(04-17-2017 11:08 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Maybe the importance of research is a sore spot because Syracuse left the AAU due to lack of research, but it is absolutely a top- if not the top- consideration for getting university president buy-in. The B1G, PAC, and SEC all moved proactively last round taking Maryland, Rutgers, Missouri, A&M, Colorado, Utah, and Nebraska. Nebraska is the only one of that group who got a flyer on research, and they came paired with two top 50 research schools.

Louisville moved up despite academic concerns as the ACC backfilled. So I guess, if SDSU had Louisville level athletic success and the PAC were raided resulting in a backfill scenario, than SDSU would have a chance similar to Louisville.

Come up w/ an argument against me instead of taking personal shots.

I've asked multiple times why research matters if it has no apparent impact on research at other schools in the conference. I'd understand it if being in the same conference w/ a research juggernaught had a positive impact on research funding, but it doesn't. And so far, the only response that I've heard that even tried to answer that question is "because schools like fitting in." Not only is that a bizarre concept, but I doubt that there's a causal relationship between research funding and one school seeing another as a peer. I'd explore that concept further, but I can't open the web sites that explains who sees who as a peer on a phone.

My theory is that schools are managed to hit their KPI's, which are based in factors that impact the school's bottom line, alumni engagement, quality of education, research output (mostly for public schools), and ability to attract top tier students. Vague notions of belonging in smoke-filled rooms don't fit in those KPI's.

And for the record, I am a Syracuse fan, but I went to PSU, which is a CIC school and an AAU school, and it probably has a better research/ARWU ranking than it's USNWR ranking. Now rather than my resume, let's discuss the actual issue.