The ACC of college soccer may be over as you know it

Being a party school doesn't necessarily mean their academics suck though. I mean, Santa Barbara is pretty much a party school but it's still ranked 41st. And we (unfortunately) have worse in the league. Colorado is 97th on USNews Rankings and has AAU status and University of Utah is 125th. Oregon University is 115th, University of Arizona 120th, Arizona State is 139th, Washington State 125th (tied w/ Utah), Oregon State 139th.

And honestly, there aren't that many state universities that will match up with the Pac Cali ones (all in the top 25), much less those that will have: tv market, large endowment, research emphasis, etc and that will match the... culture. (For example, despite their decent US News rankings, I am almost absolutely certain that BYU would never be seriously considered nor would Baylor. The university presidents picked Colorado to get out of Baylor potentially trying to force themselves in during the last go around and picked Utah over BYU.) Even University of Texas is a step below at around the 47th ranking, one behind University of Washington (46th).

 

Being a party school doesn't necessarily mean your academics are great, either. Nor does it mean that your student athletes are succeeding.

Let's take two of the schools you want to compare. The most recent Football APR at Baylor was 956. Not great, and well behind Stanford's 977.

But Colorado's who you want to portray as an happy go lucky academic paragon, is 938.
It's also higher than CAl's 936. And exactly matches UCLA's 956 rating.

http://web1.ncaa.org/maps/aprRelease.jsp ( sort by sport - football which drives thes decisions, and by school.)

You are right, though, that BYU's 932 is nothing to write home about.

The NCAA equates a 930 rating as equivalent to 50% of the student athletes graduating, and sets that level as the lower threshold to allow post season play. The very fact that 50% is the lower threshold is a bit appalling.

No membership in AAU or any other organization of University Presidents will mask the fact that their athletes suck academically.


That's another byproduct of making millions in tv contracts.

 

Right. The converse of a statement is not necessarily true. I just meant the university presidents won't care if it's a party school so long as the overall academic ranking and research grants and endowments are 'fine' (to them, at least).

Unless the team is publicly crashing in some scandal (i.e. Penn State), the university presidents are not really concerned about this. Their criteria is research grants and endowments. That's where they'll look for the academics to consider on whether the considered expansion would meet their standards. Obviously, on the football side, they'd also consider d1 status, tv markets, etc.

Hahaha. Happy go lucky academic paragon - I have never said anything like that. I just said they wouldn't be the worst academics (by which I mean overall, not football APR) in the conference. And as I mentioned, at least they have AAU status. Some of the conference members already in don't.

BYU isn't getting in because they're a religious Mormon school that will have California university presidents freaking out and vetoing it ('academic freedom') and the Pac conference will just think it's annoying to not schedule games on Sunday. Similarly, Baylor's religiousity makes them a bad fit for the conference and the Pac conference won't care enough about Baylor's teams to make an issue of it.

What? If you mean, they don't care about athletes sucking academically, you're right.

Yes... The academics standards that university presidents want have to deal with the university itself. There's a lot of cross-research that goes on within conferences both in terms of grabbing grants and collaborating on research teams.

 

Maybe my paraphasing was a little off, but AAU status doesn't mask that their football players are just as much dolts as anywhere else and the presidents are fine with it. If the money is right, they will be fine with Baylor just as they were with Utah.

Name the last PAC football game played on Sunday.

The rest of the schools are State schools, but again, if the money is right....

Then why did you bring academics up as an issue?

And for 25 million a year they will overlook that. And academicians will collaborate with the best researchers wherever they are. Many of the best aren't at AAU schools. I'm pretty sure a researcher at Dartmouth or Swarthmore isn't ignored.

Getting grants is getting money. That's what this is all about. Tv does that too.

 

Yes.

No, no they wouldn't be. Baylor getting in is a snowball's chance unless Baylor radically changes their school.

They were considering it if the NFL lockout had lasted longer. And it's more of an issue for the basketball games.

Basically -- UT or nothing. If it's UT who has to come with a Texas school that is mediocre academically, then fine. There really isn't much others who fit into what the conference would look for.

Because in order to expand, there must be a unanimous vote by the university presidents of the schools in the conference. And the university presidents are ... aware of their school's academic profiles and of the conference's academics and would refuse to let in schools that do not match the academic profile they are looking for (research grants, big university, public profile / importance in their region). Notably, Stanford has vetoed UT when UT was being considered as an expansion team in the mid 199os.

Depending on the university in question... Doesn't matter if TCU is a good football team. Unless they're coming as the tagalong to UT, they wouldn't get in by themselves because they'd be vetoed on academics and tv market.

Athletic conferences have an impact on academic collaborations... Just remember that most d1 universities don't think of athletics as separate. Athletics are a tool for instititutional goals. Just like Oklahoma U trustees would not consider the SEC (because they feel like the academics are too bad and to be associated in the SEC would be determental to their institutional goals and prestige), the UT would only consider moving to Big10 or Pac12 if they didn't stay where they are, the California schools would sooner recreate the Pac8 than move to SEC, etc.

http://opb.msu.edu/institution/cuc/...DirectionsforHiEdjournalarticle-athletics.pdf

The whole article is pretty cool.

http://muse.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Pac-12-academics-FYI-News-for-Faculty-Staff.pdf

http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases...all-championship-game-set-to-debut-this-year/

There's a reason why the P12 and B1G, as conferences, work together more than with other conferences and it's because other than geographically, the profiles that the two conferences would look for is similar. It's, oh, the reason why UNC or UVA would be considered for the B1G over, say, Virginia Tech. Obviously, there are other considerations too, but academics and flagship profile are factors in choosing expansion targets for some conferences like the Pac12.

 

With respect, the idea that you have to be in the same conference to get research grants is horse manure. Cal Tech and John's Hopkins are collaberating with Texas on a Mars rover right now and they aren't in the same conference. They aren't all in the same division.

They collaborate because they all want a piece of a very big pie and football doesn't have any thing to do with it.

AAU membership and grants is brought up when people DON'T want to do something and ignored when they do. Utah cracked that façade during the last go round. Previous expansions also did when the went from 8 to 10.

 

They don't HAVE to be but being in the same conference HELPS A LOT. For example, the B1G has the CIC, which actively promotes academic collaboration between conference members. And in fact, conferences can raise (or lower) the intitutional profile and prestige of your university because for better or worse, the associations your university chooses to be in and your nominal conference 'peers' influences the university's reputation. Many university presidents are cognizant of such as will the university professors who vote on the president.

Yes. As I said, AAU status is extremely prestigious as there are only 62 of them and of the pairs in the conference, ONLY the California schools can claim to be in 'pairs' where BOTH universities are in AAU. For everyone else, each 'pair' has only one that is in AAU. (University of Arizona has AAU status. For that matter, the others are University of Oregon and University of Washington.) Pac Conference runs on paired local rivalry. No doubt Utah will take this opportunity to try and improve their academic profile and prestige just like USC has improved their national academic profile relatively recently. One of the links in particular describes an event that will illustrate to Utah professors how to get involved with the academic opportunities for collaboration that being in the Pac12 offers them.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/51997943-77/pac-utah-conference-university.html.csp
http://www.colorado.edu/GraduateSchool/facstaff/_docs/BCBRresearch.pdf
https://asunews.asu.edu/taxonomy/term/433/all

 

the prestige is mostly presidents slapping each other on the back and don't necessarily reflect the realities of procuring grants. You are just throwing out a red herring as far as conference affiliation is concerned.


Here is a site for you to look at

http://mup.asu.edu/research2010.pdf

It correlates research grants by school. Membership in AAU doesn't automatically mean you get the grants.

Here in Oregon, there is one AAU school, the U of O. They got 65 million in grants in 2008.

There are a couple other large schools in the state. It's PAC mate is Oregon State, not an AAU member. They got 188 million in grants. They got it on the basis largely on agricultural, marine sciences, and medical research. They do stuff people want to know things about.

Both are dwarfed by the second largest school in Oregon ( Portland State University is the largest).

That is Oregon Health Sciences University, which got 301 million in grants without benefit of AAU membership, and academically, it is the best of the four schools. They are probably also aided by good connections with the State's two Senators, who sit in finance committees.

OHSU's grants are bigger than many of the schools on the AAU roster, including Maryland, Rutgers, and Virginia, all recently in the news.
http://mup.asu.edu/research2010.pdf

 

But since they vote on expansion, AAU status and the image of prestige makes them happy so at least in the Pac12, conference expansion will be influenced in some part by the (perceived) academic strength of the university in question.

Fine. Whatever. I'll agree that funds granting isn't necessarily linked to AAU status (when have I said this btw?). I have never said that you have to be in the same conference to get research grants either. That was you running off of this:

Which says that (Pac12) university presidents like to consider academics and consider the overall academic profile of the university in question as a factor when considering expansion targets.

And maybe this?

AAU status is prestigious. University presidents like it.

Or this?

That university presidents choose athletic conferences based on institutional goals. It's not always academics for every university. Money is certinaly a viable institutional goal. But as it relates to the Pac12, academics is certainly IMO one of the considerations and an important one in considering whether to expand.

What even is your point anymore as it relates to Pac12 expansion? My point is that:
1. Universities, for better or worse, like to look good. Athletic conferences help them do that by raising their profile and affiliating with like universities. Similarly, better academics grants you more 'cachet' among other universities.
2. For better or worse, they consider each other rivals and don't like to look bad in comparison both academicaly and athletically in the Pac12. See: Colorado is boosting minority professors and out of state students to compete in diversity with West Coast schools.
3. Choosing athletics conferences are linked to institutional ambitions. For some conferences, academics are an important factor.
4. AAU status looks good to university presidents. They like it and they're happier when the university in question has it.
5. Since university presidents vote on Pac12 expansion, academics are a factor when choosing expansion targets.

And as such, my conclusion is that WPS Movement's expansion targets to the Pac12 in almost every iteration are, as he says, just jokes because there are certain universities that would just not be accepted into the Pac12 due to their academic profile even if doing so would raise the football level and presumably, correspondingly, the amount of money received from the TV deal.

Edit: For clarity, note that I'm speaking of considering a university in and of itself. As the Pac12 runs on pairs, it is possible that whoever is their 'pair' could be an influence on the expansion decision. As I've conceded, it's quite possible that there are certain universities that the presidents would want in the conference enough that they would consider taking in the paired university that might not necessarily meet the academics that the presidents would want if they were considered solely on their own merits.

 

If University Presidents don't care about athletes' academic performance, they need to get a new job. Just ask soon to be ex-Chancellor Holden Thorpe at UNC.

 

I'd be interested to know what the exact deal was with how schools will share the money. I'll guarantee Notre Dame didn't give up its tv deal.

 

I have no clue as to what "media rights" are. Can you explain what is it that the ACC presidents have presumably done?

 

As I understand it, for the next 14 years the profits from any media contract belong to the conference, not the schools, even if the school leaves the conference. The conference then divvies up the money by some as yet unspecified formula, which is why I'm interested to see what ND agreed to. Every school in the conference has presumably signed a 14 year deal that agrees to this.

It takes away any incentive to jump ship, as neither the school nor the new conference can profit. If an ACC school goes to another conference, the ACC still gets the media money, including whatever portion would normally accrue to the school from the new conference.

The B1G, PAC12, and Big12 have already done this to lock in their existing schools.The first two divide the money equally. I think the Big12 gives Texas a bigger chunk than the other schools.

( the SEC hasn't...yet)

So mega conferences will have to look elsewhere to raid schools.