(04-27-2011 12:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 12:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  This entire argument is absurd, the directional colleges are seen as lesser colleges because at one point, they were. Now, especially in the fastest growing states, those directional schools are bigger and bring more to the table than many of the 'original' state schools in their state or elsewhere. UCF, and USF, both seem to have far more going for them than FSU does (as an entire institution, not athletics of course), and while FSU still currently dwarfs them in research and grants, we are making more strides than they are and it only seems like a matter of time until we catch up. It's simple demographics and a dash of logic. UCF is already harder to get in to that FSU, and I think USF might be also (not a dig, just not sure). That's saying something considering the two 'directional schools' relative age and exponential growth.

Just imagine what will happen when USF and UCF decide to slow down on the expansion and grow their endowments, push for more research, etc.

This is what I've meant by overstatements by expansion candidates in other threads. Here is a comparison of the median SAT scores of the major Florida universities:

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/a/to...scores.htm

So, FSU has higher English scores than UCF and they're tied in Math scores. USF is lower than both of them. It's fine to argue that UCF has done a whole lot to get to the point where it's comparable to FSU, but it loses credibility with overstatements.

I was under the impression that we were harder, I apologize. Still, we're looking to be about even at this point (Higher english scores vs. lower acceptance rates) and they only had a 70 year head start or so. And this is further exacerbated by the fact both USF and UCF have had to put so much money into growing quickly to compete. Our growth rate is absurd, and that fact makes our equivalent entrance requirements more impressive (IMO, of course).

(04-27-2011 12:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 12:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  What I meant, moreso, is that there are dozens of schools that could add to their athletics with still having a high level of academics. Hell, Tulane probably puts more emphasis than Vandy on athletics, at least they still have an AD.

And no, it's not a question of 'chicken or the egg' it's a fact that many of these conferences were started before many of these directional universities were founded. It's quite hard to kick out a member of a conference, even one that's not contributing (look at the bottom four BBall only schools in the Big East for proof of that). That means, those who happened to be around at the time of the conference creation got a leg up simply because the demographics hadn't shifted yet.

I still don't quite see where there are many, if any, comparable schools to Vandy that balance sports and academics unless you're intimating that the SEC go after some ACC schools like UVA, UNC and Duke. At the non-AQ level, who other than maybe Tulane and Rice (and I don't think either supports athletics anywhere close to Vandy's level) within a reasonable SEC geographic area could possibly bring that combo?

To your second point, out of the 12 C-USA schools, the only 2 members that were not founded by the time the SEC and ACC were formed were UCF and UAB. It had nothing to do with those schools not existing - the original SEC and ACC members didn't consider them to be their peers at that time (with the exception of Tulane, who was a charter SEC member).

Regardless, the "name bias" is really a symptom as opposed to a cause. The BCS bias is toward flagships and flagship equivalents, who by nature don't have directional names.

I'll give you that.

As for the schools not being around argument, a school in it's infancy, or in an area pre-demographics shift, never had a chance at a major conference at the time. At the time the location was being chosen for UCF, University Road (now a 6 lane road that leads directly into UCF) was a dirt road. Literally, a dirt road, now it's a street with one of the highest traffic counts in the city. However, Conferences aren't keen in kicking out members, even if they don't contribute.

It is what it is, and it is a system that takes awhile to react to change.

(04-27-2011 12:55 PM)WilsonPirate Wrote:  I suppose you and I will just differ on what constitutes a directional school, which is fine. Semantics, I guess. I don't think public versus private has anything to do with how directional or not a school's name is: "southern" is a direction. "South" (like "east") is less a direction, and more a location. Agree or disagree as you like.

Now I feel foolish for devoting so much time to this issue, as if it matters in the least. All of us here, and most college sports fans generally, will ascribe very little importance to the name of a university having any bearing on its position in the competitive schema. Perhaps it does to the loathed bandwagoner/apparel fan, who I'd love to buy for what they know, and sell for what they think they know.

To me, a "directional school" is a public school that is not its state's flagship (or a flagship equivalent like Texas A&M or Purdue) with a direction in its name. Northwestern and the University of Southern California have directions in their names, but as private schools that draw from a national student pool, they are not "directional schools". I think pretty much everyone has the same understanding as to what is truly a "directional school" - whether they want to admit that their own school falls into that category or if it's fair to have a stigma attached to such categorization is a different matter.

(04-27-2011 01:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 12:55 PM)WilsonPirate Wrote:  I suppose you and I will just differ on what constitutes a directional school, which is fine. Semantics, I guess. I don't think public versus private has anything to do with how directional or not a school's name is: "southern" is a direction. "South" (like "east") is less a direction, and more a location. Agree or disagree as you like.

Now I feel foolish for devoting so much time to this issue, as if it matters in the least. All of us here, and most college sports fans generally, will ascribe very little importance to the name of a university having any bearing on its position in the competitive schema. Perhaps it does to the loathed bandwagoner/apparel fan, who I'd love to buy for what they know, and sell for what they think they know.

To me, a "directional school" is a public school that is not its state's flagship (or a flagship equivalent like Texas A&M or Purdue) with a direction in its name. Northwestern and the University of Southern California have directions in their names, but as private schools that draw from a national student pool, they are not "directional schools". I think pretty much everyone has the same understanding as to what is truly a "directional school" - whether they want to admit that their own school falls into that category or if it's fair to have a stigma attached to such categorization is a different matter.

So would ECU and UCF be stronger candidates in your opinion if they were named NC A&M and Florida Tech?

(04-27-2011 11:52 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 07:48 AM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  Those arrogant asses in Chapel Hill tried to make us UNC-Greenville but that didn't fly. That's how proud we are to be named East Carolina University.

What's East Carolina University? Is that the FCS team we beat 42-17 last fall?

I heard Wal-Marts is having a 2 for 1 sale on UNC apparel this week. And how many of those players were on the payroll? If you live in a glass house don't throw stones.

(04-27-2011 01:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 01:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 12:55 PM)WilsonPirate Wrote:  I suppose you and I will just differ on what constitutes a directional school, which is fine. Semantics, I guess. I don't think public versus private has anything to do with how directional or not a school's name is: "southern" is a direction. "South" (like "east") is less a direction, and more a location. Agree or disagree as you like.

Now I feel foolish for devoting so much time to this issue, as if it matters in the least. All of us here, and most college sports fans generally, will ascribe very little importance to the name of a university having any bearing on its position in the competitive schema. Perhaps it does to the loathed bandwagoner/apparel fan, who I'd love to buy for what they know, and sell for what they think they know.

To me, a "directional school" is a public school that is not its state's flagship (or a flagship equivalent like Texas A&M or Purdue) with a direction in its name. Northwestern and the University of Southern California have directions in their names, but as private schools that draw from a national student pool, they are not "directional schools". I think pretty much everyone has the same understanding as to what is truly a "directional school" - whether they want to admit that their own school falls into that category or if it's fair to have a stigma attached to such categorization is a different matter.

So would ECU and UCF be stronger candidates in your opinion if they were named NC A&M and Florida Tech?

Perception is reality. Sadly, if those were your names , you'd probably both have been the BE for awhile now.

In Kentucky our state sponsered directional schools are Morehead State, Muarry State, Kentucky State, Northern Kentucky, Western Kentucky, and Eastern Kentucky. Actually three do not have diction in there names! University of Kentucky has been historically the flagship, but since 1972, when Louisville became a state school, Louisville has almost become a co-flagship university in Kentucky, and will be in the very near future.

(04-27-2011 01:10 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 01:07 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 01:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 12:55 PM)WilsonPirate Wrote:  I suppose you and I will just differ on what constitutes a directional school, which is fine. Semantics, I guess. I don't think public versus private has anything to do with how directional or not a school's name is: "southern" is a direction. "South" (like "east") is less a direction, and more a location. Agree or disagree as you like.

Now I feel foolish for devoting so much time to this issue, as if it matters in the least. All of us here, and most college sports fans generally, will ascribe very little importance to the name of a university having any bearing on its position in the competitive schema. Perhaps it does to the loathed bandwagoner/apparel fan, who I'd love to buy for what they know, and sell for what they think they know.

To me, a "directional school" is a public school that is not its state's flagship (or a flagship equivalent like Texas A&M or Purdue) with a direction in its name. Northwestern and the University of Southern California have directions in their names, but as private schools that draw from a national student pool, they are not "directional schools". I think pretty much everyone has the same understanding as to what is truly a "directional school" - whether they want to admit that their own school falls into that category or if it's fair to have a stigma attached to such categorization is a different matter.

So would ECU and UCF be stronger candidates in your opinion if they were named NC A&M and Florida Tech?

Perception is reality. Sadly, if those were your names , you'd probably both have been the BE for awhile now.

I disagree completely, but it's whatever. If people in charge of the BE are dumb enough to believe either are bad candidates for that reason alone then the BE is run by a group of bafoons. I don't believe that to be the case.

(04-27-2011 12:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I still don't quite see where there are many, if any, comparable schools to Vandy that balance sports and academics unless you're intimating that the SEC go after some ACC schools like UVA, UNC and Duke. At the non-AQ level, who other than maybe Tulane and Rice (and I don't think either supports athletics anywhere close to Vandy's level) within a reasonable SEC geographic area could possibly bring that combo?

Yup. As Casey Stengel said, you could look it up.

US News rankings for the top three FBS schools that are not already in an AQ conference:

Rice (T-17th, tied with Vandy)
Tulane (T-51st)
SMU (T-56th)

While some might want Vandy out of the SEC... I'll say the same thing about Rice, Tulane and SMU that I'd say about any of the schools that want to get into the Big East: After your football team has played in BCS bowl games, like Utah and TCU have, then you can come back and talk about getting into an AQ conference. You can't get in by being just as good as or just a little better than the weakest program in the SEC or Pac-12 or Big East.

(04-27-2011 01:10 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Perception is reality. Sadly, if those were your names , you'd probably both have been the BE for awhile now.

You may be right, I suppose we'll never know. But if that were true, I would hope each Big East university president would collectively demand the resignation of every conference official for making decisions based on such frivolous and trivial matters.

Miko - we get what you're saying. It just happens to not be a good point.

Directional schools have and will have a connotation for a good while in certain conversations. But it has even less damage than the term, "non-BCS" and we've all seen that the "non-BCS" label has not held back several programs from gaining momentum whether it be on the field, the recruiting trail or in the media.

USC is a historic and elite program. CMU/EMU/WMU generally are on the other end of the spectrum. You've got ECU, UCF and South Florida and maybe a few others keeping it real in the middle of the pack.

There's a difference between a writer/talking head saying "directional U" to get a point across in a quick 2-minute debate and trying to really make a case for brand management.

FWIW, I heard that ECU's AD said they would re-name the school, "Sparky" if it meant they could get a football only invite.

(04-27-2011 02:36 PM)st932253 Wrote:  FWIW, I heard that ECU's AD said they would re-name the school, "Sparky" if it meant they could get a football only invite.

It wouldn't be geographically accurate, but if they renamed the school University of the Caribbean, they could be the Pirates of the Caribbean. Disney/ESPN would like that.

OTOH, Lucasfilm decided to be a party pooper and put the kibosh on Ole Miss' thoughts about using Admiral Akbar as their Rebel mascot, so Disney might do the same to the would-be Pirates of the Caribbean.

(04-27-2011 03:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 02:36 PM)st932253 Wrote:  FWIW, I heard that ECU's AD said they would re-name the school, "Sparky" if it meant they could get a football only invite.

It wouldn't be geographically accurate, but if they renamed the school University of the Caribbean, they could be the Pirates of the Caribbean. Disney/ESPN would like that.

OTOH, Lucasfilm decided to be a party pooper and put the kibosh on Ole Miss' thoughts about using Admiral Akbar as their Rebel mascot, so Disney might do the same to the would-be Pirates of the Caribbean.

Wouldn't be the first time. Disney made us change the real pirate we have lead us on the field because he looked too much like Jonny Depp from Pirates of the Caribbean. Of course I am glad they did I thought it was lame and prefer the one we have now.

(04-27-2011 03:22 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Wouldn't be the first time. Disney made us change the real pirate we have lead us on the field because he looked too much like Jonny Depp from Pirates of the Caribbean. Of course I am glad they did I thought it was lame and prefer the one we have now.

Speaking of Disney, the Oregon Duck mascot was an exact copy of Donald Duck (only wearing green instead of blue). Walt Disney himself allowed the use of Donald's image in a handshake deal with the University of Oregon AD in the 1940s. It was formalized in a special license agreement between the schools and Disney in the 1970s with a number of restrictions on the use of the image outside of the Oregon sports context (as Disney still considered it to be a version of Donald Duck). Some of those restrictions were removed just last year with respect to the costumed mascot itself (but not to printed images of it):

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/index.s..._ways.html

I think some of you are either missing the point or playing some games here.

Of course it's ridiculous to throw names out there like Northwestern and Southern California as "directional schools" by virtue of their private school status. Also it is silly to compare "flagship" universities of states with directional names (West Virginia, South Carolina, etc.) to "directional schools."

However you can't have it both ways and I think it is also at least slightly disingenuous to compare schools with student populations north of 40K and which have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into BCS level facilities to traditional "directional schools" whose student populations are typically much smaller and so too are their operating budgets and facilities.

For example, for my money the quintessential "directional schools" are the ones located in Michigan. They are all precisely what I think people are talking about. They all have student populations of about 20-23K students and they all serve purposes different than what Michigan and Michigan State serve. However, just as CMU, EMU, WMU etc., are different from UM and MSU - not to mention NU and USC - they are also quite different than South Florida, Central Florida or East Carolina.

The question remains: If as a condition for their admission into the Big East UCF agreed to change its name to the "University of Orlando" and ECU agreed to change its name to the "University of Greenville," would they then somehow become more qualified as expansion candidates?

This isn't a debate about those schools' BCS worthiness but rather one that is almost exclusively about academic snobbery and the inherent biases therein.

Which brings me back to the root of this discussion. If School A has a 40K seat on campus stadium that it manages to fill on a fairly consistent basis and a student population of 50K plus; and School B has a student population of 6K and ***hopes*** to fill an 18K seat stadium, that carries a lot more weight in this discussion than either program's label - official or otherwise.

How 'bout we go ahead and add Southern Technical Florida University and be done with it?

I think the basketball only schools feel like they are getting treated like second rate schools.
I think that most of the football schools wanna grab 3 more schools for football. I think last year left a bad taste in their mouth. 3 more schools give them 3 more chances to make the BCS title game. It also gives them more recruiting areas and extra money.
I think TCU and USF needs to get off of their "we don't need and want" attitude about schools in their region. TCU could still be over in the MWC with that terrible bottom 3 or 4 teams that kill their strength of schedule. USF has never done anything to warrant being able to have permission to talk at the table in my honest opinion.
And before the haters comes in:

1993 West Virginia 7-0-0
1994 Miami (Fla.) 7-0-0
1995 Virginia Tech
Miami (Fla.) 6-1-0
6-1-0
1996 Virginia Tech
Miami (Fla.)
Syracuse 6-1
6-1
6-1
1997 Syracuse 6-1
1998 Syracuse 6-1
1999 Virginia Tech 7-0
2000 Miami (Fla.) 7-0
2001 Miami (Fla.) 7-0
2002 Miami (Fla.) 7-0
2003 Miami (Fla.)
West Virginia 6-1
6-1
2004 Pittsburgh
Boston College
West Virginia
Syracuse 4-2
4-2
4-2
4-2
2005 West Virginia 7-0
2006 Louisville 6-1
2007 West Virginia
Connecticut 5-2
5-2
2008 Cincinnati 6-1
2009 Cincinnati 7-0
2010 Connecticut
Pittsburgh
West Virginia 5-2
5-2
5-2

I do not see TCU or USF on this list of Big East champs.

(04-27-2011 02:36 PM)st932253 Wrote:  Miko - we get what you're saying. It just happens to not be a good point.

Directional schools have and will have a connotation for a good while in certain conversations. But it has even less damage than the term, "non-BCS" and we've all seen that the "non-BCS" label has not held back several programs from gaining momentum whether it be on the field, the recruiting trail or in the media.

USC is a historic and elite program. CMU/EMU/WMU generally are on the other end of the spectrum. You've got ECU, UCF and South Florida and maybe a few others keeping it real in the middle of the pack.

There's a difference between a writer/talking head saying "directional U" to get a point across in a quick 2-minute debate and trying to really make a case for brand management.

FWIW, I heard that ECU's AD said they would re-name the school, "Sparky" if it meant they could get a football only invite.

First of all, I never staked out a position one way or the other regarding this. I am merely posing questions and helping to develop lines of thought for all of our enrichment.

Second, you take a lot for granted if you think perceptions do not play a role in any of this. As it has been shown in other places on these boards, athletic budgets are a very small percentage of the total outlays to run a university on a yearly basis. For the majority of the BCS schools, it doesn't matter very much if the athletic departments are profit centers or cost centers - because in the end the benefits of exposure and the publicity gained from athletics far outweigh any costs. So when people say that university A or B would be great for the BE because they can bring this much extra money to the bottom line by an enhanced ESPN contract is absurd. Let's look at it this way. Let's say you are the president of Cincinnati or Pitt. Your competition for students, and maybe even research dollars, are Ohio St and Penn St. Knowing that playing BCS football is a great advertising venue in order to reach potential students and build a college atmosphere to excite alumni into donating more to the school, would you feel comfortable with your school competing for viewers when your school has ECU, UCF and Houston coming up in the schedule while OSU and PSU have Iowa, Nebraska and Michigan coming up on their schedules? You tell me which schools come out ahead going head to head in that scenario.

(04-27-2011 11:52 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 08:52 AM)miko33 Wrote:  There are perceptions tied to names no matter how much you try to spin it. But the "directional U" concept goes much deeper than just a name. It has much more to do with what a school is trying to accomplish or hasn't accomplished. Let's strip the names away. I have 2 universities to look at.

University A

• Operating budget: $1.889 billion
• Endowment: $2.03 billion
• Research Expenditures: Approx $750 million
  

University B

• Operating Budget: Approx $750 million
• Endowment: $156 million
• Research: $42 million
  

Based on this info alone, would University A be pleased to associate with University B, given that University A is striving to associate with like minded universities who want to pursue the same goals?

I do agree with the premise but it doesn't always lead to the result you insinuate. Has there ever been a time in the past where the Big East had a Team A and decided to associate itself with a Team B? Is the Big East in the same position as it was in prior years to be as picky academically when it comes to those decisions? This IS about football and the $$$ that they can make moreso than academics. While academics is truly important, IMO it will play a far lesser role than most would like in this go 'round. It isn't like UCF and ECU are far enough apart to make a difference and it sure seems like UCF is in. Like I said, IMO academics will play a far lesser role than most would like in this go 'round.

Look at the operating budgets of the example schools and compare that to what ECU spends on athletics every year. Let's say for the sake of argument that ECU TRIPLES the amount of "profit" it generates from it's athletics programs. Take that profit, revenues and expenses incurred by the athletic departments and compare that to the annual operating budgets of the examples above, or look at ECU's operating budget if you'd prefer. Now tell me again what the driver is for the decisions that any school makes based on ALL decisions it can make for itself.

(04-27-2011 09:11 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 11:52 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(04-27-2011 08:52 AM)miko33 Wrote:  There are perceptions tied to names no matter how much you try to spin it. But the "directional U" concept goes much deeper than just a name. It has much more to do with what a school is trying to accomplish or hasn't accomplished. Let's strip the names away. I have 2 universities to look at.

University A

• Operating budget: $1.889 billion
• Endowment: $2.03 billion
• Research Expenditures: Approx $750 million
  

University B

• Operating Budget: Approx $750 million
• Endowment: $156 million
• Research: $42 million
  

Based on this info alone, would University A be pleased to associate with University B, given that University A is striving to associate with like minded universities who want to pursue the same goals?

I do agree with the premise but it doesn't always lead to the result you insinuate. Has there ever been a time in the past where the Big East had a Team A and decided to associate itself with a Team B? Is the Big East in the same position as it was in prior years to be as picky academically when it comes to those decisions? This IS about football and the $$$ that they can make moreso than academics. While academics is truly important, IMO it will play a far lesser role than most would like in this go 'round. It isn't like UCF and ECU are far enough apart to make a difference and it sure seems like UCF is in. Like I said, IMO academics will play a far lesser role than most would like in this go 'round.

Look at the operating budgets of the example schools and compare that to what ECU spends on athletics every year. Let's say for the sake of argument that ECU TRIPLES the amount of "profit" it generates from it's athletics programs. Take that profit, revenues and expenses incurred by the athletic departments and compare that to the annual operating budgets of the examples above, or look at ECU's operating budget if you'd prefer. Now tell me again what the driver is for the decisions that any school makes based on ALL decisions it can make for itself.

So is that example ECU? I figured it may be South Florida or Washington State or something...