Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
UNC AD wants to boost athletic revenue by 40%!
Author Message
CrazyPaco Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,946
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 275
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #141
RE: UNC AD wants to boost athletic revenue by 40%!
(04-16-2013 07:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...Your response is appreciated but just to make sure I am clear on a couple of points I have a couple of clarifying questions and observations.

First as pertains to lobbying the lobby itself is designed to make sure that funding is either enhanced or maintained for certain research projects. The awarding of the grants for said projects is not at all the product of the lobbying, but may be enhanced by its budgetary effectiveness.
That depends what you mean by "project". Project feasibility is determined at the scientific review level. There are some exceptions for very large projects, but that is by far the minority of them. Lobbying is done for general items...academic research in general, or areas like cancer or neurodegenerative diseases or substance abuse studies/interventions.

Second, there by definition can be no direct benefit, nor lack of consideration for a research proposal because of membership or lack thereof in any conference's, or any association's membership. Their lobbying efforts would simply be directed toward making sure that funding stayed current for research in progress.
Correct, absolutely no benefit. Conflict of interests are very carefully warded against and anyone sitting on a study section with a conflict (whether the same university or not) typically has to recuse themselves. Trust me, academic researchers that make up these committees couldn't care less about conference affiliation and most of them have no idea who is or who is not in the AAU or anything else. I can't stress how much such things are a complete non-factor. There isn't a perfect utopia, biases can happen with coloring scores assigned to applications of friends/colleagues or competitors, as with anything else, but that doesn't happen because a grant comes from a school that shares conference membership. That is ridiculous. If it is from the same university, you aren't getting that grant to review and you typically recuse yourself from the room if it is discussed.

Third, any claim of any conference that membership in that conference can get one selected into AAU is a bogus claim. Or is there politics involved in AAU selection? I have been led to believe that the qualifications for membership are written to essentially protect the interests of those who are already members. Is there any truth to this?
If qualifications for membership are there to protect existing members, then what happened to UNL and SU? Please think about the nonsense being thrown around. One of the primary purpose of the AAU is for inter-institutional data and policy sharing. For that to be relevant, the membership has to look similar and face similar issues. Retaining or inviting outliers serves no purpose. Membership qualifications rely heavily on federal research per faculty because that is what the member schools are all concerned with. Why did BU get invited, Bostonian politics? Ridiculous. There are politics in anything, but Big Ten vs ACC vs SEC has nothing to do with it. Some of those Big Ten schools helped to push UNL out.

Finally, I did try to look up the whole procedure to check what I had asserted. What I met with were numerous virus infected sites. I guess it's a popular topic.
NIH and NSF websites are not infected with viruses. There is even a good YouTube video that shows the entire grant review process if people are interested and want to know what goes on in these committees. Go to http://public.csr.nih.gov/Pages/default.aspx

Again, that process is essentially how (with variations based on institute) the vast majority of research is funded. These are not secret cabals. It's government, it's largely all open.


I have not worked with the grant end of procurement, but have with CRATS and GRATS and other private contributions to University endowments. Grant procurement was usually left to the research departments and I knew about the peer review. Who selects those who comprise the professionals on those panels? And how much bearing does that have upon who is selected to be a recipient? Thanks

Federal research application and award has absolutely nothing remotely in common to fundraising or similar institutional development processes. Let me stick to NIH because that is where 65% of academic federal research money comes from and this will be simplified, obviously, but watch the video above. NIH Scientific Review Officers, for particular NIH agencies and subfields, recruit scientists with expertise in the same field (who typically have NIH grants in the field themselves) and serve on these study section review committees on a rotating basis (every 2 years for NIH, at NSF often only meeting once). They are recruited from all over the country, regardless of institution, and flown in to the DC area to meet for a few days. It is considered an obligatory service duty to the scientific field to serve on these committees, but they purposely aren't permanent. Each member is assigned 3 or more primary grants and a few secondary ones so that each grant get at least 3 primary reviewers who assign scores and write comments, and then the grants (dozens) are discussed in committee. The comments/critiques are sent out to the applicant so if it doesn't receive a fundable score, then the applicant knows if and what any changes can be made to try to get it funded during the next cycle. After % scores are assigned then the NIH agency determines the cut-off based on its budget, which for most now is about 25% but varies by agency, so even when you receive a score back, you still can't be sure it will be funded until budget decisions are made.
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2013 08:21 PM by CrazyPaco.)
04-18-2013 06:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrazyPaco Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,946
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 275
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #142
RE: UNC AD wants to boost athletic revenue by 40%!
(04-18-2013 06:20 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  
(04-18-2013 04:35 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  
(04-16-2013 07:33 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  So yes, the CIC does mean money for those involved (See: Penn State). It isn't like they hand out grants themselves, but by indirect yet clearly observable processes we can see that they do shift funds towards member institutions. To quote:

OMG, ANOTHER MORON. Holly hell, when you don't know what the hell you are talking about STFU. You sound absolutely ridiculous and know absolutely NOTHING about the process. I pointing directly at you and calling you out as an absolute FOOL.

The burden of proof is on you, not me. I have clearly shown my sources of information. All you've done is CAPS LOCK SHOUT and throw around empty credentials, an argument consisting entirely of ad hominen attacks and appeals to your authority.

If you believe I am wrong, point out the part of the process I posted is wrong. Show how the facts and figures I provided are inadequate to prove that the CIC leads to monetary gain for the schools.

But DON'T think you are right because of any personal experience or familiarity you may have with the system. I cannot say "Here, right here, this is where the CIC would give North Carolina money," but I can use statistics and human psychology to say that the CIC correlates with more money to schools that join it and that the logical reasons for this all come down to basic psychology.

Again, there have been papers and studies done on this subject. I'm not speaking from the authority of an idiot on a message board, but from the validity of the facts I've presented. If you want to disprove what I've said, show how those facts are irrelevant or incorrect.

You are pathetic. Seriously. You have no idea how little respect I have for you. What type of asshat continues to prove they are clueless over and over again? Well, that type of person is you. EVEN BETTER, you know DAMN WELL that you have NO F* IDEA about this topic. NONE. I know that, because I know how stupid you sound. Yet, amazingly you can't let it go despite the fact you have to be aware, DAMN well aware, that you DO NOT KNOW the topic nor have any familiarity with it AT ALL.

"I'm not speaking from the authority of an idiot on a message board"...Man that is FAR TOO GENEROUS. IDIOT DOESN'T DO YOU JUSTICE. How is this for a shout: YOU ARE A F*CK* MORON. It is one thing to be ignorant, it is another to fein knowledge when all you have is ignorance, but continues to try to press the situation when called out and not even take the time to research the subject to learn more about it. That is my definition of a total ASSHAT FOOL.

And with that, I'm done. I can't suffer ABSOLUTE FOOLS like this any more.

And for anyone else, because this doofus is a lost cause, here is an example of Penn State in the CIC and what it has done since joining (and this is at least the second time this has been posted to bust the CIC urban myth).

People cite the increase in straight $ as how the CIC benefited PSU, but the actual truth is the federal government doubled its academic research budget in the 1990s so almost everyone's raw research $ went up. Penn State's % of total R&D expenditures and % of federal R&D expenditures actually fell during that time compared to its peers. According to the NSF reports, in FY 1990 Penn State R&D accounted for 1.57% of total R&D expenditures among all US colleges and universities (or 9th out of all colleges and universities in the US). In FY 2011, the latest available numbers, Penn State R&D was 1.23% of total academic R&D spending or #16 nationally. It lost ground....and, gasp!, to schools that aren't in the CIC! Coincidentally, since 1996 when US News began individual school rankings past 25th place, Penn State has dropped from #41 to #46 this year. Penn State has actually gotten worse by these measures. And to head off the inevitable poorly thought through comparisons sure to come in a few years that will undoubtedly make the suggestion that Rutgers will have received a positive impact from the CIC, they are in fact merging with UMDNJ this year and will see all of UMDNJ's research money combined with theirs, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the CIC. To suggest that CIC membership has some influence, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, over federal R&D allocations is a meaningless pile of BS those that haven't the foggiest clue what the hell they are talking about.
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2013 07:59 PM by CrazyPaco.)
04-18-2013 06:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
krux Offline
Banned

Posts: 2,490
Joined: Apr 2010
I Root For: Louisville
Location: st louis
Post: #143
RE: UNC AD wants to boost athletic revenue by 40%!
Since when did personal first hand experience not mean as much as "something I read one time"!? Would you rather take your car to a mechanic that has been in business for 15 years or to a buddy that read a Haynes manual? Assuming the price is the same...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
04-18-2013 06:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
College Basketball Fan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 332
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 26
I Root For: D1 Basketball
Location: Midwest
Post: #144
RE: UNC AD wants to boost athletic revenue by 40%!
(04-18-2013 06:55 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  You are pathetic. Seriously. You have no idea how little respect I have for you. What type of asshat continues to prove they are clueless over and over again? Well, that type of person is you. EVEN BETTER, you know DAMN WELL that you have NO F* IDEA about this topic. NONE. I know that, because I know how stupid you sound. Yet, amazingly you can't let it go despite the fact you have to be aware, DAMN well aware, that you DO NOT KNOW the topic nor have any familiarity with it AT ALL.

"I'm not speaking from the authority of an idiot on a message board"...Man that is FAR TOO GENEROUS. IDIOT DOESN'T DO YOU JUSTICE. How is this for a shout: YOU ARE A F*CK* MORON. It is one thing to be ignorant, it is another to fein knowledge when all you have is ignorance, but continues to try to press the situation when called out and not even take the time to research the subject to learn more about it. That is my definition of a total ASSHAT FOOL.

And with that, I'm done. I can't suffer ABSOLUTE FOOLS like this any more.

And for anyone else, because this doofus is a lost cause, here is an example of Penn State in the CIC and what it has done since joining (and this is at least the second time this has been posted to bust the CIC urban myth).

People cite the increase in straight $ as how the CIC benefited PSU, but the actual truth is the federal government doubled its academic research budget in the 1990s so almost everyone's raw research $ went up. Penn State's % of total R&D expenditures and % of federal R&D expenditures actually fell during that time compared to its peers. According to the NSF reports, in FY 1990 Penn State R&D accounted for 1.57% of total R&D expenditures among all US colleges and universities (or 9th out of all colleges and universities in the US). In FY 2011, the latest available numbers, Penn State R&D was 1.23% of total academic R&D spending or #16 nationally. It lost ground....and, gasp!, to schools that aren't in the CIC! Coincidentally, since 1996 when US News began individual school rankings past 25th place, Penn State has dropped from #41 to #46 this year. Penn State has actually gotten worse by these measures. And to head off the inevitable poorly thought through comparisons sure to come in a few years that will undoubtedly make the suggestion that Rutgers will have received a positive impact from the CIC, they are in fact merging with UMDNJ this year and will see all of UMDNJ's research money combined with theirs, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the CIC. To suggest that CIC membership has some influence, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, over federal R&D allocations is a meaningless pile of BS those that haven't the foggiest clue what the hell they are talking about.

Let's be honest here. If you are an independent, unaffiliated person reading this thread, what would you think of this exchange? Who would you be more inclined to side with and believe?

Person A:
1. Spends most of his time in CAPS-LOCK, which gives the impression of LOUD and ANNOYING shouting and anger
2. Tries to attack their opponents credibility through continued ad hominen attacks
3. Backs up their evidence with unverifiable personal credentials and experiences, and few if any independent sources

Person B:
1. Tries to make reasonable arguments
2. Does not attack or vilify other poster
3. Shows clear evidence, charts/graphs, and sources

If you WANT people to agree with you, the way you have posted will not convince people. You sound angry, out of control, and unable to prove your points. It doesn't matter whether you think I am an idiot and completely wrong; the way I am arguing is simply much more informative and reasonable to an outside observer.

I'm NOT claiming these things because I "believe" in them or simply think the process works this way. I am claiming them because the statistics tell me that at some level CIC universities have an advantage. You have clearly shown that you don't believe there are is any way for that to be possible, but I'm not trying to show HOW it happens, just that it happens.

I'm NOT claiming that there is any direct benefit to the CIC. I AM claiming that there are indirect benefits, and that we observe the effect of those benefits. You may not believe me, but you don't have to believe me. I'm not asking you to believe in my personal credibility; I'm asking you to judge me based on the facts I present. For instance:

In a 1996 study, a university of Illinois professor found that as much as 40% of federal research dollars are allocated on the basis of congressional constituency bias, with appropriation committee membership having disproportionate effect:

Quote:In 1994 members of the Republican Party pledged to seek legislation to impose term limits on members of Congress. This pledge stemmed from the popular belief that senior members of Congress tend to promote personal interests or are more influenced by lobbying efforts that may not be representative of their constituents. Today, term limits continue to be discussed but have not been enacted; instead, many members have focused their energies toward minimizing the time spent on any particular committee of Congress, believing that tenure on a committee is a more serious concern than simple tenure in Congress. Implicit in these concerns is the issue whether as incumbent politicians plan to retire they will behave differently and, if so, whether tenure on a congressional committee exacerbates this behavior.

This article explores the role of membership on the appropriations committee on the distribution of federal research funding to universities. Specifically, it explores whether funding is diverted to these universities because politicians use their position on a committee to promote personal or constituent interests. Previous research on shirking compares the voting records of politicians on certain issues with demographic and economic characteristics of the politicians' constituents. This article explores the issue of shirking differently. I explore how membership on congressional appropriations committees affects the distribution of federal research funding to universities. I look at two types of relationships between the members and the universities. First, I consider the relationship between members and the universities that are located in the members' districts (states in the case of senators). Second, I examine the relationship between members and their undergraduate alma mater. I use district representation to proxy favoritism that reflects a politician's constituents. Given that in most instances an alma mater affiliation is not the same as district representation, I use alma mater affiliation to proxy favoritism that reflects the politician's personal interests.

That is an example of what I'm trying to argue. You can attack my personal credibility as much as you want, but I am not resting my argument on the basis of my familiarity with the system or my personal credentials. I'm arguing that personal and professional biases DO exist in the system, even if the bias is only existential (ie, bias that comes from being more likely to support the cause of a researcher or group that you know than one you do not). I'm not arguing which stage in the process introduces bias or who creates the bias, only that it exists and is documented.

Again, if you WANT people to follow you and believe you are correct (which you doubtlessly believe you are), then the best thing you can do is to put effort into debunking my sources and facts without using ad-hominen attacks or acting angry/SHOUTING. When you do so, you add credibility to my argument. If you calmly said "that isn't correct, I am a researcher with 15 years experience and the system does not allow that sort of thing for X, Y, and Z reasons," you would have ended the argument.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2013 10:38 AM by College Basketball Fan.)
04-19-2013 10:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
krux Offline
Banned

Posts: 2,490
Joined: Apr 2010
I Root For: Louisville
Location: st louis
Post: #145
RE: UNC AD wants to boost athletic revenue by 40%!
He has posted plenty to back his position. He's only caps-ing you and other's because he's explained it 1000000000000 times.
04-19-2013 10:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tiger8589 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 644
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 64
I Root For: Tigers
Location:
Post: #146
RE: UNC AD wants to boost athletic revenue by 40%!
If you want to find EXPERTS on the gravy train called AAU this is the place....LOL
04-21-2013 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JunkYardCard Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,875
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #147
RE: UNC AD wants to boost athletic revenue by 40%!
This is the most epic thread hijacking I can remember.
04-22-2013 07:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dasville Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,796
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 246
I Root For: UofL
Location:
Post: #148
RE: UNC AD wants to boost athletic revenue by 40%!
Regarding the OP, today helps accomplish that goal, with more to come!04-rock
04-22-2013 06:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
allthatyoucantleavebehind Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 942
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Penn State
Location:
Post: #149
RE: UNC AD wants to boost athletic revenue by 40%!
In retrospect, it seems likely that this "muscle flex" was directed at ESPN. Everybody with a brain (i.e. not drunkenly chanting S-E-C, S-E-C) knows that UNC could make the most athletic and academic dollars in the Big Ten. However, college sports purists and ACC fans especially CRINGE at the prospect of UNC leaving its flavorful regional rivals in the ACC for northern and midwestern foes. So, UNC says to ESPN, "You might lose us to Delany's growing cable monster if you don't pony up for our current conference."

ESPN bit on the bait. Grant of Rights now likely...huge increase in ACC dollars. ESPN can't lose this battle to the Big Ten...and UNC (and the ACC schools) realized this.
04-22-2013 10:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Maize Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,340
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 555
I Root For: Athletes First
Location:
Post: #150
RE: UNC AD wants to boost athletic revenue by 40%!
(04-22-2013 10:16 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  In retrospect, it seems likely that this "muscle flex" was directed at ESPN. Everybody with a brain (i.e. not drunkenly chanting S-E-C, S-E-C) knows that UNC could make the most athletic and academic dollars in the Big Ten. However, college sports purists and ACC fans especially CRINGE at the prospect of UNC leaving its flavorful regional rivals in the ACC for northern and midwestern foes. So, UNC says to ESPN, "You might lose us to Delany's growing cable monster if you don't pony up for our current conference."

ESPN bit on the bait. Grant of Rights now likely...huge increase in ACC dollars. ESPN can't lose this battle to the Big Ten...and UNC (and the ACC schools) realized this.

No doubt...no University President along with their BoT would ever agree to this if the $$$$$ was the right amount.

The official $$$$ amount is unknown to the public but when FSU & UNC agreed to sign over it GoR it was enough to make them very happy...07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 04-22-2013 10:23 PM by Maize.)
04-22-2013 10:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #151
RE: UNC AD wants to boost athletic revenue by 40%!
Let's see... a month ago UNC was getting $17M/year in TV money. 40% of that is $6.8M. Notre Dame added $1M and the GoR added $2M more. So, I guess the ACC Network only needs to add $3.8M and voila!
04-22-2013 10:43 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
4x4hokies Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,972
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 164
I Root For: VT
Location:
Post: #152
RE: UNC AD wants to boost athletic revenue by 40%!
(04-22-2013 10:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Let's see... a month ago UNC was getting $17M/year in TV money. 40% of that is $6.8M. Notre Dame added $1M and the GoR added $2M more. So, I guess the ACC Network only needs to add $3.8M and voila!

I think they were talking about total revenue. They are shooting for the magical 100 million mark. The television money and playoff boost takes care of a lot of it for them. The rest will come with inflation even if nothing else changes.
04-22-2013 10:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #153
RE: UNC AD wants to boost athletic revenue by 40%!
(04-22-2013 10:16 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  In retrospect, it seems likely that this "muscle flex" was directed at ESPN. Everybody with a brain (i.e. not drunkenly chanting S-E-C, S-E-C) knows that UNC could make the most athletic and academic dollars in the Big Ten. However, college sports purists and ACC fans especially CRINGE at the prospect of UNC leaving its flavorful regional rivals in the ACC for northern and midwestern foes. So, UNC says to ESPN, "You might lose us to Delany's growing cable monster if you don't pony up for our current conference."

ESPN bit on the bait. Grant of Rights now likely...huge increase in ACC dollars. ESPN can't lose this battle to the Big Ten...and UNC (and the ACC schools) realized this.

Unlike some of our brothers to the North booze is not permitted in an SEC stadium. And your analysis is all wet too. ESPN didn't give a rats behind about the SEC, ACC, or Big 10 other than to keep product out of FOX's hands. It was, is, and shall be the networks that determine realignment. They do so with what it is that prompts moves, money. All of the conferences rely upon them for income.
04-22-2013 11:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #154
RE: UNC AD wants to boost athletic revenue by 40%!
(04-22-2013 11:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-22-2013 10:16 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  In retrospect, it seems likely that this "muscle flex" was directed at ESPN. Everybody with a brain (i.e. not drunkenly chanting S-E-C, S-E-C) knows that UNC could make the most athletic and academic dollars in the Big Ten. However, college sports purists and ACC fans especially CRINGE at the prospect of UNC leaving its flavorful regional rivals in the ACC for northern and midwestern foes. So, UNC says to ESPN, "You might lose us to Delany's growing cable monster if you don't pony up for our current conference."

ESPN bit on the bait. Grant of Rights now likely...huge increase in ACC dollars. ESPN can't lose this battle to the Big Ten...and UNC (and the ACC schools) realized this.

Unlike some of our brothers to the North booze is not permitted in an SEC stadium. And your analysis is all wet too. ESPN didn't give a rats behind about the SEC, ACC, or Big 10 other than to keep product out of FOX's hands. It was, is, and shall be the networks that determine realignment. They do so with what it is that prompts moves, money. All of the conferences rely upon them for income.

You guys are missing out. We serve beer and it's great (as long as you're from NYC and accustomed to paying for a beer in arms and legs, the preferred currency of the Carrier Dome)
04-22-2013 11:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.