(02-18-2016 06:17 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 05:44 PM)TopperCard Wrote:  UofL was a private university up until the late 1960's. One thing that has been a hindrance to the University in progressing academically is the schools Urban Mission which was mandated by the state, which requires the school to meet the needs of certain demographic groups. Here's part of the school's old (and partially current) mandate:

"Located in the Commonwealth's largest metropolitan area, it shall serve the specific educational, intellectual, cultural, service, and research needs of the greater Louisville region. It has a special obligation to serve the needs of a diverse population, including many ethnic minorities and placebound, part-time, nontraditional students."

Because of this, for many years, Louisville had to lower admissions standards and ACT requirements. This is slowly changing over time, since we are now mandated to "become a premier, nationally-recognized metropolitan research university".

The University of Kentucky, on the other hand, has been the land grant, state-funded University since 1865. What's their state mandated mission? To be "one of the nation's 20 best public research universities". Which basically means they are top of the list when it comes to state funding.

Even though UofL was established 1st, we've only been a state funded University for about 50 years.

I don't think that you were ever private. At least UL's Wikipedia page doesn't make it sound like you were. I think that you were owned by the city and then state.

I heard Louisville was private for a period of time. Also, Buffalo and Binghamton (part of Syracuse Univ.) were private before.

Owned by the City of Louisville from 1798 until 1969. In 1970. we became a state school.

(02-18-2016 07:10 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 06:17 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 05:44 PM)TopperCard Wrote:  UofL was a private university up until the late 1960's. One thing that has been a hindrance to the University in progressing academically is the schools Urban Mission which was mandated by the state, which requires the school to meet the needs of certain demographic groups. Here's part of the school's old (and partially current) mandate:

"Located in the Commonwealth's largest metropolitan area, it shall serve the specific educational, intellectual, cultural, service, and research needs of the greater Louisville region. It has a special obligation to serve the needs of a diverse population, including many ethnic minorities and placebound, part-time, nontraditional students."

Because of this, for many years, Louisville had to lower admissions standards and ACT requirements. This is slowly changing over time, since we are now mandated to "become a premier, nationally-recognized metropolitan research university".

The University of Kentucky, on the other hand, has been the land grant, state-funded University since 1865. What's their state mandated mission? To be "one of the nation's 20 best public research universities". Which basically means they are top of the list when it comes to state funding.

Even though UofL was established 1st, we've only been a state funded University for about 50 years.

I don't think that you were ever private. At least UL's Wikipedia page doesn't make it sound like you were. I think that you were owned by the city and then state.

I heard Louisville was private for a period of time. Also, Buffalo and Binghamton (part of Syracuse Univ.) were private before.

Oh, schools can switch from public to private (Tulane), private to public (I think Rutgers), or public/private to confused (Cornell, Pitt, PSU). UL just isn't one of them.

(02-18-2016 07:10 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Owned by the City of Louisville from 1798 until 1969. In 1970. we became a state school.

That's my understanding. It was never private.

(02-18-2016 07:10 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Owned by the City of Louisville from 1798 until 1969. In 1970. we became a state school.

Thanks for clarifying...I must have UL confused with another private to public.

My mistake, Louisville was municipally funded until the late 60's, when they joined the state system.

(02-18-2016 04:44 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 02:56 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The University of Louisville - When founded in 1798, it was the first city-owned public university in the United States and one of the first universities chartered west of the Allegheny Mountains.

(02-17-2016 02:16 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Have you seen Temple's endowment? It's less than $400 million. Now overall endowment is not a measure of sports committment per se, but if you don't have at least three quarters of a billion in your endowment, you are under supported by your graduates.

At the end of the day for college presidents, endowment level is the last true measure of the univeristy's ***** and ego:

In the ACC and if you are not in the Triangle or Va, I could be off:

1. Duke 8 Billiion (even more tucked into the Hospital)
2. ND 8 Billion
3. UVa 6 Billion
4. Pitt 3.5 Billion
5. UNC 3 Billion
6. BC 2.2 Billion
7. GT 2 Billion
8. Syracuse 1.2 B
WF 1.2 B
10. NC State 1 B
11. Louisville .9 B
UM .9 B (both of these could be near or over the 1 mark)
13. VT .8 B
14. Clemson .7 B
15. FSU .65 B

Uva, UNC, Pitt, and BC are all over 200 years old, with UVa pushing 300. ND's direct tie the Catholic Church has been a boost. Duke is built on the Duke Tobacco Fortune the same way Vandy is built on the Commodore's fortune. GT, NC State, and VT are all 100-125 years old and built in part on techincial, engineering, innovations in the last 30-40 years. Louisville and FSU are relatively young schools - they may have an old origin like Duke did in Randolph County NC in the 1840's, but Duke became Duke when old Man Duke bought the college and moved it to Durham in the 1920's. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco did the same with WF in the 1950's.

It takes either a super sugar daddy, something like Union Carbide (UNC), a lot of time, and a lot of graduates to build an endowment.

I can't imagine the ACC allowing anyone into the league without at least an endowment that matched Clemson's and Clemson is a small public university as major flags go.

IIRC, Louisville was just a City College for a long time. Just like FSU was the girls school in Florida, same as UNC-G used to be Womens College in NC. It's sort of like Duke. Yes there is a Trinity College that existed between Asheboro and Lexington NC in the 19th Century, but it wasn't what you know today as Duke. That did not happen until 1920's. You and FSU are relatively new on the scene with new being related to big money donors who tended to be males who had made a lot of money. Age matters when it's tied to rich male graduates.

Miami is also very young and once started, took a ten year setback due to an economic bust and hurricane, but they were in a fertile donor area and were able to cultivate an international appeal.

Even UNC didn't really have classes for years after they were chartered.

You can be young and great. You can be old an stink. But my point is that the older you are (the point from which you really started building and endowment), the better.

Perhaps a UL fan can shed more light, but higher education in the State of Kentucky seems to have been an afterthought for decades and I wonder if UK attempted to hold you back the way Bama is gutting UAB and other schools stab at weaker schools in a system.

I won't comment on the UK/UL thing, but I do agree endowments are a good measure. Another pretty good indicator is the number of living alumni and the annual rate at which they are being produced. UofL was pretty much a little city 'college' until 1968, when it was taken over by the state system. UofL benefits by being located in a pretty good-sized city, and metro, plus having no competition from major pro sports and also graduating a decent quantity of undergrad and graduate-level professionals (doctors/dentists/lawyers/engineers/business grads) yearly. UK and UofL battle fiercely for contributions. Many give to both.

If you're going to have an island then Houston wouldn't be bad at all. It's a huge market in a huge recruiting ground. They have a good basketball tradition & their football has potential. They would also open the door for any possible B12 defectors later on. Put Houston in the Atlantic to open up Texas recruiting ground to FSU, Clemson & the rest, let the Coastal keep the Virginia schools.

Atlantic - Coastal
FSU - Miami
Clemson-GT
NC State-NC
WF - Duke
Syracuse-Pittsburgh
Louisville-Cincinnati
Houston - VT
BC - Virginia

Or mix everything up!
Coastal - Atlantic
FSU - Miami
Clemson-Louisville
GT - Pittsburgh
NC - NC State
Duke - Syracuse
Virginia - BC
VT - Houston
WF - Cincinnati

(02-19-2016 10:49 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  If you're going to have an island then Houston wouldn't be bad at all. It's a huge market in a huge recruiting ground. They have a good basketball tradition & their football has potential. They would also open the door for any possible B12 defectors later on. Put Houston in the Atlantic to open up Texas recruiting ground to FSU, Clemson & the rest, let the Coastal keep the Virginia schools.

Atlantic - Coastal
FSU - Miami
Clemson-GT
NC State-NC
WF - Duke
Syracuse-Pittsburgh
Louisville-Cincinnati
Houston - VT
BC - Virginia

Or mix everything up!
Coastal - Atlantic
FSU - Miami
Clemson-Louisville
GT - Pittsburgh
NC - NC State
Duke - Syracuse
Virginia - BC
VT - Houston
WF - Cincinnati

Houston opens up with Oklahoma next year....if they beat Oklahoma, their last two wins will be signature wins over playoff-caliber teams. They have a new stadium, and were able to retain Tom Herman.....

The have a lot of potential to rise and be a BCS quality team....even more so than Baylor and TCU

If the ACC added them, and UH started having FSU, Clemson and Miami coming to town, they are really going to tap into Texas recruiting....

Texas and ND aside....Houston as #15 in the next year or two is something to consider.

Does the ACC want to let programs like Houston, Cincinnati or UConn slip to the Big XII??

No, Houston and Cincinnati would be good 15th and 16th teams.

(02-19-2016 12:09 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  No, Houston and Cincinnati would be good 15th and 16th teams.

No they wouldn't. They don't add enough revenue to pay for themselves. UConn and West Virginia, maybe.

If ESPN wanted to jump to 18 to create an ACCN and basically 2 conference setup under 1 umbrella, you could get creative:

Atlantic: UVA, Vtech, UNC, Duke, NC state, Wake, Clem, Gtech, FSU

Coastal: BC,Uconn, Cuse, Pitt, Cincy, Lville, ND, Miami, X

x from the pool of temple, wvu, houston and SMU. Than you would need a football only to either navy or byu to offset ND. Format would be 8-1 for football with miami/fsu game protected and 16-2 for hoops. Basically, the old 9 team ACC, vtech for maryland and big east back together in the division format.

Why do ACC fan bases want to add teams and reduce the payout?

99% of the teams mentioned in this thread won't close the gap......they will just be another dead weight school.


Makes zero sense.

I'd love for it to happen, and UC fits the ACC as an institution pretty well. But it just doesn't make sense for the ACC.

1) UC won't increase the money, though a pretty low % of teams (G5 or P5) across the country would. (Maybe an exception if the ACCN was started as a result of the add)
2) The ACC doesn't need UC.

That pretty much sums it up.

(02-19-2016 12:55 PM)nole Wrote:  Why do ACC fan bases want to add teams and reduce the payout?

99% of the teams mentioned in this thread won't close the gap......they will just be another dead weight school.


Makes zero sense.

If you have read the entire post then you would know that the additions are predicated on them either paying for themselves (possibly splitting a share) and/or for an ACCN. In other words, just in fun. No one is suggesting adding anyone if it meant a pay cut.

And I don't think Cincinnati or Houston would be "dead weight".

(02-19-2016 01:10 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(02-19-2016 12:55 PM)nole Wrote:  Why do ACC fan bases want to add teams and reduce the payout?

99% of the teams mentioned in this thread won't close the gap......they will just be another dead weight school.


Makes zero sense.

If you have read the entire post then you would know that the additions are predicated on them either paying for themselves (possibly splitting a share) and/or for an ACCN. In other words, just in fun. No one is suggesting adding anyone if it meant a pay cut.

And I don't think Cincinnati or Houston would be "dead weight".

They would be.

Very VERY few teams out there not already in P5 would be anything other than dead weight.

Basically....Notre Dame, the end.

With the dying of the bundling business model, these smaller brands are worth even less every day.

(02-18-2016 07:47 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 07:10 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Owned by the City of Louisville from 1798 until 1969. In 1970. we became a state school.

Thanks for clarifying...I must have UL confused with another private to public.

It might be William & Mary.

(02-19-2016 12:09 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  No, Houston and Cincinnati would be good 15th and 16th teams.

Those are 2 of the most valuable G5 teams (along with UConn and BYU, maybe Temple as well), but... keep in mind that ACC teams already expect to get paid over $21 million per year per team... how many of these are worth that much or more by themselves?

Now, if you think the ACC is currently UNDERPAID (which I do), then I suppose adding 2 teams could somehow force a kind of readjustment to the AVERAGE tv payout to bring it more in line... but at the same time you'd also be bringing the TRUE average value of the league down. So it's a short-term gain at a long cost.

There's no arguing the ACC deserves a network and should be getting more $$$

If it were me, I'd be looking at UConn and Houston. Houston is a growing power in a large market with excellent recruiting. Adding UConn would solidify ACC basketball and prevent the Big XII from adding them.

you could break down the divisions like this:

ACC-Central
Florida State
Clemson
Houston
Louisville
NC State
Wake Forest
Syracuse
Pitt

ACC-East
Miami
Georgia Tech
Virginia Tech
Virginia
North Carolina
Duke
Boston College
UConn

ACC football is on the rise as it is...adding Houston would add a Texas team also on the rise. Adding UConn would probably be a rent-a-win in football for some teams. They are a decent university though, and basketball would be freaking amazing....Also, I have the feeling that if the ACC doesn't watch it, the Big XII will add both the schools above, meaning the ACC will have missed out on possibly it's one shot at a Texas power, and let ANOTHER conference invade it's footprint

The real question is....will the ACC be something that schools want to stick around with when the GOR expires? will it be worthwhile? Or will everyone break up and go their separate ways....

IMO, continuing to grow the conference is important at this stage...I think it's short term decrease in money for long term gain

(02-19-2016 01:24 PM)nole Wrote:  

(02-19-2016 01:10 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(02-19-2016 12:55 PM)nole Wrote:  Why do ACC fan bases want to add teams and reduce the payout?

99% of the teams mentioned in this thread won't close the gap......they will just be another dead weight school.


Makes zero sense.

If you have read the entire post then you would know that the additions are predicated on them either paying for themselves (possibly splitting a share) and/or for an ACCN. In other words, just in fun. No one is suggesting adding anyone if it meant a pay cut.

And I don't think Cincinnati or Houston would be "dead weight".

They would be.

Very VERY few teams out there not already in P5 would be anything other than dead weight.

Basically....Notre Dame, the end.

With the dying of the bundling business model, these smaller brands are worth even less every day.

Depends on what your definition of "dead weight" is. Are they Texas or Oklahoma? No but they aren't the equivalent of WF either. They add to the recruiting footprint & add large markets for a possible network. They would benefit some schools more than others, like Louisville more than FSU, but everyone would benefit from them like the B1G benefited from adding Rutgers and they both have stronger athletics. They would be perennial top 40 teams & occasionally top 10. Both have been to BCS caliber bowls recently. With that said, a pay cut is completely off the table. Do they help solve the small fan base problem that the ACC has? No but only ND, Texas & Oklahoma would help there. Over time Houston could potentially grow a large fan base giving the size of the city.