If the Pac-12 expanded thru G5 and you had to choose...

[Deleted member 807]

The Raiders being good is a good thing.

 

[Highlander]

My biggest question about LV is how they support both a pro team and a G5 team, let alone a pro team and a P5 team.

I'm expecting that the Raiders are betting on their crowds being less home cooking and more bowl like with lots of visiting fans taking advantage of the location.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

My biggest question about LV is how they support both a pro team and a G5 team, let alone a pro team and a P5 team.

I'm expecting that the Raiders are betting on their crowds being less home cooking and more bowl like with lots of visiting fans taking advantage of the location.

They're hoping. Keep in mind they left the Bay Area where a 150k salary can't buy you a house.

 

[bt8257]

They're hoping. Keep in mind they left the Bay Area where a 150k salary can't buy you a house.

Who the hell would want to buy a house in Oakland, of all places?

 

[SINKRATZ]

Why does academics really matter in the grand scheme of conference realignment? We all know it's really about athletic revenue, so when do we admit that limiting ourselves to Tier 1 research institutions and AAU members makes no sense?

 

[onealcd]

Why does academics really matter in the grand scheme of conference realignment? We all know it's really about athletic revenue, so when do we admit that limiting ourselves to Tier 1 research institutions and AAU members makes no sense?

Wouldn't you say that all indications show the presidents, who are making these decisions, take that into consideration?

 

[SINKRATZ]

Wouldn't you say that all indications show the presidents, who are making these decisions, take that into consideration?

Maybe, but that's not reason. Other than moral high ground, why is it important? When does everyone realize academics aren't an important factor in conference realignment?

 

[onealcd]

Maybe, but that's not reason. Other than moral high ground, why is it important? When does everyone realize academics aren't an important factor in conference realignment?

I'm a little confused as to what you are saying. Up until this point, academics have absolutely been a big factor in all of the conference realignment moves outside of maybe the big 12 additions (the PAC turned down OsU because of this). The presidents of these universities want to be affiliated with good schools because they are not nearly as worried about the athletic department. Until that changes people are going to use that as a big factor on the resume. I agree it doesn't mean ****, but the decision makers see it differently.

 

[SINKRATZ]

I'm a little confused as to what you are saying. Up until this point, academics have absolutely been a big factor in all of the conference realignment moves outside of maybe the big 12 additions (the PAC turned down OsU because of this). The presidents of these universities want to be affiliated with good schools because they are not nearly as worried about the athletic department. Until that changes people are going to use that as a big factor on the resume. I agree it doesn't mean ****, but the decision makers see it differently.

What I'm saying is that we limit the schools we would consider in the Pac for no good reason if we adhere to some strict notion of academic superiority when conference affiliation is almost entirely about athletics. How would CU's brand, or the Pac 12's brand be negatively impacted if we added a non-Tier 1 research institution?

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

What I'm saying is that we limit the schools we would consider in the Pac for no good reason if we adhere to some strict notion of academic superiority when conference affiliation is almost entirely about athletics. How would CU's brand, or the Pac 12's brand be negatively impacted if we added a non-Tier 1 research institution?

I'm in complete agreement with you on this. Maybe someone can explain exactly what academic advantages schools in the Pac 12 have that they otherwise wouldn't have if they weren't in the Pac 12? Or maybe a better question, what would the academic repercussions would be on the current members if the Pac allowed OSU to join?

 

[Highlander]

I'm a little confused as to what you are saying. Up until this point, academics have absolutely been a big factor in all of the conference realignment moves outside of maybe the big 12 additions (the PAC turned down OsU because of this). The presidents of these universities want to be affiliated with good schools because they are not nearly as worried about the athletic department. Until that changes people are going to use that as a big factor on the resume. I agree it doesn't mean ****, but the decision makers see it differently.

There is precedent for a conference operating at the highest academic and athletic levels of any conference nationally to become a 3rd tier athletic division over time when they ignored the trends in college athletics (see Ivy League). In this case, I don't see the Pac-12 ever achieving the academic reputation they have, so why would it not at least be a point of discussion?

 

[onealcd]

I would guess the biggest thing is keeping the academic standards of the conference as a whole. There is already a pretty big fight between the SEC and the Big-10/Pac-12 so they probably don't want to have that same fight within the conference. It probably gets really old when you can't recruit a player because his grades are terrible and he ends up with a conference rival, which happens a lot in the Big-12.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I would guess the biggest thing is keeping the academic standards of the conference as a whole. There is already a pretty big fight between the SEC and the Big-10/Pac-12 so they probably don't want to have that same fight within the conference. It probably gets really old when you can't recruit a player because his grades are terrible and he ends up with a conference rival, which happens a lot in the Big-12.

But that's all part of the sausage factory that is college football, and it always has been. The landscape is changing so rapidly right now that conferences must adapt or die. This academic superiority that the Pac 12 tries to hold onto is completely irrelevant in today's world of big money college athletics.

 

[onealcd]

But that's all part of the sausage factory that is college football, and it always has been. The landscape is changing so rapidly right now that conferences must adapt or die. This academic superiority that the Pac 12 tries to hold onto is completely irrelevant in today's world of big money college athletics.

Yeah it is changing to the way the Pac-12, Big-10 and ACC want it, just look at the new Juco rules that don't allow all of the BS classes to transfer. It isn't JUST the Pac-12 lol, it it mostly the 3 against the SEC and Big-12.

 

[SINKRATZ]

I would guess the biggest thing is keeping the academic standards of the conference as a whole. There is already a pretty big fight between the SEC and the Big-10/Pac-12 so they probably don't want to have that same fight within the conference. It probably gets really old when you can't recruit a player because his grades are terrible and he ends up with a conference rival, which happens a lot in the Big-12.

Wait, are you really arguing that we should keep schools with weaker academics out because it's unfair for the smart schools trying to compete for recruits? Is that why Texas is struggling, because too many recruits are choosing Oklahoma State with their relaxed academics?

 

[onealcd]

Wait, are you really arguing that we should keep schools with weaker academics out because it's unfair for the smart schools trying to compete for recruits? Is that why Texas is struggling, because too many recruits are choosing Oklahoma State with their relaxed academics?

No Texas killed it in recruiting until this year when they had a coaching change. It was a pretty big fight when the Big-8 turned into the Big-12, Texas really pushed for more academic regulation that Nebraska and Oklahoma were taking advantage of and Colorado supported that.

But anyway, schools absolutely want standardized academic standards, if you don't think that is true I don't think you are paying attention.

 

[SINKRATZ]

No Texas killed it in recruiting until this year when they had a coaching change. It was a pretty big fight when the Big-8 turned into the Big-12, Texas really pushed for more academic regulation that Nebraska and Oklahoma were taking advantage of and Colorado supported that.

But anyway, schools absolutely want standardized academic standards, if you don't think that is true I don't think you are paying attention.

I'm not arguing they don't consider academics, but I'm challenging why it should matter at all. Still waiting for someone to explain why CU or any other Pac 12 member school should care if a non-Tier 1 school were added to the conference. What negative impact would that have?

Admission standards for athletes can be regulated at the conference level to sort out most inequities (Juco standards, number of exemptions, etc.).

 

[MiamiBuffs]

What I'm saying is that we limit the schools we would consider in the Pac for no good reason if we adhere to some strict notion of academic superiority when conference affiliation is almost entirely about athletics. How would CU's brand, or the Pac 12's brand be negatively impacted if we added a non-Tier 1 research institution?

Academically strong schools also tend to be the ones with better name recognition as well as larger, active, and richer alumni bases. When you add Texas to your conference you add a big academic school with a lot of wealthy and active alums. You move the needle. Thats why none of the schools in the current footprint really measure up to the current members and lead to a revenue positive move.

I'd say that the AFA is the only academic outlier in the discussion. But other factors detract from it.

 

[Buffnik]

Academically strong schools also tend to be the ones with better name recognition as well as larger, active, and richer alumni bases. When you add Texas to your conference you add a big academic school with a lot of wealthy and active alums. You move the needle. Thats why none of the schools in the current footprint really measure up to the current members and lead to a revenue positive move.

I'd say that the AFA is the only academic outlier in the discussion. But other factors detract from it.

AFA is not an academic fit for the Pac-12. This is not about undergraduate admission standards or the quality of undergraduate education. When the Pac-12 presidents say "academic fit" they are talking about graduate level research intensity. It's about the size of the research organization and on what areas it is focused. A lot of people seem to have a misconception of this because I see arguments online that talk about USN&WR ranks. Those types of things are not a factor here.

1. Research intensity ($$$s in non-Agg & non-lib arts disciplines)
2. University size (# of professors main thing here)
3. Endowment

 

[SINKRATZ]

Academically strong schools also tend to be the ones with better name recognition as well as larger, active, and richer alumni bases. When you add Texas to your conference you add a big academic school with a lot of wealthy and active alums. You move the needle. Thats why none of the schools in the current footprint really measure up to the current members and lead to a revenue positive move.

I'd say that the AFA is the only academic outlier in the discussion. But other factors detract from it.

I don't necessarily agree with that correlation. Are Texas alums more active and valuable because they went to a strong academic institution and are therefore wealthy, or is it because people in Texas love longhorn football? I tend to think it's more the latter. By your logic Northwestern should be more valuable to the BIG than Ohio State, Vanderbilt should be more valuable than Alabama to the SEC, Iowa State more valuable than West Virginia, etc. Stanford has one of the most apathetic fan bases in our conference.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

AFA is not an academic fit for the Pac-12. This is not about undergraduate admission standards or the quality of undergraduate education. When the Pac-12 presidents say "academic fit" they are talking about graduate level research intensity. It's about the size of the research organization and on what areas it is focused. A lot of people seem to have a misconception of this because I see arguments online that talk about USN&WR ranks. Those types of things are not a factor here.

1. Research intensity (in non-Agg & non-lib arts disciplines)
2. University size (# of professors main thing here)
3. Endowment

But again, individual Universities can keep those graduate level research standards high, while also allowing a lesser graduate level research intensive University into the conference. What do academics have to do with being in a certain athletic conference?

 

[SINKRATZ]

AFA is not an academic fit for the Pac-12. This is not about undergraduate admission standards or the quality of undergraduate education. When the Pac-12 presidents say "academic fit" they are talking about graduate level research intensity. It's about the size of the research organization and on what areas it is focused. A lot of people seem to have a misconception of this because I see arguments online that talk about USN&WR ranks. Those types of things are not a factor here.

1. Research intensity ($$$s in non-Agg & non-lib arts disciplines)
2. University size (# of professors main thing here)
3. Endowment

Ok, but why does conference affiliation matter in that regard? Is graduate level research collaboration more difficult if we're not in the same conference?

 

[Buffnik]

But again, individual Universities can keep those graduate level research standards high, while also allowing a lesser graduate level research intensive University into the conference. What do academics have to do with being in a certain athletic conference?

I don't particularly understand why they are so interested in their athletic conference affiliation mirroring their research rep, but they care about it. B1G was always about land grant universities that are AAU members. That is pretty much their culture. P12 has a similar culture and wants to maintain it. It's why, even though it wouldn't make sense to most people, they'll vote "yes" if Larry Scott presents the University of New Mexico but will vote "no" if Larry Scott presents Boise State, BYU or Air Force.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I don't particularly understand why they are so interested in their athletic conference affiliation mirroring their research rep, but they care about it. B1G was always about land grant universities that are AAU members. That is pretty much their culture. P12 has a similar culture and wants to maintain it. It's why, even though it wouldn't make sense to most people, they'll vote "yes" if Larry Scott presents the University of New Mexico but will vote "no" if Larry Scott presents Boise State, BYU or Air Force.

Ok, I think the bolded is all I'm (and possibly Sinkratz) looking for, because I have always been seriously curious about why it matters. As I stated earlier, this is another reason, and a very BIG reason at that, why the Pac 12 will continue to fall behind the other conferences, without a drastic shift in mindset.

 

[onealcd]

There are a lot of weird things that need to be worked out. Why should every sport be in the same conference for every school? Just because CU is in the Pac-12 for football doesn't mean it should be for women's volleyball or basketball.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

The reason why is pretty easy to understand. The university president's are in charge of affiliating with an athletic conference. Their primary directive is academics. That is their focus always. If you had AD's deciding athletic conferences, the landscape would look much different.

 

[Buffnik]

The reason why is pretty easy to understand. The university president's are in charge of affiliating with an athletic conference. Their primary directive is academics. That is their focus always. If you had AD's deciding athletic conferences, the landscape would look much different.

I agree that it is as simple as that. They believe their academic research prestige rises or falls based upon association. There are some schools they will consider as peer institutions and some that they will not. They will not allow non-peer institutions into their athletic conference.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

AFA is not an academic fit for the Pac-12. This is not about undergraduate admission standards or the quality of undergraduate education. When the Pac-12 presidents say "academic fit" they are talking about graduate level research intensity. It's about the size of the research organization and on what areas it is focused. A lot of people seem to have a misconception of this because I see arguments online that talk about USN&WR ranks. Those types of things are not a factor here.

1. Research intensity ($$$s in non-Agg & non-lib arts disciplines)
2. University size (# of professors main thing here)
3. Endowment

AFA is rigorous education with high standards. It also has a pretty small student population. And it's not a research school but rather a technical school for minting air force officers. Thats why I said it wasnt a good fit. And you gain little in the way of eyeballs since there are so few alums. And the ones there are put country, the service, and their career at American Airlines ahead of a lot of other things that would be of importance to adding revenue. Still, this is a school thats better than any of the other MWC schools mentioned in the thread.

Big research intensive universities attract the best professors. Which in turn attracts the brightest young minds for undergraduate programs taught by those researchers. A few of those alums hopefully go on to start companies and become very wealthy. And that leads to money coming back into the school in endowments and donations. Schools like Colorado, Texas, Cal, Stanford have implemented this idea and followed that track and it's worked in terms of reputation.

You're not going to go to Fresno State when you can go to Cal or CSU when you can go to CU. All those WAC schools that were talking about here are fighting with each other for the leftovers.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

The reason why is pretty easy to understand. The university president's are in charge of affiliating with an athletic conference. Their primary directive is academics. That is their focus always. If you had AD's deciding athletic conferences, the landscape would look much different.

Yes, I understand that the reason is because the Presidents decide these things and that's what their focus is... But nobody can answer the question of why they believe academic prestige should have anything to do with athletic conference affiliation. What does being associated with Stanford, on an athletic level, have anything to do with CU's academic research? CU was known as a top research University long before they joined the Pac and will continue to be known as such even after the likes of Okie Lite or some other tier 2 academic program joins (hypothetically).

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

Yes, I understand that the reason is because the Presidents decide these things and that's what their focus is... But nobody can answer the question of why they believe academic prestige should have anything to do with athletic conference affiliation. What does being associated with Stanford, on an athletic level, have anything to do with CU's academic research? CU was known as a top research University long before they joined the Pac and will continue to be known as such even after the likes of Okie Lite or some other tier 2 academic program joins (hypothetically).

Probably because the Presidents seem to use the athletic affiliation to partner academically on research, outreach, conferences, etc.