[quote author=omnicarrier board=acc thread=1175696476 post=1180145212]I didn't try. I clearly made this distinction. Are you saying that public vs private is not a significant distinction?
There are different types of private and there are different types of public schools. UNC and Virginia are both public schools, but they have much more in common with Duke, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Miami, Georgetown, and Boston College than they do with these public schools (to name a few) - Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois - which those 5 institutions have much less in common with these public schools - West Virginia, Louisville, Mississippi, Memphis, USF.
In what way do they operate like smaller private colleges?
A much more balanced approach toward undergraduate and graduate education in terms of faculty and resources (unlike the Big 10 public schools where the majority focus of quality resources are on graduate education), admission criteria, academic qualifications/background of enrolled students, enrollment size, class sizes, fiscal management, emphasis on endowments rather than on state funding support, etc.
I don't care who they consider to be their peers.
Obviously you don't care, but you do realize that all institutions develop a 'peer institutional list' by which they compare and measure themselves for both internal and external reporting, right?
They are very different from Duke & Notre Dame in any number of ways.
Again, not in the ways that count - academic mission, admissions criteria, faculty, endowments, etc.
And again, this isn't to state that UConn and Rutgers don't meet the academic profile of the ACC. For those who truly understand these issues, UConn is a perfect fit for the ACC in terms of academic profile and while Rutgers is also, they, like Maryland, are betwixt and between, with being slightly more like a Big 10 profile than an ACC one.
Big Ten & SEC schools are irrelevant to this discussion. I don't recall making any such comparisons.
Ahh, but you did, and continue to do so when you simply divide along public and private lines without making any kinds of distinction that there are different types of public and different types of privates.
By the way, do you know what institution is New York state's land-grant university?
You picked 3 of the 4 smallest ACC public universities. UConn fits right in with that group with an undergrad enrollment of 16,100. OTOH, why not pick 3 of the largest? Florida State (30,800), Maryland (25,400), & North Carolina State (22,800). Virginia Tech (30,800) fits right in with FSU & Rutgers (26,700) is right there with Maryland.
I thought it was obvious that I picked the way I did because you were attempting to say it was 7 versus 2. I was trying to point out that it was like 5 versus 4 - in other words it wasn't as lopsided as you were attempting to make it out to be.
And besides, if you recall, it was FSU, NC State, and Maryland who wanted Miami, BC, and Syracuse. And the first two of those three desperately wanted Notre Dame as well.
So obviously, nobody in the ACC really cared about the one thing (state versus private) that you believe is more important than history, than markets, than like institutions, than sports facilities, and any other criteria upon which the ACC made their decision.
And once again, this is not to say that UConn and/or Rutgers won't eventually prove to be the better choice(s) in the long run - but at that point in time when the decision was made, they simply were not in the running.
But this is my whole point in this thread. It should have been a major consideration. I think that they made an enormous mistake by ignoring this factor.
Which, of course, you are entitled to have your opinion. But since the actual players involved disagreed, I am attempting to present the other side of the argument - why those initial choices may have ultimately proved to have been the best choices (and the fact that what the ACC got was betwixt and between may have been the worse of all possible scenarios, but that is a different thread ;) )
Enrollment - BC (9,000) & Miami (10,900) have smaller undergrad enrollments than every other ACC school except the two charter privates, Duke (6.500) & Wake Forest (4,300). Syracuse (12,900) is smaller than every ACC public school except Georgia Tech (11,800)
Let's look at this differently:
Less than 5000:
Wake - 4,263
Duke - 6,244
BC - 9019
Miami - 9601
Georgia Tech - 11842
Syracuse - 12128
Virginia - 13151
Clemson - 13192
UConn - 15196
North Carolina - 16304
North Carolina State - 18718
VT - 21083
Maryland - 22648
Rutgers - 24242
Florida State - 30418
As can be seen by doing the entire list, each of the schools that were candidates to be selected and the two you now feel the ACC should have accepted all fit in terms of enrollment. The oddballs in term of enrollment size are Wake and Florida State. There is nothing about the sizes of the 3 private institutions that make them 'unlike' the rest of the ACC.
In-State/Out-of-State Enrollment - BC (72%), Syracuse (56%), & Miami (45%) have enormous out-of-state enrollments - just like the Duke (85%) & Wake (71%). The public schools are very different, ranging from Florida State (8%) to Gerogia Tech (32%), the only public over 30%. Rutgers (11%) compares with NC State (13%), UConn (24%) with Maryland (25%), & Virginia Tech (28%) with Clemson (28%) & Virginia (27%). The remaining public is North Carolina (18%) - right in the same range with Rutgers, UConn, & VPI.
The above is a difference, but I would contend if you do an academic profile of the backgrounds of the selected candidates and admissions criteria of schools you will discover that the three privates you wish to dismiss as being 'unlike' ACC schools fits like a glove.
Research Function - Every ACC school prior to expansion was classified by the Carnegie Foundation for Teaching & Learning as "Very High" in research dollars - its highest category - except Wake. Of the three proposed additions, only Miami ranked this high. BC & Syracuse both ranked "High" - the middle of the Carnegie Foundations 3 research categories for Doctoral/Research Universities. In contrast, Uconn, Rutgers, & Virginia Tech all ranked "Very High."
The ranking of research universities is controversial even amongst these institutions. The Carnegie Foundation rankings are the most controversial, since they employ dollars only in their rankings and they combine both federal and state dollars, which puts many privates at a disadvantage.
The Center for Measuring University Performance has its own Research rankings, in which only federal dollars are look at.
In terms of this ranking of federal dollars only, GT(14) and MD(20) are the only 2 in the Top 25. In the Top 50 are UNC(34), VT(39), NC State (41), Rutgers(45), and FSU (50). In the Top 100, Duke(58), Clemson(67),Virginia(71),Miami(79) and UConn(89).
Out of the Top 100 are BC(112), SU(135), and Wake(145).
Of course, as the report points out, medical and engineering require the most dollars while social science and political science requires the least amount of dollars. It is the latter in which Syracuse is most proficient, being one of the Top 10 research universities in terms of political science and government as well as media and pop culture.
In terms of ranking research universities in terms of quality of research as well as funding the following are ranked by the same organization in the Top 25(note there are about 50 colleges ranked in the Top 25 because to get into the Top 25 you need only be ranked in the Top 25 in 1 of the 9 criteria being assessed):
Those in the Top 25 are Duke, UNC, Virginia, and Maryland. The only two Big East schools in the Top 25 are Pitt and Notre Dame.
In the Top 50 are GT, NC State, Rutgers, VT, BC, and Miami. When you make $$$ 1 of 9 criteria in determining the quality of research institution, then FSU, Clemson, and UConn drop slightly.
Finally, the site does an analysis of privates only and public only.
In this analysis, Duke, ND, Miami, and Wake are in the Top 25 while Syracuse and BC rank in the Top 50 for privates.
In public school analysis, UNC, UVa, MD, GT, and Rutgers are Top 25 while FSU, UConn, and Clemson are Top 50.
So, once again, there really isn't much of a distinction between all the candidates being discussed on this topic either.
VT, while rising to near-elite status in football, has hardly been a perfect fit in every other way for the ACC. A case could be made in terms of culture, geography and increasing the football prestige of the league, VT has been an asset. At this point in time their unexpected success in basketball has actually lowered the league's perception as the premier basketball league. And the initial returns of their being in the ACC has been a definite hindrance, not a help, for Virginia.
And just as Miami may not be a power over the next 20 years, they at least have 5 NCs they can point to. And they will always be in Miami, and unless a natural disaster causes Miami to sink into the Atlantic, the Miami market is worth $$$ to any conference in which she is in.
Now, since as you say, you never know what the next 20 years are going to bring, what happens if it is VT that slips instead of Miami? What do the Hokies bring? They have yet to win an NC in any sport. They have no market whatsoever. Should they slip in football they would then bring less to the ACC than Mississippi does to the SEC.
As of this moment, they obviously were the better choice than either BC or Syracuse. But this is still a very short time frame in which to be making any definitive statements on this topic. However, I do know that one thing isn't likely to change - VT has no intrinsic value of their own whatsoever in that they simply have no market. And this, coupled with the fact that they have no history, makes them at this moment a marginal candidate as well.
Don't you mean that Virginia Tech has no new
market for the ACC? Of course they have a market. After all, they are the "state university" of Virginia as it says in their full name.
Well, not quite. They are a state university in Virginia, the University of Virginia is Virginia's state university. It is the reason why the term 'flagship university' has become popular.
The comparison in my mind as I made the above remarks are like UNC and NC State. Both have North Carolina in their names, but they bring different markets, this requires an understanding of DMAs.
They bring the entire state of Virginia as their market. And this is a market that has been poorly represented by U VA in postseason both in football & in basketball for many years. Virginia residents now actually have an ACC teamto root for in the postseason. It's a market that is far more valuable than Mississippi or the greater Oxford market. Even Blacksburg is bigger than Oxford, MS.
No, if I said Mississippi State then the above would be accurate. But Virginia, as the flagship institution, brings the ACC the key Virginia markets, just as Mississippi brings the key markets of the state of Mississippi to the SEC.
Of course VA Tech can be the one to decline rather than Miami. The problem is that Miami has shown that interest in its football program drops off very quickly when they are not winning. VA Tech has done a much better job at keeping its fan in off years.
Which has less to do with it being a 'state' school than it does the culture of the area in which the school resides.
Miami never has brought any fans for basketball. In terms of market, Miami does not bring its metro market exclusively. The Flirda Gators still are Florida's team - even in Miami. This is a shared market, not one that is owned by the University of Miami.
With Florida the SEC can stake a claim to all of Florida's key markets including Miami and Tampa while the ACC can claim the Miami market (thanks to the presence of Miami) and the Big East can claim the Tampa market (thanks to USF).
But when VT was in the Big East, the league couldn't claim all the key Virginia markets, the best it could claim was the nearest DMA which was Roanoke-Lynchburg.
See the difference?
Now there are times when a secondary state school transcends their local markets and become national in nature - Florida State being the prime example of this, but that is rare. And VT isn't anywhere near that level yet.
I've been trying to say that a conference is a better entity when it brings together similar schools so that even when one or another of them is down, they still have enough in common to see each other as rivals. We may disagree on which schools fit best, but that was my point.
And my point isn't that the UConn and Rutgers are not ACC type schools but that your point that Miami, BC, and Syracuse are dissimilar is off-base. And because you are starting with this faulty premise, it hurts, imho, the overall point that VT, UConn and Rutgers might eventually prove to have been the better candidates.
There are reasons why that might be so, but these reasons are not rooted in the reasons you are giving.
And they are rather simple reasons, VT is a cultural and geographical fit while UConn and Rutgers might one day surpass all but Penn State in terms of being the best of the northeastern college sports universities. The first is current and is unlikely to change while the latter is far from happening at this point in time.