(05-22-2012 08:56 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 08:19 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 12:19 AM)Franklin27 Wrote:  What is even more scary, is that, some of the ACC teams, who people are predicting will get offers in one of the big 4 conferences, whose names are getting thrown out today may not land in a major conference for two more years, may not land anywhere if the magic nuber becomes less than 64, or may become not relavent if they stay in their conference if the major football powers in the ACC leave for one of the major 4 conferences.
As a Kansas fan, I realize that having a top 5, arguably top 3, hoops program means you may land as number 15 or 16 in a major conference, if you are lucky. I believe we were begging the ACC to take us a year ago when the ACC had the perception that they would be the fourth major conference. Also, if your school grossed around the top 25 teams in overall revenue over the last 5 years because of hoops, it does not matter. Even having a team that won a BCS bowl in football in the last five years, would not make conferences jump at the chance to sweep you up from a torn apart Big 12. Sadly, even a school with aau status will not sway a conference to invite you. Football is the perception, and, I'm more of a basketball fan btw, it does not matter how many national championships your school can boast in b-ball, some schools will be on the outside looking in if all hell breaks lose.

Kansas brings in an average of 40,000 plus fans per football game, and we sell out Allen Field house every game. Half of ACC brings in less in Football than we do at the moment, I believe, and less or equal to in basketball. We have been, for the last 2 years, the worst football team in the Big 12. Yet, we would not be in the ACC. Those who are will be on the outside looking in if FSU, Clemson, ect bolt. The remaining schools can hold up as many trophies as they like, but the Big 10 won't come calling if they don't have an average of 60,000 fans at every football game.

I've gone through this for the last several years, and I feared for my school and its excellent basket ball tradition. I've been glued to the message boards today because I'm curious how fans of the ACC are taking all this. After reading many threads, my advice is don't knock the Big 12, rumor has it they need to get to 14, Perception is everything, and the perception of the ACC right now is not good. I know many of you do not, but to those who think that your hoops program will get you through this, if necessary, are stupid individuals who have no idea what is going on around you. Also, thumbing your nose at the Big 12 academics is stupid. Yes, we have our weak schools, but we have strong ones as well (as does the SEC). The truth is, major research grants and the like go to major BCS colleges and, if you are not one, those opportunities will go away. Also, if you think that being in an a great basketball conference would be cool with you, think again. Sure, the Roy Williams and the Coach Kays of the world will stay, regardless of the circumstances, but the schools in the major conferences will out bid you when it becomes time to find your next great coach and your recruiting grounds will, eventually, dry up without the cash to hire the guy who can bring you the players. Money drives college hoops, and if your college is making alot less than those in the Big 4, due to your conference, you will be out of luck.

I'm not trying to be cruel. Just, get ready for fans from teams, who gross less money than yours does, to tell you that they don't want to share their revenue with you (I'm talking about the schools at the tit of the Big 10). Also, get ready for the team that has been your whipping boy for years, who can't get out of your schools shadow, to scream like little junior high girls about how much better they are than you when they get picked to go to some conference over you. (yes, I'm speaking of the Slavers, who haven't won anything, from Missouri). Also, it may get to a point where people all over the internet and even close friends, who are aligned with other schools who have moved on to other conferences, tell you that your school would be better off not having a football team. Your academics don't matter (see AAU status at KU) This is how it will go, and I am speaking as a grad from a school who won the Orange Bowl in 2008 and won the NCAA B-ball national championship that year as well. While it is nice to be watching things unfold and seeing a benefit for my school; I'm haunted by the crap i've had to deal with these last two years. Neinas has played this perfectly, so far. Hopefully, it means that the Kansas Jayhawks will remain in a powerful conference. I feel bad about what is to come for the ACC schools that are not about to get picked up by someone, if it comes to that. However, if your school doesn't have a solid invite, I would worry. Start worrying, now. Seriously, don't tell yourself it will be ok because at some point, in all this stupid mess, for some schools it won't work out well. Perception is the key here, once the national media labels you as a school on the outside looking in, your done......regardless of the facts.

That may be one of the dumbest statements ever written. Major Research grants do not care about your athletics conference.

Agree, last I heard U. of Chicago, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Johns Hopkins et al, are doing quite well in the research grant department.

To add and use the words of Mike Tranghese.....

Carnegie Mellon - 'not pleased'
UC-San Francisco - 'gathering facts'

Sorry, I did not realize I would have to back up my research grant statement on a sports message board. If a university has more money they can expand certain departments, match funds that the state has offered to research x or y, they can afford to expand their facilities, higher better more expensive faculty, and so on. Thus, making them more appealing for major grants. Sorry, if my stupidity offended your higher intellect; I am sorry. If a University is trying to compete in college sports and at the same time be a major player in research, and , said university carries a 2 million dollar debt, what happens to the things I listed above? What happens to, I don't know, the other school in their state who makes more money due to conference affiliation and is updating facilities, faculty ect. and competing for the same research grants? I should have been more clear that I was not referring to the schools in the "upper echelon" of academia. Lets be honest, Ivy league schools survive because of their dedication to research and education. Yes, that is their meal ticket. However, the teams in division one, more often than not, need a healthy conference, that pays them competitive money, and helps them grow their infrastructure to compete for federal grants.

As to me being a KU fan and to tell anyone about what is coming, or here, because you "live on the east coast" and you have more options. Think of it this way, when the Big 12 was about to be torn apart KU was surrounded by every major conference geographically. Lawrence, culturally and academically, fits in with the PAC and the Big 10 . If the SEC wanted a Basketball powerhouse, Kansas is three hours away from Arkansas. They could have asked, and, despite, our historic issues with the south, we probably would have gone to the SEC. The ACC, reportedly, wanted UT to bring OK, KU, and MU with them if they were to join the ACC. That could have been a rumor. Honestly, a year ago, I would have sighed long and hard if it would have happened. Things are different now. The non-football schools in the ACC have two conferences who may take them. Maybe the SEC, aside from VT, wants a b-ball power house, maybe the Big 10 is going to rush to take a school who has a smaller football stadium then any other team in their conference. I don't know, I'm not an expert. Apparently, I don't know anything, at least according to the two posts ahead of mine. I believe I was trying to convey that this sucks for the ACC schools, even if, this turns out to be blogger rumor and the ACC stays in tact. However, if you are good because you live on the East Coast, than that is cool. I'm sure when your school reaches out to another conference they will say, "of course we will take you, even though you add nothing or make us lose money from our TV contracts. Your from the East Fing Coast." Have fun.

(05-24-2012 10:43 PM)Franklin27 Wrote:  Sorry, I did not realize I would have to back up my research grant statement on a sports message board. If a university has more money they can expand certain departments, match funds that the state has offered to research x or y, they can afford to expand their facilities, higher better more expensive faculty, and so on. Thus, making them more appealing for major grants. Sorry, if my stupidity offended your higher intellect; I am sorry. If a University is trying to compete in college sports and at the same time be a major player in research, and , said university carries a 2 million dollar debt, what happens to the things I listed above? What happens to, I don't know, the other school in their state who makes more money due to conference affiliation and is updating facilities, faculty ect. and competing for the same research grants? I should have been more clear that I was not referring to the schools in the "upper echelon" of academia. Lets be honest, Ivy league schools survive because of their dedication to research and education. Yes, that is their meal ticket. However, the teams in division one, more often than not, need a healthy conference, that pays them competitive money, and helps them grow their infrastructure to compete for federal grants.

As to me being a KU fan and to tell anyone about what is coming, or here, because you "live on the east coast" and you have more options. Think of it this way, when the Big 12 was about to be torn apart KU was surrounded by every major conference geographically. Lawrence, culturally and academically, fits in with the PAC and the Big 10 . If the SEC wanted a Basketball powerhouse, Kansas is three hours away from Arkansas. They could have asked, and, despite, our historic issues with the south, we probably would have gone to the SEC. The ACC, reportedly, wanted UT to bring OK, KU, and MU with them if they were to join the ACC. That could have been a rumor. Honestly, a year ago, I would have sighed long and hard if it would have happened. Things are different now. The non-football schools in the ACC have two conferences who may take them. Maybe the SEC, aside from VT, wants a b-ball power house, maybe the Big 10 is going to rush to take a school who has a smaller football stadium then any other team in their conference. I don't know, I'm not an expert. Apparently, I don't know anything, at least according to the two posts ahead of mine. I believe I was trying to convey that this sucks for the ACC schools, even if, this turns out to be blogger rumor and the ACC stays in tact. However, if you are good because you live on the East Coast, than that is cool. I'm sure when your school reaches out to another conference they will say, "of course we will take you, even though you add nothing or make us lose money from our TV contracts. Your from the East Fing Coast." Have fun.

Relax, nobody was slamming you personally, just pointingout that the research issue is NOT related to sports. Johns Hopkins is nowhere close to being known for its football team, but in 2008 (latest year available in a quick search), they did more research by $$ than anyone else, in excess or $1.6 Billion.

Also, no research funds are shifted to sports directly, so there is no direct correlation between the research side of a university and the athletics.

Your overall premise that any ACC team left out in a power conference shift to 4X16 is understood by all and pretty much agreed to in full.

As to attendance, that is an indicator but please realize that on the east coast, like the west coast, people have many choices for their entertainment dollar. Also, cities like NYC and Washington are filled with graduates from many universities nationwide and are not as quick to adopt another school simply because it is close by. This does not mean that the universities lose fans, just that they may not be able to schedule thier life around football season. TV numbers show that the ACC is watched, number 2 overall.

(05-25-2012 09:08 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 10:43 PM)Franklin27 Wrote:  Sorry, I did not realize I would have to back up my research grant statement on a sports message board. I

Relax, nobody was slamming you personally, just pointingout that the research issue is NOT related to sports. Johns Hopkins is nowhere close to being known for its football team, but in 2008 (latest year available in a quick search), they did more research by $$ than anyone else, in excess or $1.6 Billion.

Also, no research funds are shifted to sports directly, so there is no direct correlation between the research side of a university and the athletics.

Your overall premise that any ACC team left out in a power conference shift to 4X16 is understood by all and pretty much agreed to in full.

As to attendance, that is an indicator but please realize that on the east coast, like the west coast, people have many choices for their entertainment dollar. Also, cities like NYC and Washington are filled with graduates from many universities nationwide and are not as quick to adopt another school simply because it is close by. This does not mean that the universities lose fans, just that they may not be able to schedule thier life around football season. TV numbers show that the ACC is watched, number 2 overall.

Research has zero, less than nothing, to do with sports. It has everything to do with having a med school though for most schools, because by far the most money comes through NIH. But most people on the internet that tout things like CIC and research grants haven't the foggiest clue about how research is conducted, awarded and managed. Just like they don't have a clue about how conferences and universities are run.

Research Expenditures at US Universities FY2010 (Latest Numbers released by the US Government)
1. Johns Hopkins
2. Michigan
3. Wisconsin
4. Washington
5. Duke
6. UC-San Diego
7. UCLA
8. UC-San Francisco
9. Stanford
10. Penn
11. Pitt
12. Columbia
13. Minnesota
14. Penn State
15. UNC-Chapel Hill
16. Ohio State
17. Cornell
18. Washington University St. Louis
19. UC-Berkeley
20. Texas A&M
21. Florida
22. UC-Davis
23. MIT
24. Yale
25. Georgia Tech
source: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/n...f12313.pdf

And Sorry, outside of UT, the B12 is very weak academically. Not that academics factor into athletic department decisions, but they do factor into university decisions, not that athletic conferences do much for academics.

School #US News rank, AAU, endowment in $billions
Baylor #75, no, $1.0
Iowa St #97, AAU, $0.6
Kansas #101, AAU, $1.3
KSU #143, no, $0.3
OU #101, no, $1.2
OSU #132, no, $0.4
Texas #45, AAU, $17.1 (entire UT system)
TCU #97, no, $1.2
TTech #160; no, $0.9
WVU #164, no, $0.4

That is pretty darn weak.

I think the only correlation - if you want to call it that - between academics & athletics is if a school wants to maintain high standards for undergrad admissions then maybe they don't want to play a bunch of teams who'll let in anybody who can spell "ball".

(05-25-2012 03:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I think the only correlation - if you want to call it that - between academics & athletics is if a school wants to maintain high standards for undergrad admissions then maybe they don't want to play a bunch of teams who'll let in anybody who can spell "ball".

... or whose players use crayons to sign their letters of intent. (sarcasm off)

(05-25-2012 03:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I think the only correlation - if you want to call it that - between academics & athletics is if a school wants to maintain high standards for undergrad admissions then maybe they don't want to play a bunch of teams who'll let in anybody who can spell "ball".

Virtually all sports programs have the same minimum academic standards and can recruit the same type of player (i.e. one that wouldn't be accepted if they were a non-playing student athlete).

Academic standards for the general student body generally has little to no baring on student-athlete academic standing...because as long as they meet the minimum NCAA guidelines and is a top recruit, 95% of all Div I-A programs in hoops and football would sign that recruit to a scholarship.

Atlanta Journal had a feature report a few years ago on the "difference" between the general student body HS SAT scores and that of student-athletes...and even at hard-to-get in school like Univ of FL...the football players at UF's SAT scores were 346 pts LOWER than the average of other incoming freshmen...as in NO WAY would those football players be accepted into school if they did NOT play football.

Found the article:
Many athletes lag far behind on SAT scores
http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports...ab_newstab

NOTE: A "few" schools do end up with a higher minimum score above that of the NCAA, but even those schools allow for their coaches to petition "exceptions" so that certain top athletes can be enrolled.

(05-26-2012 07:19 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-25-2012 03:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I think the only correlation - if you want to call it that - between academics & athletics is if a school wants to maintain high standards for undergrad admissions then maybe they don't want to play a bunch of teams who'll let in anybody who can spell "ball".

Virtually all sports programs have the same minimum academic standards and can recruit the same type of player (i.e. one that wouldn't be accepted if they were a non-playing student athlete).

Academic standards for the general student body generally has little to no baring on student-athlete academic standing...because as long as they meet the minimum NCAA guidelines and is a top recruit, 95% of all Div I-A programs in hoops and football would sign that recruit to a scholarship.

Atlanta Journal had a feature report a few years ago on the "difference" between the general student body HS SAT scores and that of student-athletes...and even at hard-to-get in school like Univ of FL...the football players at UF's SAT scores were 346 pts LOWER than the average of other incoming freshmen...as in NO WAY would those football players be accepted into school if they did NOT play football.

Found the article:
Many athletes lag far behind on SAT scores
http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports...ab_newstab

NOTE: A "few" schools do end up with a higher minimum score above that of the NCAA, but even those schools allow for their coaches to petition "exceptions" so that certain top athletes can be enrolled.

Where there is a difference is that the major conferences don't let you enroll recruits in your school in hopes of them qualifying later. Boise makes a living by doing this.