Wilkie01
Cards Prognosticater
Posts: 26,753
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1072
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
|
RE: Most likely expansion outcomes
Change will always happen and the only variable is time. Write it down.
|
|
04-30-2014 02:58 PM |
|
arkstfan
Sorry folks
Posts: 25,918
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 1003
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
|
RE: Most likely expansion outcomes
(04-30-2014 02:58 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote: Change will always happen and the only variable is time. Write it down.
Some will win, some will lose Some were born to sing the blues
|
|
04-30-2014 03:21 PM |
|
Dasville
Heisman
Posts: 7,796
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 246
I Root For: UofL
Location:
|
RE: Most likely expansion outcomes
(03-11-2014 09:09 AM)ken d Wrote: (03-11-2014 02:33 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: (03-11-2014 01:51 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: I think having decent academics is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for getting into at least some of the P5 conferences, if not all of them.
This is the a point. Academics is about what kind of political stink from the academic politics of the rest of the University a President is going to have to face, so its a factor that explains the reluctance of the President of "School A" to vote to accept "School B". For the Big Ten, there are two substantial academic snobs in that school up north and Wisconsin, which would generate two no votes plus other votes they could swing for a school not seen as sufficiently strong academically.
So rather than a factor that would pull one school ahead of another on a list of candidates, its a factor that would keep one school on a list of candidates when another school was filtered out.
Also, since it is about internal academic politics (and what the Presidents do for the majority of their time ~ Athletic Directors exist so Presidents can spend a majority of their time on being University President and only part of their time on athletics), there's the possibility that there are some schools could get in as a part of a pair (or larger expansion) when they couldn't get in as a single school, if there was another add that was a big enough bright and shiny object on the academic side to allay criticism.
I think you touched on a major point - especially as it relates to the whole Maryland decision to leave the ACC for the B1G.
There are some who would suggest that their decision was driven by "academics" (whatever that means to the individual reader). Others have said that their chancellor and system president were hired specifically to take UM to the B1G because they were "Big Ten men".
I asked a question earlier to these folks that was answered with a deafening silence. If it were the ACC that would bring more athletic revenue to Maryland than the B1G would, would Maryland have still gone to the B1G "for the academics"?
And it's true that Kirwan and Loh spent a few years at a Big Ten school - in both cases a very small fraction of their academic careers. Did those short stints turn them into "Big Ten men" forever? Even Loh, whose position at Iowa did not bring him into significant contact with athletics?
But Kirwan, when he was at Maryland, found himself spending an inordinate amount of his time dealing with the financial woes of the Athletic Department, and with boosters who were unhappy with the state of Terp athletics. That's not how University presidents and chancellors want to spend their time, and it's not how they should spend their time.
So when an opportunity arose that would fix those financial problems, and spare the new chancellor from having that albatross tied around his neck, Maryland jumped at it despite their 60 year association with the ACC. It wasn't because association with the B1G would magically improve Maryland's status academically. It was because it freed Maryland to concentrate on improving its own status.
And that's how chancellors and presidents want to spend their time.
You chose the time and when we will look at this. I also request a future look-in.
|
|
04-30-2014 03:22 PM |
|
Melky Cabrera
Bill Bradley
Posts: 4,716
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 100
I Root For: UConn
Location:
|
RE: Most likely expansion outcomes
(04-30-2014 03:22 PM)Dasville Wrote: (03-11-2014 09:09 AM)ken d Wrote: (03-11-2014 02:33 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: (03-11-2014 01:51 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: I think having decent academics is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for getting into at least some of the P5 conferences, if not all of them.
This is the a point. Academics is about what kind of political stink from the academic politics of the rest of the University a President is going to have to face, so its a factor that explains the reluctance of the President of "School A" to vote to accept "School B". For the Big Ten, there are two substantial academic snobs in that school up north and Wisconsin, which would generate two no votes plus other votes they could swing for a school not seen as sufficiently strong academically.
So rather than a factor that would pull one school ahead of another on a list of candidates, its a factor that would keep one school on a list of candidates when another school was filtered out.
Also, since it is about internal academic politics (and what the Presidents do for the majority of their time ~ Athletic Directors exist so Presidents can spend a majority of their time on being University President and only part of their time on athletics), there's the possibility that there are some schools could get in as a part of a pair (or larger expansion) when they couldn't get in as a single school, if there was another add that was a big enough bright and shiny object on the academic side to allay criticism.
I think you touched on a major point - especially as it relates to the whole Maryland decision to leave the ACC for the B1G.
There are some who would suggest that their decision was driven by "academics" (whatever that means to the individual reader). Others have said that their chancellor and system president were hired specifically to take UM to the B1G because they were "Big Ten men".
I asked a question earlier to these folks that was answered with a deafening silence. If it were the ACC that would bring more athletic revenue to Maryland than the B1G would, would Maryland have still gone to the B1G "for the academics"?
And it's true that Kirwan and Loh spent a few years at a Big Ten school - in both cases a very small fraction of their academic careers. Did those short stints turn them into "Big Ten men" forever? Even Loh, whose position at Iowa did not bring him into significant contact with athletics?
But Kirwan, when he was at Maryland, found himself spending an inordinate amount of his time dealing with the financial woes of the Athletic Department, and with boosters who were unhappy with the state of Terp athletics. That's not how University presidents and chancellors want to spend their time, and it's not how they should spend their time.
So when an opportunity arose that would fix those financial problems, and spare the new chancellor from having that albatross tied around his neck, Maryland jumped at it despite their 60 year association with the ACC. It wasn't because association with the B1G would magically improve Maryland's status academically. It was because it freed Maryland to concentrate on improving its own status.
And that's how chancellors and presidents want to spend their time.
You chose the time and when we will look at this. I also request a future look-in.
C-I-C
|
|
05-01-2014 07:20 AM |
|