with big state-funded degree mills that can spread the costs associated with developing a strong research mechanism over a billion students (i.e. like many of the schools in the B1G) and thus doesn't market itself as a premier research conference. It markets itself as the premier academic conference. Look at the slogan of it's academic consortium. It doesn't even mention research. It talks about academic rankings. It says "[o]nly the Ivy League includes more top 40 universities (as ranked by US News)." That's how little research matters. Marketing aside, research funding of one school means almost nothing to the other schools in the conference. In fact, I saw somewhere that the CIC saves something like $19 million. I'm not sure if that's per year, or since the beginning of time, but $19 million split twelve-fourteen ways isn't impressive, especially assuming that every other major conference research consortium is at least half that (guess). Each B1G school gets a couple hundred thousand dollar advantage. In the grand scheme of PSU's $4+ billion operating budget, how much do you
think that matters? I'm guessing that you will agree with me when I say that it's worth less than a year's worth of well placed advertisements. However, academic ratings mean a lot. The high caliber kids who are interested in going to BC, ND, Pitt, Miami, and Duke who watch SU play those schools sit through SU advertisements and are more likely to consider going to SU. The same goes for the high caliber undergrads at those schools in relation to SU grad schools.

I guess that's the long way of me saying that UC's research spending is only relevant in my mind to the extent that it influences the UC's academic ranking, which isn't bad, but is more in line with the Big XII than the ACC.

LOL... I was feeling the vibe until you left out how the latest ACC pick

better fits the academic profile that is desired.

You can use US News if you want.

I'm not sure how the B1G CIC got brought into the discussion when your claim was that UC better fit the Big 12 profile?

Degree mills? okay...

UL is an outlier in the ACC. The entire "the ACC added UL, so UC will also fit because UL and UC are similar" argument doesn't work. It would be one thing if UL was the rule, but that just isn't the case. UL athletics make more than any other ACC team, UL athletics arguably enjoy more success than any other ACC team, and UL academics lag behind every ACC team in many relevant statistical categories and are towards the bottom in almost every relevant statistical category.

You brought up research and I pointed out that research is completely irrelevant to everything. It only affects other institutions in a conference to the extent that the conference markets itself as a research conference. Since that isn't the case for the ACC, research is irrelevant to the extent that it is used as a justification for a school to join the ACC. I brought up the CIC to contrast with the ACCIAC so that the difference between a conference that markets its academics and a conference that markets its research would be more apparent.

And finally, you seem to imply that the Big Ten isn't filled with degree mills. I'm not sure why you're pushing that point, but the B1G is the shining example of a conference filled with degree mills who are known for research and football. Choose your battles better.

(09-06-2013 03:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:44 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:28 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that UC deserves to be in a power conference, and I wish UC all the luck in the world joining the Big XII and prospering there. However, the idea of the ACC adding UC needs to be put to rest. Don't get me wrong, UC fields great teams and has great potential. It just isn't a good cultural fit for the ACC, and that's important. None the less, I think that it would be an excellent cultural fit for the Big XII, it would be a great traveling partner for WVU, and it would elevate the competitiveness of the conference. If Memphis can figure out how to consistently field a competitive football team, I can see the Big XII adding Memphis and Cincinnati and both schools doing very well there.

Can you explain how Notre Dame and Louisville, no offense meant towards those schools, are better cultural fits than UC?

I would have to question the cultural reference also.

I honestly don't know the reasons one school gets picked over another.

I suppose there is some rhyme or reason... TV Networks, athletic budget, AAU, Research.

I guess the rather odd thing about the ACC latest choice, in my mind, would be the high regard the conference (ACC) seems to hold and tout in academics. Given UC more than doubles the latest ACC choice in Research, $411M to $190M (go ahead and add that athletic budget for UL onto that $190M), it seems a shift away from any kind of culture and more to a pure athletic driven decision.

In any event, there is no crying in realignment. I don't think the ACC has any incentive to expand unless the other conferences go to 16... we'll have to wait for the Jan P5 meetings to get some kind of direction. We may not be going anywhere...

The ACC isn't jam-packed with big state-funded degree mills that can spread the costs associated with developing a strong research mechanism over a billion students (i.e. like many of the schools in the B1G) and thus doesn't market itself as a premier research conference. It markets itself as the premier academic conference. Look at the slogan of it's academic consortium. It doesn't even mention research. It talks about academic rankings. It says "[o]nly the Ivy League includes more top 40 universities (as ranked by US News)." That's how little research matters. Marketing aside, research funding of one school means almost nothing to the other schools in the conference. In fact, I saw somewhere that the CIC saves something like $19 million. I'm not sure if that's per year, or since the beginning of time, but $19 million split twelve-fourteen ways isn't impressive, especially assuming that every other major conference research consortium is at least half that (guess). Each B1G school gets a couple hundred thousand dollar advantage. In the grand scheme of PSU's $4+ billion operating budget, how much do you think that matters? I'm guessing that you will agree with me when I say that it's worth less than a year's worth of well placed advertisements. However, academic ratings mean a lot. The high caliber kids who are interested in going to BC, ND, Pitt, Miami, and Duke who watch SU play those schools sit through SU advertisements and are more likely to consider going to SU. The same goes for the high caliber undergrads at those schools in relation to SU grad schools.

I guess that's the long way of me saying that UC's research spending is only relevant in my mind to the extent that it influences the UC's academic ranking, which isn't bad, but is more in line with the Big XII than the ACC.

I think you make some good points. But, I would also like to point out that the ACC does have a significant number of research institutions. Duke, Virginia, Ga. Tech, UNC, and Pittsburgh are all AAU members, which is indicative of a large research budget. Va. Tech. and NC State aren't in the AAU, but they also have significant research budgets. NC State, in particular, seems similar to UC in terms of student body and academic mission.

(09-07-2013 04:35 PM)back2vinyl Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 03:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:44 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:28 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:10 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I think that UC deserves to be in a power conference, and I wish UC all the luck in the world joining the Big XII and prospering there. However, the idea of the ACC adding UC needs to be put to rest. Don't get me wrong, UC fields great teams and has great potential. It just isn't a good cultural fit for the ACC, and that's important. None the less, I think that it would be an excellent cultural fit for the Big XII, it would be a great traveling partner for WVU, and it would elevate the competitiveness of the conference. If Memphis can figure out how to consistently field a competitive football team, I can see the Big XII adding Memphis and Cincinnati and both schools doing very well there.

Can you explain how Notre Dame and Louisville, no offense meant towards those schools, are better cultural fits than UC?

I would have to question the cultural reference also.

I honestly don't know the reasons one school gets picked over another.

I suppose there is some rhyme or reason... TV Networks, athletic budget, AAU, Research.

I guess the rather odd thing about the ACC latest choice, in my mind, would be the high regard the conference (ACC) seems to hold and tout in academics. Given UC more than doubles the latest ACC choice in Research, $411M to $190M (go ahead and add that athletic budget for UL onto that $190M), it seems a shift away from any kind of culture and more to a pure athletic driven decision.

In any event, there is no crying in realignment. I don't think the ACC has any incentive to expand unless the other conferences go to 16... we'll have to wait for the Jan P5 meetings to get some kind of direction. We may not be going anywhere...

The ACC isn't jam-packed with big state-funded degree mills that can spread the costs associated with developing a strong research mechanism over a billion students (i.e. like many of the schools in the B1G) and thus doesn't market itself as a premier research conference. It markets itself as the premier academic conference. Look at the slogan of it's academic consortium. It doesn't even mention research. It talks about academic rankings. It says "[o]nly the Ivy League includes more top 40 universities (as ranked by US News)." That's how little research matters. Marketing aside, research funding of one school means almost nothing to the other schools in the conference. In fact, I saw somewhere that the CIC saves something like $19 million. I'm not sure if that's per year, or since the beginning of time, but $19 million split twelve-fourteen ways isn't impressive, especially assuming that every other major conference research consortium is at least half that (guess). Each B1G school gets a couple hundred thousand dollar advantage. In the grand scheme of PSU's $4+ billion operating budget, how much do you think that matters? I'm guessing that you will agree with me when I say that it's worth less than a year's worth of well placed advertisements. However, academic ratings mean a lot. The high caliber kids who are interested in going to BC, ND, Pitt, Miami, and Duke who watch SU play those schools sit through SU advertisements and are more likely to consider going to SU. The same goes for the high caliber undergrads at those schools in relation to SU grad schools.

I guess that's the long way of me saying that UC's research spending is only relevant in my mind to the extent that it influences the UC's academic ranking, which isn't bad, but is more in line with the Big XII than the ACC.

I think you make some good points. But, I would also like to point out that the ACC does have a significant number of research institutions. Duke, Virginia, Ga. Tech, UNC, and Pittsburgh are all AAU members, which is indicative of a large research budget.

Absolutely. In no way, shape, or form do I mean to diminish their research prowess. The ACC has some excellent research institutions. My point is merely that research isn't a part of the conference's identity. All of those institutions have excellent academic rankings.

(09-07-2013 02:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 10:12 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 03:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:44 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:28 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  Can you explain how Notre Dame and Louisville, no offense meant towards those schools, are better cultural fits than UC?

I would have to question the cultural reference also.

I honestly don't know the reasons one school gets picked over another.

I suppose there is some rhyme or reason... TV Networks, athletic budget, AAU, Research.

I guess the rather odd thing about the ACC latest choice, in my mind, would be the high regard the conference (ACC) seems to hold and tout in academics. Given UC more than doubles the latest ACC choice in Research, $411M to $190M (go ahead and add that athletic budget for UL onto that $190M), it seems a shift away from any kind of culture and more to a pure athletic driven decision.

In any event, there is no crying in realignment. I don't think the ACC has any incentive to expand unless the other conferences go to 16... we'll have to wait for the Jan P5 meetings to get some kind of direction. We may not be going anywhere...

The ACC isn't jam-packed with big state-funded degree mills that can spread the costs associated with developing a strong research mechanism over a billion students (i.e. like many of the schools in the B1G) and thus doesn't market itself as a premier research conference. It markets itself as the premier academic conference. Look at the slogan of it's academic consortium. It doesn't even mention research. It talks about academic rankings. It says "[o]nly the Ivy League includes more top 40 universities (as ranked by US News)." That's how little research matters. Marketing aside, research funding of one school means almost nothing to the other schools in the conference. In fact, I saw somewhere that the CIC saves something like $19 million. I'm not sure if that's per year, or since the beginning of time, but $19 million split twelve-fourteen ways isn't impressive, especially assuming that every other major conference research consortium is at least half that (guess). Each B1G school gets a couple hundred thousand dollar advantage. In the grand scheme of PSU's $4+ billion operating budget, how much do you
think that matters? I'm guessing that you will agree with me when I say that it's worth less than a year's worth of well placed advertisements. However, academic ratings mean a lot. The high caliber kids who are interested in going to BC, ND, Pitt, Miami, and Duke who watch SU play those schools sit through SU advertisements and are more likely to consider going to SU. The same goes for the high caliber undergrads at those schools in relation to SU grad schools.

I guess that's the long way of me saying that UC's research spending is only relevant in my mind to the extent that it influences the UC's academic ranking, which isn't bad, but is more in line with the Big XII than the ACC.

LOL... I was feeling the vibe until you left out how the latest ACC pick

better fits the academic profile that is desired.

You can use US News if you want.

I'm not sure how the B1G CIC got brought into the discussion when your claim was that UC better fit the Big 12 profile?

Degree mills? okay...

UL is an outlier in the ACC. The entire "the ACC added UL, so UC will also fit because UL and UC are similar" argument doesn't work. It would be one thing if UL was the rule, but that just isn't the case. UL athletics make more than any other ACC team, UL athletics arguably enjoy more success than any other ACC team, and UL academics lag behind every ACC team in many relevant statistical categories and are towards the bottom in almost every relevant statistical category.

You brought up research and I pointed out that research is completely irrelevant to everything. It only affects other institutions in a conference to the extent that the conference markets itself as a research conference. Since that isn't the case for the ACC, research is irrelevant to the extent that it is used as a justification for a school to join the ACC. I brought up the CIC to contrast with the ACCIAC so that the difference between a conference that markets its academics and a conference that markets its research would be more apparent.

And finally, you seem to imply that the Big Ten isn't filled with degree mills. I'm not sure why you're pushing that point, but the B1G is the shining example of a conference filled with degree mills who are known for research and football. Choose your battles better.

I find it odd your argument hinges on taking UL was not the rule and UL is an outlier in the ACC. No, they are smack dab in the ACC. It doesn't fit the ACC mission statement (culture) you outlined.

I find it odd you defend taking UL based on athletic success and athletic budget. By the way, just like research money, let me know when UL shares that athletic budget with another ACC school.

I don't have any skin in the game about the Big 10, so dribble on about degree mills, maybe a Big 10 person can chime in.

The bottom line here is, you are either in or out. No outliers, no rules, it is what it is.

Never battle for barren terrain.

(09-07-2013 05:39 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 02:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 10:12 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 03:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 01:44 PM)Topkat Wrote:  I would have to question the cultural reference also.

I honestly don't know the reasons one school gets picked over another.

I suppose there is some rhyme or reason... TV Networks, athletic budget, AAU, Research.

I guess the rather odd thing about the ACC latest choice, in my mind, would be the high regard the conference (ACC) seems to hold and tout in academics. Given UC more than doubles the latest ACC choice in Research, $411M to $190M (go ahead and add that athletic budget for UL onto that $190M), it seems a shift away from any kind of culture and more to a pure athletic driven decision.

In any event, there is no crying in realignment. I don't think the ACC has any incentive to expand unless the other conferences go to 16... we'll have to wait for the Jan P5 meetings to get some kind of direction. We may not be going anywhere...

The ACC isn't jam-packed with big state-funded degree mills that can spread the costs associated with developing a strong research mechanism over a billion students (i.e. like many of the schools in the B1G) and thus doesn't market itself as a premier research conference. It markets itself as the premier academic conference. Look at the slogan of it's academic consortium. It doesn't even mention research. It talks about academic rankings. It says "[o]nly the Ivy League includes more top 40 universities (as ranked by US News)." That's how little research matters. Marketing aside, research funding of one school means almost nothing to the other schools in the conference. In fact, I saw somewhere that the CIC saves something like $19 million. I'm not sure if that's per year, or since the beginning of time, but $19 million split twelve-fourteen ways isn't impressive, especially assuming that every other major conference research consortium is at least half that (guess). Each B1G school gets a couple hundred thousand dollar advantage. In the grand scheme of PSU's $4+ billion operating budget, how much do you
think that matters? I'm guessing that you will agree with me when I say that it's worth less than a year's worth of well placed advertisements. However, academic ratings mean a lot. The high caliber kids who are interested in going to BC, ND, Pitt, Miami, and Duke who watch SU play those schools sit through SU advertisements and are more likely to consider going to SU. The same goes for the high caliber undergrads at those schools in relation to SU grad schools.

I guess that's the long way of me saying that UC's research spending is only relevant in my mind to the extent that it influences the UC's academic ranking, which isn't bad, but is more in line with the Big XII than the ACC.

LOL... I was feeling the vibe until you left out how the latest ACC pick

better fits the academic profile that is desired.

You can use US News if you want.

I'm not sure how the B1G CIC got brought into the discussion when your claim was that UC better fit the Big 12 profile?

Degree mills? okay...

UL is an outlier in the ACC. The entire "the ACC added UL, so UC will also fit because UL and UC are similar" argument doesn't work. It would be one thing if UL was the rule, but that just isn't the case. UL athletics make more than any other ACC team, UL athletics arguably enjoy more success than any other ACC team, and UL academics lag behind every ACC team in many relevant statistical categories and are towards the bottom in almost every relevant statistical category.

You brought up research and I pointed out that research is completely irrelevant to everything. It only affects other institutions in a conference to the extent that the conference markets itself as a research conference. Since that isn't the case for the ACC, research is irrelevant to the extent that it is used as a justification for a school to join the ACC. I brought up the CIC to contrast with the ACCIAC so that the difference between a conference that markets its academics and a conference that markets its research would be more apparent.

And finally, you seem to imply that the Big Ten isn't filled with degree mills. I'm not sure why you're pushing that point, but the B1G is the shining example of a conference filled with degree mills who are known for research and football. Choose your battles better.

I find it odd your argument hinges on taking UL was not the rule and UL is an outlier in the ACC. No, they are smack dab in the ACC. It doesn't fit the ACC mission statement (culture) you outlined.

I find it odd you defend taking UL based on athletic success and athletic budget. By the way, just like research money, let me know when UL shares that athletic budget with another ACC school.

I don't have any skin in the game about the Big 10, so dribble on about degree mills, maybe a Big 10 person can chime in.

The bottom line here is, you are either in or out. No outliers, no rules, it is what it is.

Never battle for barren terrain.

In what way is UL an average ACC school? How are they not an outlier? Do you not find it weird that UL's academic ranking is 54 spots worst than the next worst ACC school, and about 3x the ACC's average? Do you also not find it suspicious that UL athletics made something like $87 million in the 2011 year (most recent year reported), which is about $6 million more than FSU (the most profitable program in the ACC) and about 50% more than the average ACC school? Do you also not find it weird that about half the ACC reportedly turned down bigger conference paydays to stay together? UL was added out of desperation, not out of fit. Therefore, UL's presence in the ACC has nothing to do with fit and it is very much an outlier. UC fields a good program, but the only school similar to UC in the ACC is UL, and the ACC isn't particularly interested in adding a school like UL, unless it has to. However, UC has fielded competitive teams as of late, UC fields respectable basketball, and UC academics are right in line with much of the Big XII. UC is also reasonably close to a Big XII school that could use a travel partner.

Every time UL is on TV or an ACC team hosts UL, UL shares their athletic budget. Every time a UL fan buys merchandise with an ACC sticker on it, UL shares their athletic revenue. Every time UL makes a bowl while in the ACC, UL shares their athletic revenue. Every time UL makes the NCAA tourney while in the ACC, UL shares their athletic revenue. Every time UL participates in a post season ACC-sponsored event, UL shares their athletic revenue. That isn't true for research. One team's athletic success and athletic revenue has a dramatic affect on every other team in the conference. That isn't true for research funding. The two are nothing alike.

I am a BIG TEN person. I went to PSU and I already did chime in. You have no idea what you're talking about. Unfortunately my alma mater has all the educational and educational efficiency of the DMV.

Speaking of barren terrain, please enlighten me as to what UC has in common with any ACC school not named UL that is of any value to the conference. In your mind, why does UC fit into the ACC's culture?

(09-07-2013 06:38 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 05:39 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 02:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 10:12 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 03:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The ACC isn't jam-packed with big state-funded degree mills that can spread the costs associated with developing a strong research mechanism over a billion students (i.e. like many of the schools in the B1G) and thus doesn't market itself as a premier research conference. It markets itself as the premier academic conference. Look at the slogan of it's academic consortium. It doesn't even mention research. It talks about academic rankings. It says "[o]nly the Ivy League includes more top 40 universities (as ranked by US News)." That's how little research matters. Marketing aside, research funding of one school means almost nothing to the other schools in the conference. In fact, I saw somewhere that the CIC saves something like $19 million. I'm not sure if that's per year, or since the beginning of time, but $19 million split twelve-fourteen ways isn't impressive, especially assuming that every other major conference research consortium is at least half that (guess). Each B1G school gets a couple hundred thousand dollar advantage. In the grand scheme of PSU's $4+ billion operating budget, how much do you
think that matters? I'm guessing that you will agree with me when I say that it's worth less than a year's worth of well placed advertisements. However, academic ratings mean a lot. The high caliber kids who are interested in going to BC, ND, Pitt, Miami, and Duke who watch SU play those schools sit through SU advertisements and are more likely to consider going to SU. The same goes for the high caliber undergrads at those schools in relation to SU grad schools.

I guess that's the long way of me saying that UC's research spending is only relevant in my mind to the extent that it influences the UC's academic ranking, which isn't bad, but is more in line with the Big XII than the ACC.

LOL... I was feeling the vibe until you left out how the latest ACC pick

better fits the academic profile that is desired.

You can use US News if you want.

I'm not sure how the B1G CIC got brought into the discussion when your claim was that UC better fit the Big 12 profile?

Degree mills? okay...

UL is an outlier in the ACC. The entire "the ACC added UL, so UC will also fit because UL and UC are similar" argument doesn't work. It would be one thing if UL was the rule, but that just isn't the case. UL athletics make more than any other ACC team, UL athletics arguably enjoy more success than any other ACC team, and UL academics lag behind every ACC team in many relevant statistical categories and are towards the bottom in almost every relevant statistical category.

You brought up research and I pointed out that research is completely irrelevant to everything. It only affects other institutions in a conference to the extent that the conference markets itself as a research conference. Since that isn't the case for the ACC, research is irrelevant to the extent that it is used as a justification for a school to join the ACC. I brought up the CIC to contrast with the ACCIAC so that the difference between a conference that markets its academics and a conference that markets its research would be more apparent.

And finally, you seem to imply that the Big Ten isn't filled with degree mills. I'm not sure why you're pushing that point, but the B1G is the shining example of a conference filled with degree mills who are known for research and football. Choose your battles better.

I find it odd your argument hinges on taking UL was not the rule and UL is an outlier in the ACC. No, they are smack dab in the ACC. It doesn't fit the ACC mission statement (culture) you outlined.

I find it odd you defend taking UL based on athletic success and athletic budget. By the way, just like research money, let me know when UL shares that athletic budget with another ACC school.

I don't have any skin in the game about the Big 10, so dribble on about degree mills, maybe a Big 10 person can chime in.

The bottom line here is, you are either in or out. No outliers, no rules, it is what it is.

Never battle for barren terrain.

In what way is UL an average ACC school? How are they not an outlier? Do you not find it weird that UL's academic ranking is 54 spots worst than the next worst ACC school, and about 3x the ACC's average? Do you also not find it suspicious that UL athletics made something like $87 million in the 2011 year (most recent year reported), which is about $6 million more than FSU (the most profitable program in the ACC) and about 50% more than the average ACC school? Do you also not find it weird that about half the ACC reportedly turned down bigger conference paydays to stay together? UL was added out of desperation, not out of fit. Therefore, UL's presence in the ACC has nothing to do with fit and it is very much an outlier. UC fields a good program, but the only school similar to UC in the ACC is UL, and the ACC isn't particularly interested in adding a school like UL, unless it has to. However, UC has fielded competitive teams as of late, UC fields respectable basketball, and UC academics are right in line with much of the Big XII. UC is also reasonably close to a Big XII school that could use a travel partner.

Every time UL is on TV or an ACC team hosts UL, UL shares their athletic budget. Every time a UL fan buys merchandise with an ACC sticker on it, UL shares their athletic revenue. Every time UL makes a bowl while in the ACC, UL shares their athletic revenue. Every time UL makes the NCAA tourney while in the ACC, UL shares their athletic revenue. Every time UL participates in a post season ACC-sponsored event, UL shares their athletic revenue. That isn't true for research. One team's athletic success and athletic revenue has a dramatic affect on every other team in the conference. That isn't true for research funding. The two are nothing alike.

I am a BIG TEN person. I went to PSU and I already did chime in. You have no idea what you're talking about. Unfortunately my alma mater has all the educational and educational efficiency of the DMV.

Speaking of barren terrain, please enlighten me as to what UC has in common with any ACC school not named UL that is of any value to the conference. In your mind, why does UC fit into the ACC's culture?

At least I see a change of argument here. Instead of throwing UL under the bus so you can make the ACC mission statement fit, they are just thrown under the bus.

They will be a FULL member. Learn it. Live it. Own it.

As far as sports revenue, not impressed. UL took Marylands spot. In the long term, I doubt any significant increase in revenue will be seen, but it's open for debate. It's not like conference mates don't get money for similar research projects because they will collaborate.

You seem to have a bug about the Big 10. Last post I said that I don't care about them. It's great you represented. I've yet to see the Big 10 deviate from academic profile when expanding.

What would UC bring? The only thing I've seen you use is US News Rankings (which has its own problems that are well documented). Maybe enlighten me on the selection process.

Hey, then you can dream of throwing UC under the bus.

How many more 45-17 beatdowns will the UC faithful take before they turn on pine box? I was done with him during the middle-end of him during his 1st season at Tech.

(09-07-2013 08:03 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  for those (Wilkie) that think OSU and ND 'own the market' in cincy...you are assuming that but it's just wrong. Cincinnati is it's own city state vs the rest of Ohio in terms of culture, people's likes, etc. People in cincy root for cincy and cincy teams. Every time they have a poll it's always Reds, Bengals, and Bearcats...always. OSU football is usually WAY down the list.

The most recent poll, as in last week I believe was who is your favorite college football team: UC beat Ohio State in that poll 50some% to 20some%...like usual. When the polls add all sports teams then Ohio state is pushed even further down the list (when Reds/bengals are brought into the question).

There are OSU fans in Cincy but it's not an OSU town or a B1G town that's for sure.

This is true. UC is top dog in SW Ohio, though OSU does have plenty of following of course. The success of the last decade hasn't hurt either, but Bearcat basketball has always been very popular in Cincinnati.