(11-12-2013 01:43 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Can somebody give me a good reason why it matters in conference realignment? And I'm not talking about Presidential, egotistical circlejerks either. It seems that with all the blatant scandals, cheating, the joke of the entire concept of "student athlete", etc. that the curtain has been pulled back at this point. Do the presidents of universities REALLY believe the public buys into the charade?

This issue did come into play, and IMHO for good reason, in the Sun Belt's last expansion plans. They looked at Liberty University. Lets just say the fanbase wasn't particularly interested in a school that promotes New Earth "Science" and has policies that violate every single member institution's diversity and academic freedom policies.

(11-12-2013 11:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Even with that acknowledged disconnect, as a Big Ten grad, yes, the academics matter to me. Being a "Big Ten school" is an inextricable part of the overall institutional *identity* for its members (not just for sports). At least for our conference, every single member (from Northwestern to Nebraska) will state that it's a "Big Ten school" within the first paragraph of the first page of all of those glossy marketing materials that they send out to prospective students. As a random example, I recall a recent Wall Street Journal article in the lifestyle section about college student substance abuse programs that had nothing to do with sports. It was completely about education news. They referenced a number of power schools, such as UNC, UCLA, Texas and Georgia Tech. However, when Penn State and Ohio State were mentioned, they were further identified as "Big Ten schools" in the same way that Harvard and Yale were identified as "Ivy League schools" (but wasn't done for the ACC with respect to UNC and Georgia Tech). There's an overall identity that Big Ten schools have that go beyond sports.

Now, that doesn't mean that all conferences are the same way. The AAC and MWC, for instance, don't really have a choice to make those academic distinctions in realignment decisions at this point - they have to take the best available sports programs on the table no matter what their academics might be. However, the power conferences inherently have a lot more criteria that they have the ability to take into account in realignment, so academics would certainly be one of them. The more options and power that a conference has, the pickier it can be on all of its metrics (whether it's academics, TV market, national brand name, etc.).

As I am back at Rutgers now working on an MBA I'm increasingly seeing exactly what you're talking about. During official communications to students and such they now often mention being a Big Ten school, etc. Being a Big Ten school is an identity the school wants to have institutionally.

(11-14-2013 12:00 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 11:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Even with that acknowledged disconnect, as a Big Ten grad, yes, the academics matter to me. Being a "Big Ten school" is an inextricable part of the overall institutional *identity* for its members (not just for sports). At least for our conference, every single member (from Northwestern to Nebraska) will state that it's a "Big Ten school" within the first paragraph of the first page of all of those glossy marketing materials that they send out to prospective students. As a random example, I recall a recent Wall Street Journal article in the lifestyle section about college student substance abuse programs that had nothing to do with sports. It was completely about education news. They referenced a number of power schools, such as UNC, UCLA, Texas and Georgia Tech. However, when Penn State and Ohio State were mentioned, they were further identified as "Big Ten schools" in the same way that Harvard and Yale were identified as "Ivy League schools" (but wasn't done for the ACC with respect to UNC and Georgia Tech). There's an overall identity that Big Ten schools have that go beyond sports.

Now, that doesn't mean that all conferences are the same way. The AAC and MWC, for instance, don't really have a choice to make those academic distinctions in realignment decisions at this point - they have to take the best available sports programs on the table no matter what their academics might be. However, the power conferences inherently have a lot more criteria that they have the ability to take into account in realignment, so academics would certainly be one of them. The more options and power that a conference has, the pickier it can be on all of its metrics (whether it's academics, TV market, national brand name, etc.).

As I am back at Rutgers now working on an MBA I'm increasingly seeing exactly what you're talking about. During official communications to students and such they now often mention being a Big Ten school, etc. Being a Big Ten school is an identity the school wants to have institutionally.

yeah like i said, only those from within the big ten really understand it. everyone else goes "WTF are these guys talking about"

Thanks,
I had a buddy that graduated from Wabash College in Finance. He went to work for a big drug company and him and a co- worker (who did the exact same job and was hired at same time) went out for a few beers and started talking about what they made. Come to find out his co- worker made 2x what he made. He asked his boss why and he said " he graduated from Northwestern and you graduated from Wabash. Don't get me wrong Wabash College is a really good school but it kinda opens your eyes to academic reputation!
[/quote]

No, that's a good example of improperly applying for a job. People seem to forget that people in HR are infamous for getting bonuses for "saving the company money" by negotiating down a new employee's salary. I have seen it done many times where 70,000 was the expected pay by the employer and the idiots come in the interview and say they expect to to make 40,000.

I'm not saying that going to Northwestern will not give you a leg up on other potential candidates but that's completely your buddies fault. If you can do the job as good as someone else you can either demand equality or take your talents elsewhere and let them have to deal with potentially having to pay someone new more money and take the cost of hiring them.
[/quote]

It bothered him so much he applied to Harvard to get his masters in Finance and got accepted. He got the drug company to pay for it under condition he would come back and work for like 5 years. When he graduated from Harvard he had a company pay the drug company back so he could work for them. He is now a president of an international company making over a million a year. It blows my mind that a kid from small Indiana Town could achieve those heights. He played BBall at Wabash College DIII.

(11-14-2013 12:03 AM)john01992 Wrote:  yeah like i said, only those from within the big ten really understand it. everyone else goes "WTF are these guys talking about"

Which is entirely the point. In academia, no one outside your own B10 homers gives any deference to the Big Ten. It has no meaning outside the world of college athletics. The "Big Ten" in an of itself carries no academic weight; only the individual reputations earned by each individual member institution, some of which are considerable, are considered, in isolation, but that does not stem from their associations with their athletic partners. That's true for every single collegiate confederation except perhaps for the Ivy League/HPYSM, the Seven Sisters, and probably the Claremont Colleges. If you think Nebraska is now seen as a better school because it plays sports in a league with Northwestern, you are certifiably out of touch with reality. And again, you can use the Penn State example, whose research standing, as actually measured by the % of total research awards or R&D expenditures, has actually decreased since membership in the Big Ten. Most academics don't even know which schools have membership in the Big Ten or any other athletic conference, unless those academics are big sports fans themselves. But hey, I should have know that trying to make the conversations on this board a reasonable reflection of reality is well beyond its scope.

yeah like i said, only those from within the big ten really understand it. everyone else goes "WTF are these guys talking about"
[/quote]

Which is entirely the point. In academia, no one outside your own B10 homers gives any deference to the Big Ten. It has no meaning outside the world of college athletics. The "Big Ten" in an of itself carries no academic weight; only the individual reputations earned by each individual member institution, some of which are considerable, are considered, in isolation, but that does not stem from their associations with their athletic partners. That's true for every single collegiate confederation except perhaps for the Ivy League/HPYSM, the Seven Sisters, and probably the Claremont Colleges. If you think Nebraska is now seen as a better school because it plays sports in a league with Northwestern, you are certifiably out of touch with reality. And again, you can use the Penn State example, whose research standing, as actually measured by the % of total research awards or R&D expenditures, has actually decreased since membership in the Big Ten. Most academics don't even know which schools have membership in the Big Ten or any other athletic conference, unless those academics are big sports fans themselves. But hey, I should have know that trying to make the conversations on this board a reasonable reflection of reality is well beyond its scope.
[/quote]

About the CIC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmOXeoHDJFA

Maybe this will clarify how conference academic collaboration can achieve more than individual schools can on their own.

(11-12-2013 01:43 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Can somebody give me a good reason why it matters in conference realignment? And I'm not talking about Presidential, egotistical circlejerks either. It seems that with all the blatant scandals, cheating, the joke of the entire concept of "student athlete", etc. that the curtain has been pulled back at this point. Do the presidents of universities REALLY believe the public buys into the charade?

Yes. It's marketing. Nobody is recruiting the football players for their smarts. They're being recruited to get people to look at the school. And no, the football game won't cause a kid to go to that school, but it could very well spark their interest to learn more about the school, and that's half the battle.

(11-14-2013 01:52 AM)Hoosier Hysteria Wrote:  Maybe this will clarify how conference academic collaboration can achieve more than individual schools can on their own.

LOL! A publicity video. Yeah, thanks, I've already actually seen that, and read their annual report, and actually know what the CIC actually does and does not and how it programs compare to similar collaborative offerings that exist all over academia. This has been discussed on this board probably 100 times now. Yes the CIC has some nice programs...its purchasing consortium and some other nice IT best practice exchanges, distance video class exchanges for rare language classes, etc. It's new unified login system has the potential to be useful, although how useful is open to a lot of speculation because, frankly, it is limited to CIC schools. No, the CIC is not really important for doing anything substantive in higher education as far as fostering actual research collaborations (outside of its TBI consortium), nor are its exchange programs that it offers really that unique. And more towards the original point, the term "CIC" carries no more academic weight than "Big Ten" outside of its own sphere of operations. Besides appearing in its own press releases, and being one of the new favorite acronyms of conference realignment theorists, along with the AAU, since the realignment frenzy started 3 or so years ago, few in academia outside the Big Ten have even heard of it or know what it is. I know Big Ten athletic fans that love to talk about how wonderful it because of the sense of purpose it gives to the otherwise unpalatable greed of college athletics (that is why many conferences...the ACC, SEC, Colonial... have started something similar), but seldom do these fans' reading of the PR copy provide them any concept of what it actually means and what its limitations are (it doesn't share research resources and it doesn't do one iota to make any school more competitive for research awards, two of the biggest misconceptions debunked dozens of times on here). It is nice way CIC schools to collaborate on some of the limited things that they can, like leadership conferences and purchasing software. Kudos. No matter how many times a president cites it, no one is joining the Big Ten because of the CIC, I promise you that. It's a nice bonus that comes with joining the Big Ten, but it is not a primary motivating factor. BTN checks are the primary motivating factor. If what the CIC does was really important, then UVA and UNC and Texas and Notre Dame would be in the Big Ten today. Probably even more telling, if the CIC was really doing important things, it wouldn't limit its membership to Big Ten schools.

LOL a pitt fan trolling the b10

#classic

(11-14-2013 01:52 AM)Hoosier Hysteria Wrote:  yeah like i said, only those from within the big ten really understand it. everyone else goes "WTF are these guys talking about"

Which is entirely the point. In academia, no one outside your own B10 homers gives any deference to the Big Ten. It has no meaning outside the world of college athletics. The "Big Ten" in an of itself carries no academic weight; only the individual reputations earned by each individual member institution, some of which are considerable, are considered, in isolation, but that does not stem from their associations with their athletic partners. That's true for every single collegiate confederation except perhaps for the Ivy League/HPYSM, the Seven Sisters, and probably the Claremont Colleges. If you think Nebraska is now seen as a better school because it plays sports in a league with Northwestern, you are certifiably out of touch with reality. And again, you can use the Penn State example, whose research standing, as actually measured by the % of total research awards or R&D expenditures, has actually decreased since membership in the Big Ten. Most academics don't even know which schools have membership in the Big Ten or any other athletic conference, unless those academics are big sports fans themselves. But hey, I should have know that trying to make the conversations on this board a reasonable reflection of reality is well beyond its scope.
[/quote]

About the CIC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmOXeoHDJFA

Maybe this will clarify how conference academic collaboration can achieve more than individual schools can on their own.
[/quote]

Maybe I just look at it differently because I'm in IT but I think it's more about the individual. IMO it takes more than a piece of paper showing you can read books to set you apart from everyone else. I want to see certifications and experience along with education.

Maybe this will clarify how conference academic collaboration can achieve more than individual schools can on their own.
[/quote]

LOL! A publicity video. Yeah, thanks, I've already actually seen that, and read their annual report, and actually know what the CIC actually does and does not and how it programs compare to similar collaborative offerings that exist all over academia. This has been discussed on this board probably 100 times now. Yes the CIC has some nice programs...its purchasing consortium and some other nice IT best practice exchanges, distance video class exchanges for rare language classes, etc. It's new unified login system has the potential to be useful, although how useful is open to a lot of speculation because, frankly, it is limited to CIC schools. No, the CIC is not really important for doing anything substantive in higher education as far as fostering actual research collaborations (outside of its TBI consortium), nor are its exchange programs that it offers really that unique. And more towards the original point, the term "CIC" carries no more academic weight than "Big Ten" outside of its own sphere of operations. Besides appearing in its own press releases, and being one of the new favorite acronyms of conference realignment theorists, along with the AAU, since the realignment frenzy started 3 or so years ago, few in academia outside the Big Ten have even heard of it or know what it is. I know Big Ten athletic fans that love to talk about how wonderful it because of the sense of purpose it gives to the otherwise unpalatable greed of college athletics (that is why many conferences...the ACC, SEC, Colonial... have started something similar), but seldom do these fans' reading of the PR copy provide them any concept of what it actually means and what its limitations are (it doesn't share research resources and it doesn't do one iota to make any school more competitive for research awards, two of the biggest misconceptions debunked dozens of times on here). It is nice way CIC schools to collaborate on some of the limited things that they can, like leadership conferences and purchasing software. Kudos. No matter how many times a president cites it, no one is joining the Big Ten because of the CIC, I promise you that. It's a nice bonus that comes with joining the Big Ten, but it is not a primary motivating factor. BTN checks are the primary motivating factor. If what the CIC does was really important, then UVA and UNC and Texas and Notre Dame would be in the Big Ten today. Probably even more telling, if the CIC was really doing important things, it wouldn't limit its membership to Big Ten schools.
[/quote]


Big Ten consortium officials tour Rutgers looking for academic partnerships




Print
Kelly Heyboer/ The Star-Ledger By Kelly Heyboer/ The Star-Ledger
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on May 08, 2013 at 6:30 AM, updated May 08, 2013 at 6:35 AM





















0






Pinterest










Email











rutgers-university-college-avenue.JPGMembers of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, the Big Ten's academic arm, toured Rutgers University today as the state university prepares to join the athletic league. Schools in the CIC partner on academic projects and business deals.Robert Sciarrino/The Star-Ledger

NEW BRUNSWICK — Rutgers University officials spent the last three days showing off their campuses as the school prepares to join one of higher education’s most exclusive clubs.

A group of five officials from the Committee of Institutional Cooperation — the academic arm of the Big Ten athletic conference — wrapped up an in-depth visit to the New Brunswick-Piscataway campus Tuesday as the last step before Rutgers’ induction in July.

"To bring in a new institution is not an inconsequential thing," said Barbara McFadden Allen, executive director of the 13-member CIC. "What surprised all of us is how comfortable we felt from the moment we got here."

Rutgers is joining the CIC as part of the deal to move its sports teams from the Big East to the wealthier and more prestigious Big Ten. The academic consortium, which includes the University of Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State and other Big Ten schools, pools its collective power to negotiate contracts, collaborate on research projects and share resources.

Rutgers students will see the benefits of membership in the CIC as early as this fall when they can begin enrolling in study abroad programs, online language classes and other programs at universities in the consortium.

Jerome Kukor, dean of Rutgers Graduate School in New Brunswick, said his students are already asking how to apply for the Traveling Scholar program that allows students to spend up to a year at other CIC universities.

"They are chomping at the bit," Kukor said. "We had people jumping the gun already who were calling CIC headquarters."

The CIC was founded in 1958 as a way to bring together universities in the Big Ten on projects outside of sports. The group includes all of the Big Ten schools as well as the University of Chicago, one of the original members of the Big Ten before it withdrew in 1946.

Rutgers and the University of Maryland are scheduled to become CIC members July 1, even though their sports teams are not scheduled to join the Big Ten until next year.

Rutgers will pay about $200,000 a year to be part of the CIC, campus officials said. That money is used to fund the consortium’s Illinois-based headquarters and staff.

The university expects to save money by taking part in some of the dozens of joint contracts CIC members negotiate for — everything from paper products to test tubes and human resources background checks. The universities, which collectively enroll nearly 600,000 students, are able to negotiate lower rates and better terms on contracts when they come together, CIC officials said.

Once Rutgers merges with the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in July, the university will be among the largest in the CIC.

"The opportunity to collaborate with someone at a similar-size university was frankly not there in the Big East," said Richard Edwards, Rutgers’ executive vice president of academic affairs.

In perhaps one of the biggest changes on campus, Rutgers’ library will have access to 100 million books and other volumes at other CIC universities and take advantage of volume discounts to purchase new materials.

"The Rutgers library just grew by leaps and bounds," said Marianne Gaunt, vice president for information services and university librarian.

Rutgers will also be included in a CIC project with Google to digitize library materials and make them available on the internet. The university will probably begin by letting Google digitize its extensive jazz history collection and materials related to New Jersey history, Gaunt said.

Though Rutgers expects to save money through its membership in the CIC, it is unclear how much it will have to invest in its sports teams to compete with the well-funded Big Ten teams.

Last week, Rutgers President Robert Barchi said he expects the university’s athletic department, which runs about $18 million in the red each year, to begin breaking even in six years. That is when Rutgers is to begin fully cashing in on the Big Ten’s lucrative television contracts and other revenue.

As a fan --

If you went to an institution of higher learning, it would be more important to you. If you didn't, it won't. Pretty simple.

As a college President --

You want to associate with like-minded institutions. Again, pretty simple.

If you went to an institution of higher learning, it would be more important to you. If you didn't, it won't. Pretty simple.

As a college President --

You want to associate with like-minded institutions. Again, pretty simple.
[/quote]

Well said. If you are a sure shot pro prospect I would choose Kentucky BBall and Alabama FBall. The other 98% would get the greatest return on investment going to the stronger academic institutions (Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Stanford, ND ect.) Strong academic conferences like Ivy, Patriot, BIG, ACC, PAC work hard to sell the value of strong academics to prospective student athletes. Several of these students go on to have amazing careers and become large donors to the said universities. We live about 30 miles from Purdue and it is mind blowing the number of buildings and schools they have built in last 20 years from private donations from wealthy alumni.

I think the 'brand' discussions really are only about one conference, the B1G. Its a nice marketing ploy, but really, is Vanderbilt or Georgia or Mizzou or Texas A&M really worse than Purdue or Penn State or Nebraska or Iowa or Illinois by any real appreciable difference?

Its not like the B1G is the Ivy league.

One can argue that neither Northwestern nor Illinois have the best school in Illinois, that UMD isn't the best school in Maryland, that Penn State isn't the best school in Penna, that Rutgers isn't the best school in NJ, or that Ohio State isn't the best school in Ohio either.

(11-15-2013 01:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think the 'brand' discussions really are only about one conference, the B1G. Its a nice marketing ploy, but really, is Vanderbilt or Georgia or Mizzou or Texas A&M really worse than Purdue or Penn State or Nebraska or Iowa or Illinois by any real appreciable difference?

Its not like the B1G is the Ivy league.

One can argue that neither Northwestern nor Illinois have the best school in Illinois, that UMD isn't the best school in Maryland, that Penn State isn't the best school in Penna, that Rutgers isn't the best school in NJ, or that Ohio State isn't the best school in Ohio either.

Pretty much. This is really only a discussion for fan boys on sports message boards. Never, on any admissions committee or any search committee or any review committee or in any seminar or any academic meeting or conference did someone utter the phrase, "ooh, he/she went to/is from a Big Ten school, that's impressive". There is no academic brand of the "Big Ten" nor any other group but the Ivy. That's not an indictment on any individual schools themselves; they have their own individually earned and maintained reputations. Ohio State doesn't borrow reputation from Michigan anymore than Clemson borrows it from Duke. Anything else is a fantasy of fan boys regurgitating PR copy, wether it is about the "Big Ten" or "ACC" or "Patriot League", whatever. It's pretty funny to watch, since it happens over and over and over and over again and just affirms how clueless they are about academia in general.

(11-15-2013 08:46 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 01:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think the 'brand' discussions really are only about one conference, the B1G. Its a nice marketing ploy, but really, is Vanderbilt or Georgia or Mizzou or Texas A&M really worse than Purdue or Penn State or Nebraska or Iowa or Illinois by any real appreciable difference?

Its not like the B1G is the Ivy league.

One can argue that neither Northwestern nor Illinois have the best school in Illinois, that UMD isn't the best school in Maryland, that Penn State isn't the best school in Penna, that Rutgers isn't the best school in NJ, or that Ohio State isn't the best school in Ohio either.

It's only a discussion for fan boys on sports message boards. Never, on any admissions committee or any search committee or any review committee or in any seminar or any academic meeting or conference did someone utter the phrase, "ooh, he went to/is from a Big Ten school, that's impressive". There is no academic brand of the "Big Ten" or any other group but the Ivy. It is a fantasy of fan boys regurgitating PR copy. It's pretty funny to watch, since it happens over and over and over and over again and just affirms how clueless they are about academia in general.

like i said, at this point you are just a hater trying to troll

(11-15-2013 08:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 08:46 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 01:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think the 'brand' discussions really are only about one conference, the B1G. Its a nice marketing ploy, but really, is Vanderbilt or Georgia or Mizzou or Texas A&M really worse than Purdue or Penn State or Nebraska or Iowa or Illinois by any real appreciable difference?

Its not like the B1G is the Ivy league.

One can argue that neither Northwestern nor Illinois have the best school in Illinois, that UMD isn't the best school in Maryland, that Penn State isn't the best school in Penna, that Rutgers isn't the best school in NJ, or that Ohio State isn't the best school in Ohio either.

It's only a discussion for fan boys on sports message boards. Never, on any admissions committee or any search committee or any review committee or in any seminar or any academic meeting or conference did someone utter the phrase, "ooh, he went to/is from a Big Ten school, that's impressive". There is no academic brand of the "Big Ten" or any other group but the Ivy. It is a fantasy of fan boys regurgitating PR copy. It's pretty funny to watch, since it happens over and over and over and over again and just affirms how clueless they are about academia in general.

like i said, at this point you are just a hater trying to troll

No, I'm trying to educate the ignorant, of which you are example 1A. You should try some reading comprehension classes.

(11-15-2013 08:57 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 08:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 08:46 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 01:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think the 'brand' discussions really are only about one conference, the B1G. Its a nice marketing ploy, but really, is Vanderbilt or Georgia or Mizzou or Texas A&M really worse than Purdue or Penn State or Nebraska or Iowa or Illinois by any real appreciable difference?

Its not like the B1G is the Ivy league.

One can argue that neither Northwestern nor Illinois have the best school in Illinois, that UMD isn't the best school in Maryland, that Penn State isn't the best school in Penna, that Rutgers isn't the best school in NJ, or that Ohio State isn't the best school in Ohio either.

It's only a discussion for fan boys on sports message boards. Never, on any admissions committee or any search committee or any review committee or in any seminar or any academic meeting or conference did someone utter the phrase, "ooh, he went to/is from a Big Ten school, that's impressive". There is no academic brand of the "Big Ten" or any other group but the Ivy. It is a fantasy of fan boys regurgitating PR copy. It's pretty funny to watch, since it happens over and over and over and over again and just affirms how clueless they are about academia in general.

like i said, at this point you are just a hater trying to troll

No, I'm trying to educate the ignorant, of which you are example 1A. You should try some reading comprehension classes.

trying to argue that theres no academic weight to the b10 name is a lose lose argument for you, and considering that you are a pitt fan, i kinda sense where the source of your anti b10 hate is coming from

(11-15-2013 09:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 08:57 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 08:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 08:46 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 01:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think the 'brand' discussions really are only about one conference, the B1G. Its a nice marketing ploy, but really, is Vanderbilt or Georgia or Mizzou or Texas A&M really worse than Purdue or Penn State or Nebraska or Iowa or Illinois by any real appreciable difference?

Its not like the B1G is the Ivy league.

One can argue that neither Northwestern nor Illinois have the best school in Illinois, that UMD isn't the best school in Maryland, that Penn State isn't the best school in Penna, that Rutgers isn't the best school in NJ, or that Ohio State isn't the best school in Ohio either.

It's only a discussion for fan boys on sports message boards. Never, on any admissions committee or any search committee or any review committee or in any seminar or any academic meeting or conference did someone utter the phrase, "ooh, he went to/is from a Big Ten school, that's impressive". There is no academic brand of the "Big Ten" or any other group but the Ivy. It is a fantasy of fan boys regurgitating PR copy. It's pretty funny to watch, since it happens over and over and over and over again and just affirms how clueless they are about academia in general.

like i said, at this point you are just a hater trying to troll

No, I'm trying to educate the ignorant, of which you are example 1A. You should try some reading comprehension classes.

trying to argue that theres no academic weight to the b10 name is a lose lose argument for you, and considering that you are a pitt fan, i kinda sense where the source of your anti b10 hate is coming from

I'm not offering my opinion of how I presume things are. I'm telling anyone that cares to know how it actually is. You're a fanboy. You don't care. You want rah rah. I'm not here to give you rah rah. I'm trying to correct urban myths and misconceptions. Academic projects aren't conducted on football fields and basketball courts.

Not that you could refute any prior examples, but no one in academia is choosing to take a position at Nebraska over, say, UAB primarily, or secondarily, or wheverarily because Nebraska is in the CIC or Big Ten. Such things have zero impact on any such decision. If you think that is false, or if you think that is in any way trolling, you're flat out clueless about how things actually work.

None of that reality disparages the academics of any Big Ten institution, nor devalues the actually programs that the CIC actually offers. What it does is put the impact of the academic brand of the "Big Ten" in its proper perspective, which is, there isn't really any. Never once have I ever heard someone utter the notion that they hoped to one day get a position at a "Big Ten" school. "Michigan", "Northwestern", maybe. Maybe their alma mater if it was a member school. In contrast, an "Ivy" absolutely is referred to as an aspirational position. "Big Ten" has no such contextual meaning. It flat out does not exist in academia. Sorry. And neither is that trolling. Trolling would be more like me posting what many Ivy-biased individuals actually think of most of the Big Ten schools. I'll refrain from that.

And Pitt has no concern with what the "Big Ten" paints itself as academically. Why would it? It's not in the Big Ten. It doesn't need in the Big Ten for any academic reasons. In the real world, 12 of the 14 Big Ten schools look up at Pitt when you are talking about research strength measured by the academic gold standards of R&D expenditures or total federal obligations for R&D. Pitt advanced to that nationally top 10 position over the past 20 years without the benefit any conference based academic collaborative, unless you think playing WVU and Providence helped it out. That's because the research collaborations between Pitt faculty and faculty of any Big Ten and non-Big Ten institutions alike are absolutely unaffected by conference affiliation or conference consortium. Pitt has made its own reputation, just like the rest of the world of higher education. That's not trolling, that a spoon full of reality soup.

As a fan --

If you went to an institution of higher learning, it would be more important to you. If you didn't, it won't. Pretty simple.

As a college President --

You want to associate with like-minded institutions. Again, pretty simple.
[/quote]

Again this is an intelligent response to this whole discussion from an actual college President. Each college conference has a different philosophy on what they want from their member institutions.