Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Oklahoma President Increasing Research To Improve AAU Metrics
Author Message
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,296
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Oklahoma President Increasing Research To Improve AAU Metrics
(08-19-2018 12:50 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-17-2018 04:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-17-2018 03:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  This is a leaked document from the AAU to Nebraska that shows who was in line.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/...eview.html


Oklahoma isn’t even in the first 30 out.

It was interesting to see a page of potential schools ahead of Oklahoma who was 1/3 of a page ahead of Nebraska.
The Huskers kept their status just long enough to be accepted by the B1G. Of course the B1G knew they were losing AAU status, but money and national brands talk. In summation, the B1G sold out their high and mighty principles.05-stirthepot

If just one more Big 10 school had voted for Nebraska, they would have stayed in. They got kicked out by 1 vote. Michigan and Wisconsin were among the leaders in expelling them. All the Big 12 members voted to keep them in.
08-19-2018 08:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,296
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Oklahoma President Increasing Research To Improve AAU Metrics
(08-19-2018 03:10 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(08-19-2018 02:34 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The school with long coat tails (in addition to UT) was A&M.

A&M, not OU, had the demographic and academic cache required to make the OKSU pill easier to swallow.

UT was in on its own merits and carried TTU.

A&M was in on its own merits and could have carried OKSU.

OU was in on its own, but couldn’t carry a parter as evidenced by the PAC’s rejection of the OU/OSU pairing.

Kansas and Utah were likewise in on their own merit.

Once A&M was out, which was expected all along, so was OKSU.

From what I remember back then and based on what was reported here in Big XII country in May/June 2010 is that the Big XII South minus Baylor was going to the Pac-10 and it’s the reason why Colorado got invited first. They didn’t want Baylor to tag along under any circumstances like they did when the Big Eight expanded to 12 in the mid 90s. Baylor started making inquiries to the MWC and Kansas to the Big East. I remember reading Kenneth Starr’s full page letter in The Dallas Morning News to Baylor grads and fans about upcoming challenges for Baylor athletics. It’s when Texas A&M told Scott no when things started getting complicated. He had the green light to go to Lawrence, Kansas to issue an invite to KU but everything fell apart when Texas decided to stay in the Big XII. Utah was in the conversation as well and was a back up plan and at the end it worked on Utah’s favor.

Let’s not forget A&M and Missouri decided to stay in the Big XII in 2010 which had only lost Colorado and Nebraska at that point. It was a year later when A&M and Missouri decided to leave for the SEC (Baylor sued A&M for leaving) and the ACC raided the Big East which in turn put another realignment domino from the Big Ten to the Sun Belt. It was during that time when Oklahoma and Oklahoma State asked the newly formed Pac-12 for admission and they were bluntly told “call us when you get Texas on board”. This is the argument I’ve had with Texas Tech fans all these years. They keep saying “Larry Scott flew to Lubbock to issue an invitation and that invitation is still in effect if we want to go by ourselves”. I keep telling them “sure, that was contingent on Texas going West” but they keep believing they don’t need Texas if they want to go to the Pac-12. When I point out football blue blood Oklahoma being rejected in 2011, they just say because they’re not in Texas and Tech is.

We debunked all of Jr's revisionist history on another thread, but he keeps repeating it. You are right.
08-19-2018 08:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 6,958
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 105
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Oklahoma President Increasing Research To Improve AAU Metrics
(08-19-2018 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-19-2018 12:50 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(08-17-2018 04:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-17-2018 03:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  This is a leaked document from the AAU to Nebraska that shows who was in line.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/...eview.html


Oklahoma isn’t even in the first 30 out.

It was interesting to see a page of potential schools ahead of Oklahoma who was 1/3 of a page ahead of Nebraska.
The Huskers kept their status just long enough to be accepted by the B1G. Of course the B1G knew they were losing AAU status, but money and national brands talk. In summation, the B1G sold out their high and mighty principles.05-stirthepot

If just one more Big 10 school had voted for Nebraska, they would have stayed in. They got kicked out by 1 vote. Michigan and Wisconsin were among the leaders in expelling them. All the Big 12 members voted to keep them in.

Have to believe that since UT wrote the letter to Perlman to begin the AAU expulsion process, that Nebraska knew it needed more potential allies outside the B12, as UT didn’t go to bat for it. The cutting off the the Nebraska med school from NU certainly did not help.
08-19-2018 10:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Oklahoma President Increasing Research To Improve AAU Metrics
(08-19-2018 08:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-19-2018 03:10 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(08-19-2018 02:34 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The school with long coat tails (in addition to UT) was A&M.

A&M, not OU, had the demographic and academic cache required to make the OKSU pill easier to swallow.

UT was in on its own merits and carried TTU.

A&M was in on its own merits and could have carried OKSU.

OU was in on its own, but couldn’t carry a parter as evidenced by the PAC’s rejection of the OU/OSU pairing.

Kansas and Utah were likewise in on their own merit.

Once A&M was out, which was expected all along, so was OKSU.

From what I remember back then and based on what was reported here in Big XII country in May/June 2010 is that the Big XII South minus Baylor was going to the Pac-10 and it’s the reason why Colorado got invited first. They didn’t want Baylor to tag along under any circumstances like they did when the Big Eight expanded to 12 in the mid 90s. Baylor started making inquiries to the MWC and Kansas to the Big East. I remember reading Kenneth Starr’s full page letter in The Dallas Morning News to Baylor grads and fans about upcoming challenges for Baylor athletics. It’s when Texas A&M told Scott no when things started getting complicated. He had the green light to go to Lawrence, Kansas to issue an invite to KU but everything fell apart when Texas decided to stay in the Big XII. Utah was in the conversation as well and was a back up plan and at the end it worked on Utah’s favor.

Let’s not forget A&M and Missouri decided to stay in the Big XII in 2010 which had only lost Colorado and Nebraska at that point. It was a year later when A&M and Missouri decided to leave for the SEC (Baylor sued A&M for leaving) and the ACC raided the Big East which in turn put another realignment domino from the Big Ten to the Sun Belt. It was during that time when Oklahoma and Oklahoma State asked the newly formed Pac-12 for admission and they were bluntly told “call us when you get Texas on board”. This is the argument I’ve had with Texas Tech fans all these years. They keep saying “Larry Scott flew to Lubbock to issue an invitation and that invitation is still in effect if we want to go by ourselves”. I keep telling them “sure, that was contingent on Texas going West” but they keep believing they don’t need Texas if they want to go to the Pac-12. When I point out football blue blood Oklahoma being rejected in 2011, they just say because they’re not in Texas and Tech is.

We debunked all of Jr's revisionist history on another thread, but he keeps repeating it. You are right.

I don't recall ever giving a history of the Big 12 and PAC Bullet, so I'd say you are the one being a revisionist here. The only history of realignment I've run down were the ones the SEC was involved with. And who is this royal we to which you refer?

I suppose you could be referring to jrj81405, if so you then you are missing a letter and 5 numbers which might help to make a distinction.04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 08-19-2018 10:54 PM by JRsec.)
08-19-2018 10:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,689
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Oklahoma President Increasing Research To Improve AAU Metrics
(08-19-2018 08:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-19-2018 03:10 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(08-19-2018 02:34 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  The school with long coat tails (in addition to UT) was A&M.

A&M, not OU, had the demographic and academic cache required to make the OKSU pill easier to swallow.

UT was in on its own merits and carried TTU.

A&M was in on its own merits and could have carried OKSU.

OU was in on its own, but couldn’t carry a parter as evidenced by the PAC’s rejection of the OU/OSU pairing.

Kansas and Utah were likewise in on their own merit.

Once A&M was out, which was expected all along, so was OKSU.

From what I remember back then and based on what was reported here in Big XII country in May/June 2010 is that the Big XII South minus Baylor was going to the Pac-10 and it’s the reason why Colorado got invited first. They didn’t want Baylor to tag along under any circumstances like they did when the Big Eight expanded to 12 in the mid 90s. Baylor started making inquiries to the MWC and Kansas to the Big East. I remember reading Kenneth Starr’s full page letter in The Dallas Morning News to Baylor grads and fans about upcoming challenges for Baylor athletics. It’s when Texas A&M told Scott no when things started getting complicated. He had the green light to go to Lawrence, Kansas to issue an invite to KU but everything fell apart when Texas decided to stay in the Big XII. Utah was in the conversation as well and was a back up plan and at the end it worked on Utah’s favor.

Let’s not forget A&M and Missouri decided to stay in the Big XII in 2010 which had only lost Colorado and Nebraska at that point. It was a year later when A&M and Missouri decided to leave for the SEC (Baylor sued A&M for leaving) and the ACC raided the Big East which in turn put another realignment domino from the Big Ten to the Sun Belt. It was during that time when Oklahoma and Oklahoma State asked the newly formed Pac-12 for admission and they were bluntly told “call us when you get Texas on board”. This is the argument I’ve had with Texas Tech fans all these years. They keep saying “Larry Scott flew to Lubbock to issue an invitation and that invitation is still in effect if we want to go by ourselves”. I keep telling them “sure, that was contingent on Texas going West” but they keep believing they don’t need Texas if they want to go to the Pac-12. When I point out football blue blood Oklahoma being rejected in 2011, they just say because they’re not in Texas and Tech is.

We debunked all of Jr's revisionist history on another thread, but he keeps repeating it. You are right.

Bullet believes that Texas and their mouthpieces have never been in any way duplicitous or ever shaded the truth or withheld information to advance their interests. Whatever UT says is the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

And the continued membership of Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, and A&M in the BigXII is all the evidence you need of Bevo’s unasailable virtue.
(This post was last modified: 08-19-2018 10:55 PM by jrj84105.)
08-19-2018 10:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Statefan Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,511
Joined: May 2018
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Oklahoma President Increasing Research To Improve AAU Metrics
If you go to the NSF website https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?...ce&ds=herd you will see the closest rough numbers to what AAU uses TODAY. Their metrics evolved over 2009-10-11-12 in part due to the Nebraska problem. AAU does not go by all Research and Development, but this gives you one rough ranking. They are closer to the Government money rankings, but to get what AAU actually uses of that you have to know how much Agriculture programs have been discounted. Put simply if you are not competing against the entire pool for the money, that money is discounted. The land grants are disadvantaged that way, but the disadvantage can be cured with Medical and Vet School - moreso the Med School. Then you have take those numbers and look at them against the Graduate school numbers to get a "punching weight" so to speak. Graduate programs outside the hard sciences don't really count for squat.

School - Current Government Rank 16 - 2007 Government Rank - Spread over time - Current All Dollars Research (Includes Private Money) -

UAB - 36 -32 - a drop of 4 spots over a decade -42 Major Research Hospital
GT - 55 - 48 - a drop of 7 spots over a decade -25 Huge Major Private Research Investment
Miami - 56 - 57 - a rise of 1 over a decade -62 Major Research Hospital
NCSU - 58 - 74 - a rise of 16 over a decade -47 Major Research Vet Center
ASU - 61 - 72 - a rise of 11 over a decade -44 No Hospital
VT - 66-82 - a rise of 16 over a decade -43 Built A Hospital With Private Entity Last Decade
Kansas - 79 - 69 - a drop of 10 over a decade -79 Has Medical Center, but is sliding down the list
Cincy - 92 - 61 - a drop of 31 over a decade -52 Has Medical Center, Government Money Is Sliding - Private Very Strong
Mizzou - 93- 78 - a drop of 15 over a decade -89 Has Medical and Vet School and still a huge drop
Neb - 104 - 111 - a drop of 7 over a decade -80 You see the AAU's problem with Nebraska when you see these numbers together
Clemson - 140 - 107 - a rise of 33 over a decade -109 Perhaps the most impressive rise of a university over the last decade in the US
Syracuse - 197 - 176 - a rise of 21 over a decade -158 Has not been hard science research university in decades.


These are the closest discernable metrics you will see. To handicapped on a per professor per grad student basis, you would need to dig into actual enrollments. That's for someone's master's thesis.

As far as raw grad students go you get:

@ 12,000 ASU
@11,000 GT/Cincy
@9,400 NCSU
@9,000 Kansas
@7,500 UAB
@7,200 Syracuse/VT
@7,000 Mizzou
@6,000 Miami
@5,000 Nebraska/Clemson


But as you can see when you have the hard science numbers above, Syracuse for example is minting a lot of graduate students in the social sciences, otherwise their federal dollar flow would be much higher.


Of course this does not go into the other factors such as faculty awards. etc., etc.

The data in the Nebraska response is very, very old.
(This post was last modified: 08-20-2018 11:55 AM by Statefan.)
08-20-2018 11:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.