Didn't mean to talk down to you. My apologies for my poor delivery.

(03-09-2014 03:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 01:14 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  UNC and UVA are dyed in the wool ACC. If you've ever lived in NC you would know that.

If you'd read my previous post, where I said that the NC and VA schools are core-ACC and don't want to be anywhere else, you'd know that I did know that.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(03-09-2014 04:20 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Yeah, you'd cite things based on ignorance, like most B10 fanboys would when they start throwing around sheet they don't understand like the CIC. The Big Ten has more AAU school than the Ivy, therefore, it must be better. Gotchya.

I would say the CIC is very important and it's one of the main things the Maryland president talked about when they moved to the Big 10, so for you to just brush it aside makes me think maybe you don't understand it.

Like I said, you could pull random ACT or SAT scores or average income of graduates or any random thing and make the ACC look better than the Big 10 but the perception clearly favors the Big 10. Don't believe me? Take a poll on every rivals message board of every school outside the ACC and Big 10. I'll guarantee you they select the Big 10 as more prestigious.

Not sure why you take it so personally since Pitt is a great school academically. Maybe you should try living through your own schools accomplishments (from the 70s I think?) instead of attaching your ego to the ACC?

(03-09-2014 04:37 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 04:20 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Yeah, you'd cite things based on ignorance, like most B10 fanboys would when they start throwing around sheet they don't understand like the CIC. The Big Ten has more AAU school than the Ivy, therefore, it must be better. Gotchya.

I would say the CIC is very important and it's one of the main things the Maryland president talked about when they moved to the Big 10, so for you to just brush it aside makes me think maybe you don't understand it.

Like I said, you could pull random ACT or SAT scores or average income of graduates or any random thing and make the ACC look better than the Big 10 but the perception clearly favors the Big 10. Don't believe me? Take a poll on every rivals message board of every school outside the ACC and Big 10. I'll guarantee you they select the Big 10 as more prestigious.

Not sure why you take it so personally since Pitt is a great school academically. Maybe you should try living through your own schools accomplishments (from the 70s I think?) instead of attaching your ego to the ACC?

Damn

Coog, you ought to listen to what Paco tried to tell you since he is in a position to know. However if you really believe that CIC is magic and that University System presidents or individual campus presidents always tell the truth you are too naïve to exist safely in the modern world. From time to time the administration lies to cover its mistakes or its reasons for making a decision. A doctorate or two doesn't make you any more honest or any less infallible despite what the masses tend to think. A doctorate or two only means you are expert in one or two narrow areas of expertise and that you have the ability to actually undertake research and to admit that you might be wrong.

If you really think academics have anything to do with college sports, I have some land in the Crimea you might like.

Academics are the lipstick on the pig and if you think academic reputation is culled from opinions on sports boards you could not be more wrong.

Most academics don't care about sports. The ones that do are in the distinct minority and that's how they end up at sites like this attempting to explain the workings of higher education without actually revealing exactly where they work so that the department chair does not show up and tell you that the Provost told him to tell you to quit posting on those damn sports web sites.

(03-09-2014 05:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Coog, you ought to listen to what Paco tried to tell you since he is in a position to know.

I wouldn't trust an ACC fan on this issue just like I wouldn't trust a Big 10 fan. It's clearly agenda driven and biased just like how Paco hand picked things to make the ACC look better. The Big 10 has a superior academic reputation.

I guess you could argue that the reputation is unfounded (you'd be wrong, but you could argue it). But that wouldn't change the fact that the reputation is what it is.

(03-09-2014 05:19 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Coog, you ought to listen to what Paco tried to tell you since he is in a position to know.

I wouldn't trust an ACC fan on this issue just like I wouldn't trust a Big 10 fan. It's clearly agenda driven and biased just like how Paco hand picked things to make the ACC look better. The Big 10 has a superior academic reputation.

I guess you could argue that the reputation is unfounded (you'd be wrong, but you could argue it). But that wouldn't change the fact that the reputation is what it is.

No, he hand picked nothing, nor is he suffering from Confirmatory Bias.

(03-09-2014 05:19 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Coog, you ought to listen to what Paco tried to tell you since he is in a position to know.

I wouldn't trust an ACC fan on this issue just like I wouldn't trust a Big 10 fan. It's clearly agenda driven and biased just like how Paco hand picked things to make the ACC look better. The Big 10 has a superior academic reputation.

I guess you could argue that the reputation is unfounded (you'd be wrong, but you could argue it). But that wouldn't change the fact that the reputation is what it is.

It's a stupid issue. The ACC has the higher academic rating. The Big 10 has the most members of AAU. These are two different criteria. The issue is which has the superior academics. The answer is the ACC has the higher ranking. If the question was who sports the most member of the AAU the answer would be the Big 10. I'm an unbiased SEC guy and I've never thought that the Big 10 had superior academics to the ACC. The Big 10 has outstanding academic credentials but second to that of the ACC, but like with all things that too is subject to future realignment.

(03-09-2014 01:59 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 01:55 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 01:28 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 11:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 10:53 AM)westmc9th Wrote:  Yes, the GOR makes us safe, I think both the ACC and Big 12 are safe for now, its weird but ive came around to the idea of adding WVU once the Big 12 GOR comes to an end but I dont think it would happen. Im not saying DEATH TO the Big 12 I think they could add someone more in their geographical area if WVU left.

But not anyone more profitable than WVU.

With the GOR, ACC is safe for at least a decade. There will be a gap in distributions between the Big 10 and ACC, but is it enough to interest UVA or UNC even then? Big 10 isn't really interested (at least now) in anyone else in the ACC. And in getting someone to change, often they have to be dissatisfied. The ACC had a $12.9 million TV contract a year ago. They are at an average $18-$20 right now and will be making an extra $5-$6 million a year starting next year due to the playoffs and Orange Bowl deal. So that's doubling their TV/bowl revenue in a couple of years. They are pretty happy right now.

The main reason why Maryland moved to the B1G was to improve its academic reputation. Reputation isn't a problem for UVA, UNC or Georgia Tech and those are the three prime candidates for the B1G.

There aren't that many ACC schools the B1G would consider adding. Syracuse, Boston College and Pittsburgh are all out.

The move that nobody is talking about which I think is possibly is UNC and Duke to the SEC. The SEC might be willing to accommodate the Duke-UNC rivalry for the sake of getting into North Carolina. UNC I think could see the advantage in football recruiting as part of the SEC.

The traditional arguement against a move to the SEC from an ACC school has centered on academics. With TAMU and Missouri joining the SEC and Louisville, Pitt and Syracuse joining the ACC I'm not sure academics are much of an issue between the two leagues anymore.

It truly is one of the stupidest things ever posted on the internet.

Are you new to the internet?

(03-09-2014 04:20 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 04:17 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  I don't have a dog in this fight so I am not going to debate you, I'm sure you can easily hand pick data that would make either conference look better.

I could cite the CIC thing or the fact that the Big 10 is composed of all AAU schools save Nebraska versus the ACC who I would guess has more than 1 school not in the AAU.

Yep, you'd cite things based on ignorance, like most B10 fanboys would when they start throwing around sheet they don't understand like the CIC. The Big Ten has more AAU school than the Ivy, therefore, it must be better. Gotchya.

Here's the point, it is stupid as all hell. These are athletic conferences, not academic conferences. People in academia don't think about academics in terms of athletic affiliations, ever.

The ACC has more members that are closer to elite academic universities, but the Big Ten has more members that are major research universities. None of that means a damn thing outside of fanboy message board arguments. And for fanboy message board arguments, there is one undisputed leader, major flaws and all, in the arbitration of college academic reputation in the US as far as the general public is concerned and the results are posted above.

You definitely have some strong points and I think whether or not a conference is going to help a school academically is on a case by case basis.

For a school like Syracuse they would probably be better served to be aligned with other private schools along the East Coast like BC, Duke and Miami because that is where there market is.

I can see that Maryland's test scores of incoming Freshman are pretty high but they are in an area with a lot of competitive high school students so relatively speaking they aren't doing so great when compared to John's Hopkins, Georgetown, Virginia ect. They are losing a lot of top HS students to other states that have better campuses.

Everyone knows the ACC has a strong set of academic schools. Elite private institutions and public ivy's. Maryland is not one of them. They lose a lot students to better schools in the ACC who prefer a bigger name in engineering, sciences or liberal arts. Having the B1G label not only gets you a piece of the CIC it solidifies an institution reputation in the sciences.

When the 4.0 Maryland HS student is picking through engineering schools and thinking should they go to Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech....or will Maryland be okay having that B1G label goes a long way to making Maryland a safe pick as a degree from a B1G engineering school is sought after in industry. Its a degree that will sell no matter where you work in the country.

If you take an engineering degree from NC State, Clemson or Florida State and sell it on the West Coast its not going to have the cache of Purdue, Michigan State or Penn State regardless of student profile. Those schools to someone in California is like the Midwest version of the University of California system. They have probably heard of Clemson and Florida State but not for academics. The tradition of Big Ten Engineering and Science is too ingrained.

(03-09-2014 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:19 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Coog, you ought to listen to what Paco tried to tell you since he is in a position to know.

I wouldn't trust an ACC fan on this issue just like I wouldn't trust a Big 10 fan. It's clearly agenda driven and biased just like how Paco hand picked things to make the ACC look better. The Big 10 has a superior academic reputation.

I guess you could argue that the reputation is unfounded (you'd be wrong, but you could argue it). But that wouldn't change the fact that the reputation is what it is.

It's a stupid issue. The ACC has the higher academic rating. The Big 10 has the most members of AAU. These are two different criteria. The issue is which has the superior academics. The answer is the ACC has the higher ranking. If the question was who sports the most member of the AAU the answer would be the Big 10. I'm an unbiased SEC guy and I've never thought that the Big 10 had superior academics to the ACC. The Big 10 has outstanding academic credentials but second to that of the ACC, but like with all things that too is subject to future realignment.

Maryland looks a lot more like Big 10 schools than it does ACC. The ACC has more private schools and smaller publics. The Big 10 schools are better academically at what they value (a broad variety of graduate programs) and the bottom of the Big 10 is stronger than the bottom of the ACC. The ACC schools tend to have different missions.

But Maryland moved for the money. That's what they said.

It just doesn't wash to say that the conference with Duke, UNC and UVa isn't academically prestigious enough for UMd.

does that mean academics have nothing to do with realignment? No, or WVU wouldn't be stuck in the Big 12, VT would have been in the ACC 20-30 years before they were, and Oklahoma would have had a much better chance at the Big 10 or maybe the PAC.

(03-09-2014 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:19 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Coog, you ought to listen to what Paco tried to tell you since he is in a position to know.

I wouldn't trust an ACC fan on this issue just like I wouldn't trust a Big 10 fan. It's clearly agenda driven and biased just like how Paco hand picked things to make the ACC look better. The Big 10 has a superior academic reputation.

I guess you could argue that the reputation is unfounded (you'd be wrong, but you could argue it). But that wouldn't change the fact that the reputation is what it is.

It's a stupid issue. The ACC has the higher academic rating. The Big 10 has the most members of AAU. These are two different criteria. The issue is which has the superior academics. The answer is the ACC has the higher ranking. If the question was who sports the most member of the AAU the answer would be the Big 10. I'm an unbiased SEC guy and I've never thought that the Big 10 had superior academics to the ACC. The Big 10 has outstanding academic credentials but second to that of the ACC, but like with all things that too is subject to future realignment.

The problem with the ACC is that its a mixed institutional bag so it doesn't by itself act as an identifier.

Elite Privates: Notre Dame, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami Fl, Boston College, Syracuse

Public Ivies: Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech

Land Grants: Virginia Tech, NC State

Other: Pittsburgh, Florida St, Clemson, Louisville

The B1G is mostly a land grant conference with the exception of Northwestern (elite private) and Michigan (public ivy). IU might fall into the public Ivy category and they don't have an engineering school. The point taken is the B1G is a more consistent brand and Maryland's best chance to make a name for itself.

(03-09-2014 05:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 01:59 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  It truly is one of the stupidest things ever posted on the internet.

Are you new to the internet?

Really. I've seen far stupider comments.

(03-09-2014 06:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  It just doesn't wash to say that the conference with Duke, UNC and UVa isn't academically prestigious enough for UMd.

does that mean academics have nothing to do with realignment? No, or WVU wouldn't be stuck in the Big 12, VT would have been in the ACC 20-30 years before they were, and Oklahoma would have had a much better chance at the Big 10 or maybe the PAC.

The AAC is a conference that happens to have some really good academic schools in it.

The B1G is a conference that you are required to have a level of research to join and normally land grant status. Maryland is not a public Ivy so getting into the B1G is the best way to improve its standing. I don't know why this point is so difficult to understand.

Almost none of the moves in realignment were centered on money. The money increase was a nice bonus but they all had strategic benefit.

Texas A&M to SEC: Improve name recognition across the South, better football conference.

Nebraska to B1G: To get away from a Texas dominated conference, enhance academic reputaion.

Colorado to PAC: To align in a West Coast conference where they recruit students and have alumni.

West Virginia to B12: To secure membership in a power conference plain and simple.

Are all these schools going to be making more money than before? They sure are but its a byproduct more than the strategic goal. Only the Boise State to the BE move was completely driven by the potential $$$ resulting from a media deal.

(03-09-2014 06:16 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:19 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Coog, you ought to listen to what Paco tried to tell you since he is in a position to know.

I wouldn't trust an ACC fan on this issue just like I wouldn't trust a Big 10 fan. It's clearly agenda driven and biased just like how Paco hand picked things to make the ACC look better. The Big 10 has a superior academic reputation.

I guess you could argue that the reputation is unfounded (you'd be wrong, but you could argue it). But that wouldn't change the fact that the reputation is what it is.

It's a stupid issue. The ACC has the higher academic rating. The Big 10 has the most members of AAU. These are two different criteria. The issue is which has the superior academics. The answer is the ACC has the higher ranking. If the question was who sports the most member of the AAU the answer would be the Big 10. I'm an unbiased SEC guy and I've never thought that the Big 10 had superior academics to the ACC. The Big 10 has outstanding academic credentials but second to that of the ACC, but like with all things that too is subject to future realignment.

The problem with the ACC is that its a mixed institutional bag so it doesn't by itself act as an identifier.

Elite Privates: Notre Dame, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami Fl, Boston College, Syracuse

Public Ivies: Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech

Land Grants: Virginia Tech, NC State

Other: Pittsburgh, Florida St, Clemson, Louisville

The B1G is mostly a land grant conference with the exception of Northwestern (elite private) and Michigan (public ivy). IU might fall into the public Ivy category and they don't have an engineering school. The point taken is the B1G is a more consistent brand and Maryland's best chance to make a name for itself.

Clemson is also a land grant.

Pittsburgh, Florida St. and Louisville, as well as Georgia Tech, all are the clear number two public universities in states without a standalone land grant (a category shared by UCLA and Arizona St., among others).

(03-09-2014 06:30 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 06:16 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:19 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Coog, you ought to listen to what Paco tried to tell you since he is in a position to know.

I wouldn't trust an ACC fan on this issue just like I wouldn't trust a Big 10 fan. It's clearly agenda driven and biased just like how Paco hand picked things to make the ACC look better. The Big 10 has a superior academic reputation.

I guess you could argue that the reputation is unfounded (you'd be wrong, but you could argue it). But that wouldn't change the fact that the reputation is what it is.

It's a stupid issue. The ACC has the higher academic rating. The Big 10 has the most members of AAU. These are two different criteria. The issue is which has the superior academics. The answer is the ACC has the higher ranking. If the question was who sports the most member of the AAU the answer would be the Big 10. I'm an unbiased SEC guy and I've never thought that the Big 10 had superior academics to the ACC. The Big 10 has outstanding academic credentials but second to that of the ACC, but like with all things that too is subject to future realignment.

The problem with the ACC is that its a mixed institutional bag so it doesn't by itself act as an identifier.

Elite Privates: Notre Dame, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami Fl, Boston College, Syracuse

Public Ivies: Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech

Land Grants: Virginia Tech, NC State

Other: Pittsburgh, Florida St, Clemson, Louisville

The B1G is mostly a land grant conference with the exception of Northwestern (elite private) and Michigan (public ivy). IU might fall into the public Ivy category and they don't have an engineering school. The point taken is the B1G is a more consistent brand and Maryland's best chance to make a name for itself.

Clemson is also a land grant.

Pittsburgh, Florida St. and Louisville, as well as Georgia Tech, all are the clear number two public universities in states without a standalone land grant (a category shared by UCLA and Arizona St., among others).

Georgia Tech is not #2 to Georgia

Virginia is not #2 to Virginia Tech

North Carolina is not #2 to NC State

GT, UVA and UNC are public ivies.

I don't know why people fail to understand this if they discuss it, but their is no "CIC money"......the CIC is not an endowment and it provides no funding it is merely a way for the Big 10 universities to cooperate on obtaining grant money from sources external to the Big 10 or the CIC.......there is nothing to "get in on" other than an accounting system that makes sharing of outside resources easier

and as for rankings the US News is highly flawed and Clemson was one of the major universities to expose that flaw by having their admins rate other universities very low while rating themselves higher, they moved around class metrics so as to fudge the metric of number of classes under 20 students and number of classes over 50 students and one of the major factors in the US News which is acceptance % is a totally and completely meaningless statistic that gives no measure of anything

also high school class rank is meaningless because it makes the very broad assumption that all high schools across the USA are equal and it is pretty much a given that many high schools that are highly competitive will still put a large number of well prepared students into college VS schools that are not as competitive, but the "top" students from those less competitive high schools will still be weighted more highly than students from much more competitive high schools that may have had better metrics overall, but were still surpassed in class rank by students that were off the chart

I personally had a roommate that was the valedictorian of his high school from south San Antonio that had a GPA that would not have even put him in the top 10% at another school where other roommates from north San Antonio went to school.....I believe his GPA was a 97 with all regular classes while the other school my friends went to had valedictorian candidates with 100+ GPAs in all AP classes or as many AP classes as they could possibly take.....and while the one roommate was smart (he was an accounting major at one of the top accounting programs in the USA) one of my other roommates from the other school was also an accounting major and had better overall grades in and out of accounting and he was not close to the valedictorian at his high school

and while alumni giving is a factor of satisfaction with a university from those that have graduated and I also happen to personally believe that satisfaction and the giving of ones money to a university does have meaning because only a fool would give financially to a university they felt was meaningless in their life or professional career it is not exactly a true measure of academics as well

so there are a number of factors that go into the US News rankings that are easy to cheat, have no real meaning to academic standing and that are really not measures of anything meaningful especially in relation to academics

(03-09-2014 06:30 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Clemson is also a land grant.

Pittsburgh, Florida St. and Louisville, as well as Georgia Tech, all are the clear number two public universities in states without a standalone land grant (a category shared by UCLA and Arizona St., among others).

Florida is the land grant in Florida

KU is the land grant in Kentucky

Georgia is the land grant in Georgia

Penn State is the land grant in Pennsylvanian

Arizona is the land grant in Arizona

and in California Cal was the original land grant and Davis was a Cal research farm (as was Riverside), but as of now Davis is the "Ag School" in the UC System, but the UC System is set up where all of the member UC System Schools are land grant and participate in land grant funding proposals because either the system handles it or Cal does

because of the unique UC setup where all schools are funded the same and have the same mission they are much more of a "university system" than other places where schools in the same system have very different missions and levels of state funding

and actually in other places like Nebraska some of the UN System schools that are not real research universities and have no PhD programs still participate in land grant research because their professors are either a part of UN (the main campus) or they have a partial assignment to UN Extension and Research which is a part of the UN main campus, but unlike in the UC system those research dollars count towards the UN main campus

(03-09-2014 05:19 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Coog, you ought to listen to what Paco tried to tell you since he is in a position to know.

I wouldn't trust an ACC fan on this issue just like I wouldn't trust a Big 10 fan. It's clearly agenda driven and biased just like how Paco hand picked things to make the ACC look better. The Big 10 has a superior academic reputation.

I guess you could argue that the reputation is unfounded (you'd be wrong, but you could argue it). But that wouldn't change the fact that the reputation is what it is.

If you talk to an academic and say Clemson (#62 USA Today) is an elite public university but Minnesota (#69 USA Today) isn't, he'll laugh you out of the room. Noone in academia thinks USA Today is realistic. Doesn't mean schools don't cheat on it to get better #s(Clemson and Emory in recent years).

(03-09-2014 07:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:19 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Coog, you ought to listen to what Paco tried to tell you since he is in a position to know.

I wouldn't trust an ACC fan on this issue just like I wouldn't trust a Big 10 fan. It's clearly agenda driven and biased just like how Paco hand picked things to make the ACC look better. The Big 10 has a superior academic reputation.

I guess you could argue that the reputation is unfounded (you'd be wrong, but you could argue it). But that wouldn't change the fact that the reputation is what it is.

If you talk to an academic and say Clemson (#62 USA Today) is an elite public university but Minnesota (#69 USA Today) isn't, he'll laugh you out of the room. Noone in academia thinks USA Today is realistic. Doesn't mean schools don't cheat on it to get better #s(Clemson and Emory in recent years).

Exactly.

The B1G has a long, long tradition in research and the sciences. Schools in the ACC and SEC are catching up the B1G has a 50 year head start.

(03-09-2014 07:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:19 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 05:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Coog, you ought to listen to what Paco tried to tell you since he is in a position to know.

I wouldn't trust an ACC fan on this issue just like I wouldn't trust a Big 10 fan. It's clearly agenda driven and biased just like how Paco hand picked things to make the ACC look better. The Big 10 has a superior academic reputation.

I guess you could argue that the reputation is unfounded (you'd be wrong, but you could argue it). But that wouldn't change the fact that the reputation is what it is.

If you talk to an academic and say Clemson (#62 USA Today) is an elite public university but Minnesota (#69 USA Today) isn't, he'll laugh you out of the room. Noone in academia thinks USA Today is realistic. Doesn't mean schools don't cheat on it to get better #s(Clemson and Emory in recent years).

But the same is true in reverse--if you said Clemson isn't an elite public university, he'd rightly laugh at you.

The ACC and B1G both have a reputation as academically strong conferences. Which is why I don't buy the CIC as a big factor in Maryland moving. We're not talking about a school moving from the Big XII or SEC (which don't have good academic repuations) to the Big Ten or ACC. You're going from being a peer and competitor of Duke, UVA and UNC to being a peer and competitor of Ann Arbor, Northwestern and Bloomington.

Could Louisville benefit academically from the ACC tag? Absolutely--UL gets to claim now to be a peer competitor for Duke and UNC and UVA etc. in a way they never plausibly could with Georgetown, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, etc because that was never a Big East priority.

Tell me that Nebraska sees the CIC as a big factor in joining the Big Ten, and that they see associating with Ann Arbor and Madison and Columbus rather than Lubbock and Stillwater and Norman (and Austin) as raising their academic profile, that's credible to me.

*Note: doesn't mean that UMD isn't happy about the CIC. But it's not the reason that they're moving.