Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
Author Message
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 6,655
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 466
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #41
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
What is fascinating to me is that conference change tends to both lead and lag a change in academic status.

It lags because when schools jump into a bigger conferences due to their sports, their academic reputation improves due to the affiliation and the increased visibility. Examples: Penn State, TCU, Boise

It leads because when a school changes academically, it often is not noticed for a decade or even longer. So conferences wait awhile before adding a good school whose academics have improved to the point where they are acceptable. Examples: Arizona, Arizona State, Georgia Tech, Utah

Some schools have experienced both of these effects: Cincinnati, FSU, Virginia Tech
04-05-2013 03:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
(04-05-2013 03:11 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  What is fascinating to me is that conference change tends to both lead and lag a change in academic status.

It lags because when schools jump into a bigger conferences due to their sports, their academic reputation improves due to the affiliation and the increased visibility. Examples: Penn State, TCU, Boise

It leads because when a school changes academically, it often is not noticed for a decade or even longer. So conferences wait awhile before adding a good school whose academics have improved to the point where they are acceptable. Examples: Arizona, Arizona State, Georgia Tech, Utah

Some schools have experienced both of these effects: Cincinnati, FSU, Virginia Tech

When we Georgia Tech a bad school? I missed the memo on that one.
04-05-2013 03:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AndreWhere Offline
Banned

Posts: 6,189
Joined: Dec 2009
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location: DunwoodY
Post: #43
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
(04-05-2013 03:13 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(04-05-2013 03:11 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  What is fascinating to me is that conference change tends to both lead and lag a change in academic status.

It lags because when schools jump into a bigger conferences due to their sports, their academic reputation improves due to the affiliation and the increased visibility. Examples: Penn State, TCU, Boise

It leads because when a school changes academically, it often is not noticed for a decade or even longer. So conferences wait awhile before adding a good school whose academics have improved to the point where they are acceptable. Examples: Arizona, Arizona State, Georgia Tech, Utah

Some schools have experienced both of these effects: Cincinnati, FSU, Virginia Tech

When we Georgia Tech a bad school? I missed the memo on that one.

GT was never a bad school. They were good enough for the SEC way back when it was started, and they're apparently good enough for the ACC, a conference with academic aspirations. I do think that their prestige has benefited a lot from their Computer Science program, and that's a relatively new thing. But we're talking about a respected school becoming even more respected (not about a bad school turning into a good one).

And I don't think academics are overrated, BTW. I think several of the founders of CUSA have raised their academic profile since 1995, and it's at least in part because of the national exposure that CUSA 1.0 got.
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2013 06:21 PM by AndreWhere.)
04-05-2013 06:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 251
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Texas
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
1

2
04-06-2013 07:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Melky Cabrera Offline
Bill Bradley
*

Posts: 4,716
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 100
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
(04-05-2013 03:11 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  What is fascinating to me is that conference change tends to both lead and lag a change in academic status.

It lags because when schools jump into a bigger conferences due to their sports, their academic reputation improves due to the affiliation and the increased visibility. Examples: Penn State, TCU, Boise

It leads because when a school changes academically, it often is not noticed for a decade or even longer. So conferences wait awhile before adding a good school whose academics have improved to the point where they are acceptable. Examples: Arizona, Arizona State, Georgia Tech, Utah

Some schools have experienced both of these effects: Cincinnati, FSU, Virginia Tech

Penn State was already recognized as a 2nd tier public Ivy before they went to the Big Ten. I don't think their academic reputation needed much of a boost.
04-06-2013 08:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ULdave Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 763
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 70
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
(04-05-2013 12:24 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  It may be that people arguing that academics are not important are arguing a different question: that academics shouldnt be important. But whether they should be or shouldn't be, they almost always factor in in realignment decisions, even when they don't drive the bus, and sometimes they are a really big deal in conference realignment.
It absolutely should NOT matter. Who or what determines the academic value? And why should academic value determine athletic associations?

If the University of Garbage Collectors provides excellent training and puts out the very best garbage men is its academic value less that a law school that put outs unsuccessful lawyers? The academic mission of a school should not play a role in the "value" of that schools academics. The world and nation needs diversity in academic pursuits, so why should only specific and "like" pursuits (research, law, medicine, finance) play a role in athletics?

But my real compliant is with the hypocrisy of the law schools that fill the athletic rosters with garbage men while at the same time sticking there nose up at the Garbage collecting schools.
(This post was last modified: 04-06-2013 10:36 AM by ULdave.)
04-06-2013 10:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,907
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 250
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
(04-06-2013 10:35 AM)ULdave Wrote:  It absolutely should NOT matter.
But that is a different question than the one that was asked, which is whether it does matter.

Quote: Who or what determines the academic value? And why should academic value determine athletic associations?
Why it matters is because the NCAA uses the student-athlete excuse to avoid paying occupational safety claims and a fair wage to athletes playing in the minor leagues for the top level professional Basketball and Football leagues.

College sports can't have its cake and eat it too on this. Using the dodge of being a university's team where it is convenient, it also ends up being a university's team where it is inconvenient as well, such as being influenced by academic snobbery. Evidently, the pandering to the academic snobbery is a small price to pay to avoid having to pay the athletes a living wage.
04-06-2013 11:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ULdave Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 763
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 70
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
(04-06-2013 11:07 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(04-06-2013 10:35 AM)ULdave Wrote:  It absolutely should NOT matter.
But that is a different question than the one that was asked, which is whether it does matter.

Quote: Who or what determines the academic value? And why should academic value determine athletic associations?
Why it matters is because the NCAA uses the student-athlete excuse to avoid paying occupational safety claims and a fair wage to athletes playing in the minor leagues for the top level professional Basketball and Football leagues.

College sports can't have its cake and eat it too on this. Using the dodge of being a university's team where it is convenient, it also ends up being a university's team where it is inconvenient as well, such as being influenced by academic snobbery. Evidently, the pandering to the academic snobbery is a small price to pay to avoid having to pay the athletes a living wage.
The question quite clearly states "Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?", not as you say "do they matter". The term overrated suggest that academics are already factored in the discussion.

I have absolutely no idea how your response to the second quote is in any way related to idea expressed. I'm discussing conference affiliations, not the question of player compensation, revenue distribution, or tax status. All those issues are independent of the issue of athletic conferences using academics in regards to conference membership.
(This post was last modified: 04-06-2013 12:09 PM by ULdave.)
04-06-2013 12:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,907
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 250
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
(04-05-2013 06:19 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  ... I do think that their prestige has benefited a lot from their Computer Science program, and that's a relatively new thing.
They owe the bulk of their prestige to their engineering school. That's the reason that Purdue are pushing the Georgia Tech case inside the Big Ten.

And when was there a situation of there being any question whether GTech was "good enough" academically for the SEC. Who other than Vandy would have been competitive in academic prestige with GTech at the time that they left the SEC in part because of the academic taint of being football factories?

(04-06-2013 12:09 PM)ULdave Wrote:  The question quite clearly states "Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?", not as you say "do they matter". The term overrated suggest that academics are already factored in the discussion.
Well, I guess you could choose whether to read it as (1) whether the schools are over-rating or under-rating the importance of academics, or (2) whether onlookers are over-rating or under-rating the importance of academics.

But deciding to read it as whether the schools over-rate or under-rate the importance doesn't make much sense to me. The schools themselves can't possibly either over-rate or under-rate the importance of academics to conference affiliation. Whatever importance they put on it is exactly the importance that it has.

So its whether onlookers over-rate or under-rate the importance of academics when conferences decide on who they want to invite.
(This post was last modified: 04-06-2013 01:40 PM by BruceMcF.)
04-06-2013 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,310
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 60
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #50
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
Yes, for the most part academics are overrated for conference affiliation. Taken as a whole the 10 UCs are as good as it gets. If the Pac-12 wanted the strongest academic institution out there then UC San Diego would have been added already. They've become their own tier within the UC system, behind UCLA and Berkeley but ahead of everyone else. So why isn't UCSD in the Pac? They're located in a major market and can certainly churn out the dollars for research. The answer is more like they are currently in division 2 and don't play football. UCSD is trying to join the Big West which has turned them down to this point. And speaking of which...

The Big West is made up of four Cal States, four UCs and Hawaii. If academics were the ultimate factor in membership we wouldn't have gone out of our way to bring Boise back or turned down Cal State Bakersfield and UCSD. That's not to say academics don't matter, because they do - something tells me Denver wouldn't mind being associated with Cal States and UCs - but it goes to show you that even in a one bid conference academics are overrated a tad bit.
04-06-2013 02:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,116
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 290
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
The biggest conferences want a school with the whole package: great academics and great athletics.

UCSD has great academics but it would years of winning, building and spending to get them from D2 to D1 for all their sports AND the expense of adding football from the ground up. Thats just to get you noticed by the WAC. Let alone the MWC or PAC or B12.
04-06-2013 03:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
(04-06-2013 08:53 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  
(04-05-2013 03:11 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  What is fascinating to me is that conference change tends to both lead and lag a change in academic status.

It lags because when schools jump into a bigger conferences due to their sports, their academic reputation improves due to the affiliation and the increased visibility. Examples: Penn State, TCU, Boise

It leads because when a school changes academically, it often is not noticed for a decade or even longer. So conferences wait awhile before adding a good school whose academics have improved to the point where they are acceptable. Examples: Arizona, Arizona State, Georgia Tech, Utah

Some schools have experienced both of these effects: Cincinnati, FSU, Virginia Tech

Penn State was already recognized as a 2nd tier public Ivy before they went to the Big Ten. I don't think their academic reputation needed much of a boost.

1. They may not have needed one, but they still got one (same with BC)

2. PSU sure as @#$% does now. Maybe they should jump to the ACC lol
04-06-2013 08:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Minutemen429 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 809
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 31
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
(04-06-2013 08:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(04-06-2013 08:53 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  
(04-05-2013 03:11 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  What is fascinating to me is that conference change tends to both lead and lag a change in academic status.

It lags because when schools jump into a bigger conferences due to their sports, their academic reputation improves due to the affiliation and the increased visibility. Examples: Penn State, TCU, Boise

It leads because when a school changes academically, it often is not noticed for a decade or even longer. So conferences wait awhile before adding a good school whose academics have improved to the point where they are acceptable. Examples: Arizona, Arizona State, Georgia Tech, Utah

Some schools have experienced both of these effects: Cincinnati, FSU, Virginia Tech

Penn State was already recognized as a 2nd tier public Ivy before they went to the Big Ten. I don't think their academic reputation needed much of a boost.

1. They may not have needed one, but they still got one (same with BC)

2. PSU sure as @#$% does now. Maybe they should jump to the ACC lol

If Penn State wants to move down that would be a wired twist.
04-06-2013 08:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jet915 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 830
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 13
I Root For: Creighton/Navy
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
(04-06-2013 02:32 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Yes, for the most part academics are overrated for conference affiliation. Taken as a whole the 10 UCs are as good as it gets. If the Pac-12 wanted the strongest academic institution out there then UC San Diego would have been added already. They've become their own tier within the UC system, behind UCLA and Berkeley but ahead of everyone else. So why isn't UCSD in the Pac? They're located in a major market and can certainly churn out the dollars for research. The answer is more like they are currently in division 2 and don't play football. UCSD is trying to join the Big West which has turned them down to this point. And speaking of which...

The Big West is made up of four Cal States, four UCs and Hawaii. If academics were the ultimate factor in membership we wouldn't have gone out of our way to bring Boise back or turned down Cal State Bakersfield and UCSD. That's not to say academics don't matter, because they do - something tells me Denver wouldn't mind being associated with Cal States and UCs - but it goes to show you that even in a one bid conference academics are overrated a tad bit.

Don't think UCSD was turned down. As an alum, I was disappointed in UCSD because it was put to a vote by the students and they voted down going to division I because it would cost them an extra 400 bucks in student fees or something like that.....
04-06-2013 09:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UConn-SMU Offline
often wrong, never in doubt
*

Posts: 12,961
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 373
I Root For: the AAC
Location: Fuzzy's Taco Shop
Post: #55
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
Academics are nearly meaningless. UConn has a huge advantage over Louisville in academics, but Louisville is in the ACC because they put more butts in the seats (despite having a smaller market).

Academics is basically just a tie-breaker ... if two programs are identical, the school with the better academics might get the call. But if one school has a slightly larger stadium and slightly higher attendance, the academics of the two schools are irrelevant. It's all $$$.
04-06-2013 09:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,310
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 60
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #56
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
(04-06-2013 09:20 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  Don't think UCSD was turned down. As an alum, I was disappointed in UCSD because it was put to a vote by the students and they voted down going to division I because it would cost them an extra 400 bucks in student fees or something like that.....

It was more of an informal rejection.

"UCSD looked into the possibility of joining the Division I Big West Conference last month. The Big West, however, said thanks but no thanks to UCSD and Cal State Bakersfield, opting to bring only the University of Hawaii into its ranks."

http://www.ucsdguardian.org/news-and-fea...WDqiTfvukw


I wouldn't mind bringing them into the conference. Don't like the BW at 9 teams. If we were to expand I'd like UCSD and Denver.
04-06-2013 10:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
(04-06-2013 08:23 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  
(04-06-2013 08:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(04-06-2013 08:53 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  
(04-05-2013 03:11 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  What is fascinating to me is that conference change tends to both lead and lag a change in academic status.

It lags because when schools jump into a bigger conferences due to their sports, their academic reputation improves due to the affiliation and the increased visibility. Examples: Penn State, TCU, Boise

It leads because when a school changes academically, it often is not noticed for a decade or even longer. So conferences wait awhile before adding a good school whose academics have improved to the point where they are acceptable. Examples: Arizona, Arizona State, Georgia Tech, Utah

Some schools have experienced both of these effects: Cincinnati, FSU, Virginia Tech

Penn State was already recognized as a 2nd tier public Ivy before they went to the Big Ten. I don't think their academic reputation needed much of a boost.

1. They may not have needed one, but they still got one (same with BC)

2. PSU sure as @#$% does now. Maybe they should jump to the ACC lol

If Penn State wants to move down that would be a wired twist.

They won't, but there was some push to do it. I'm not sure which would be a better fit, the MASSIVE B1G football-first research schools, or the eastern ACC traditional rivals, but I've heard arguments both ways. I know a lot of Penn State fans want Syracuse and Pitt as those game would attract mroe regional interest than teams like Iowa and Northwestern. There was even an article in Pennlive.com about it (Pennlive is the Patrit News' site, and the Patriot News is the big newspaper in Harrisburg). I am pretty sure that PSU seriously considered jumping (probs with a ND-like deal) and that caused the B1G to add UMD and RU (according to a AD from Wisconsin). Aside from cultural differences, some feel that PSU is treated like the red-headed step child in the B1G, but they would be treated like a God in the ACC. That's probs true, but the B1G money is too much to turn down, and frankly, I'm not convinced that PSU is eastern anymore. When I was there, it felt like I was on a farm in the Midwest (there are literally cows on campus), and the school is structured like a stereotypical B1G school.

In summary, it has been considerd, and it will likely be considered in the future, but I would be VERY suprised if they made the jump.
04-06-2013 11:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jericho Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 133
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
The Big 10 still has academic standards. The SEC never really did. The ACC generally did, but seemed to bend those rules for Louisville (whether that was a one time issue remains to be seen). But West Virginia knows the academic problems. The Big 10 and ACC said no thanks, which limited their options. And the SEC never seemed all that interested either, but likely for different reasons.
04-07-2013 09:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BAMANBLAZERFAN Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,800
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 54
I Root For: UAB & Bama
Location: Cropwell, AL

BlazerTalk Award
Post: #59
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
(04-03-2013 09:38 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  No. There is a perception that lower academic standards equates to better athletes. That is why Harvard will never compete with Alabama. Im not saying either one is right or wrong. just that it is not unreasonable for schools to say they want to be associated with schools that have similar standards.

There are some gray areas. You have to look beyond a single list or publication.

There are other reasons why Ivy League schools can't compete with SEC (and other such conferences).
One is that they don't give athletic scholarships and another is that they don't have spring practice. The Ivys depend upon their reputation to attract premium athletes who are able to get academic scholarships to attend their schools, and they only play FB in FB season.
04-08-2013 08:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AndreWhere Offline
Banned

Posts: 6,189
Joined: Dec 2009
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location: DunwoodY
Post: #60
RE: Are academics overrated for conference affiliation?
(04-06-2013 12:58 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(04-05-2013 06:19 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  ... I do think that their prestige has benefited a lot from their Computer Science program, and that's a relatively new thing.
They owe the bulk of their prestige to their engineering school. That's the reason that Purdue are pushing the Georgia Tech case inside the Big Ten.

And when was there a situation of there being any question whether GTech was "good enough" academically for the SEC. Who other than Vandy would have been competitive in academic prestige with GTech at the time that they left the SEC in part because of the academic taint of being football factories?
In answer to your last two questions :

Plenty of schools didn't have the academic prestige (or, at least, the size) to get into the SEC back then. FSU, ECU, and USM were all perceived as beneath the SEC... FSU was a women's college from about 1890 - 1955. GT was not.

Also, Tulane was in the SEC back then. You may look at the SEC as a bunch of football factories, but I still maintain that being able to get into the SEC back in the 1950s says something about a school's academics.

I'm not an SEC fan, but give them some credit.
04-09-2013 12:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2020 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, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.