Best in the ACC

[TrollyMcTroller]

1. do you realize how exclusive aau membership is. LV is DECADES away
2. there is a direct relationship between athletic success and application rates
3. schools are shown to have greater success recruiting students that are located in their own conference footprint.
4. school presidents live breath eat & shit thinking about upgrading their academic association. it is something that gets talked about so often by so many schools that you simply can not deny this
5. you just proved your stupidity. I have been very clear that academics are the driving factor for why schools move but not why conferences add.
6. i already hit the "it is better to add a bad academic school than to not add at all" point

I know you visit that other conf. realignment forum as well. why don't you go there and ask how much the academics matter and watch how badly you get owned there. academics are the single biggest driving factor for why schools leave and people who know what they are talking about agree with me. Hell the most powerful AD in college sports even said it.

Louisville isn't decades away. Time has fuckall to do with it. Louisville isn't a good enough academic institution to join the AAU club.

Yes, there is a direct relationship between athletic success and application rates. But improving application rates, doesn't necessarily improve academic standing. Duke didn't get to be a great academic institution because of their basketball team. Northwestern didn't get to be a great academic institution because of their football team. Vandy didn't get to be a great academic institution because of their baseball team. Harvard didn't get to be a great academic institution because of their rowing team. Schools don't improve their academic standing through conference affiliation.

Schools also have greater success recruiting students in their own state. Recruiting footprint doesn't mean dick.

Yes, of course presidents want to upgrade their academic association. That isn't the same thing as athletic conferences. As I said before, nobody thinks that Louisville is a great school because they're going to play Duke next year. If you're stupid enough to believe that shit, then you aren't smart enough to help raise the academic profile of the school. What sort of horse shit are you selling anyway. You think the route to academic improvement is to trick dumb kids into coming to your school? That's fucking brilliant!

You haven't proved anything at all. You've made a couple of flimsy arguments that don't even pass the slightest of examination.

If you think it's better to add a bad academic school, that's pretty obvious that the move isn't about academics.

 

[john01992]

Louisville isn't decades away. Time has fuckall to do with it. Louisville isn't a good enough academic institution to join the AAU club.

Yes, there is a direct relationship between athletic success and application rates. But improving application rates, doesn't necessarily improve academic standing. Duke didn't get to be a great academic institution because of their basketball team. Northwestern didn't get to be a great academic institution because of their football team. Vandy didn't get to be a great academic institution because of their baseball team. Harvard didn't get to be a great academic institution because of their rowing team. Schools don't improve their academic standing through conference affiliation.

Schools also have greater success recruiting students in their own state. Recruiting footprint doesn't mean dick.

Yes, of course presidents want to upgrade their academic association. That isn't the same thing as athletic conferences. As I said before, nobody thinks that Louisville is a great school because they're going to play Duke next year. If you're stupid enough to believe that shit, then you aren't smart enough to help raise the academic profile of the school. What sort of horse shit are you selling anyway. You think the route to academic improvement is to trick dumb kids into coming to your school? That's fucking brilliant!

You haven't proved anything at all. You've made a couple of flimsy arguments that don't even pass the slightest of examination.

If you think it's better to add a bad academic school, that's pretty obvious that the move isn't about academics.

1. athletic conferences ARE the biggest forms of academic association. it is the ultimate marriage between schools. when the majority of people think michigan or UNC then think ohio state & duke, b10 & acc. while the b10 has those associations with non b10 schools in the form of research cooperation, academic conferences etc. the fact is we hear very little about it from a public perception standpoint

2. you are comparing vandy and duke when for starters they are a different caliber of academic schools. it is totally unfair to compare them. and more importantly they were established well before the rise of college athletics. You can't judge what a school did in the 1880s to what is going on today. it is simply a different game.

3. what baffles me is that you don't think a school has a benefit from playing in the same state year after year. you really don't think arizona playing in california twice a year does not give them a marketing advantage? that being covered by the local sports media in california on a regular basis did not help them at all get more students from california??????? sheesh. I grew up in syracuse but for some reason I was a lot more familiar with schools, like gtown, uconn, & pitt than vermont, temple, & BU

the two best examples are arizona & michigan state. 2 schools who were good enough athletically to get into the b10/pac10 but were not the most ideal "core schools". those two schools grew big time once joining those two conferences. it just so happens that both received aau status within a few years of joining.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

1. athletic conferences ARE the biggest forms of academic association. it is the ultimate marriage between schools. when the majority of people think michigan or UNC then think ohio state & duke, b10 & acc. while the b10 has those associations with non b10 schools in the form of research cooperation, academic conferences etc. the fact is we hear very little about it from a public perception standpoint

Majority of what people? Sports fans? Frat boys? You know the majority of college students are female right? You do know what a female is I assume. Probably seen one or two on the interwebz. These sports rivalries mean nothing to the academic world. Hell, once you get past the undergrad level, the vast majority of students don't give a flying fuck about athletics.

2. you are comparing vandy and duke when for starters they are a different caliber of academic schools. it is totally unfair to compare them. and more importantly they were established well before the rise of college athletics. You can't judge what a school did in the 1880s to what is going on today. it is simply a different game.

Harvard is #1, Duke is #7, Northwestern is #12 and Vandy is #17. Not that fucking far off. And I brought them up to contrast your point that athletics is the route to academic success. You've yet so show an example of a school that rose to academic success because of their conference affiliation. I've shown you several that did it without.

National University Rankings | Top National Universities | US News Best Colleges

3. what baffles me is that you don't think a school has a benefit from playing in the same state year after year. you really don't think arizona playing in california twice a year does not give them a marketing advantage? that being covered by the local sports media in california on a regular basis did not help them at all get more students from california??????? sheesh. I grew up in syracuse but for some reason I was a lot more familiar with schools, like gtown, uconn, & pitt than vermont, temple, & BU

What baffles me is that you seem to think getting more students from California (or wherever) equals academic improvement.

the two best examples are arizona & michigan state. 2 schools who were good enough athletically to get into the b10/pac10 but were not the most ideal "core schools". those two schools grew big time once joining those two conferences. it just so happens that both received aau status within a few years of joining.

Where's the proof that the conference affiliation had anything to do with it? You left out the most important part... the proof.

 

[john01992]

Majority of what people? Sports fans? Frat boys? You know the majority of college students are female right? You do know what a female is I assume. Probably seen one or two on the interwebz. These sports rivalries mean nothing to the academic world. Hell, once you get past the undergrad level, the vast majority of students don't give a flying fuck about athletics.

people = general population. are you honestly going to say that when people think of michigan they don't think about the football program or the b10

Harvard is #1, Duke is #7, Northwestern is #12 and Vandy is #17. Not that fucking far off. And I brought them up to contrast your point that athletics is the route to academic success. You've yet so show an example of a school that rose to academic success because of their conference affiliation. I've shown you several that did it without.

i was talking about those schools compared to LV you dumb fucking prick. why do i have to be super specific with you jut to explain a basic concept to you. Even if i was vague in explaining this a lightbulb should of gone off in your head when you tried to compare louisville academically to NW, vandy, & harvard academically. stupidity like this is why i am always debating putting you on ignore because the lack of mental capacity that you have gets frustrating to deal with after awhile

National University Rankings | Top National Universities | US News Best Colleges



What baffles me is that you seem to think getting more students from California (or wherever) equals academic improvement.

well considering that greater out of state enrollment is usually associated with being a better academic school.....yeah thats part of the point. but the big point I was aiming at was the conference affiliation is spreading their academic brand into california. of course with you lower intelligence levels I guess I have to be super specific to explain a point that you should of come up with yourself. this is starting to get ridiculous. talking with you I need to use a scientific method style mentality where I go through every little detail possible just to make sure you understand what i am saying because you are too stupid to jump to conclusions on your own with the information i give you.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

people = general population. are you honestly going to say that when people think of michigan they don't think about the football program or the b10

And who gives a fuck what the general population thinks? You're great at bring up shit that doesn't matter. If Johnny Slapdick on the street associates OSU with Michigan, that doesn't magically make OSU a better school.

i was talking about those schools compared to LV you dumb fucking prick. why do i have to be super specific with you jut to explain a basic concept to you. Even if i was vague in explaining this a lightbulb should of gone off in your head when you tried to compare louisville academically to NW, vandy, & harvard academically. stupidity like this is why i am always debating putting you on ignore because the lack of mental capacity that you have gets frustrating to deal with after awhile

Good for fucking you. I wasn't talking about Louisville. I wasn't comparing those schools to Louisville. I was providing examples of schools that have a good academic profile that didn't get it because of athletics.

well considering that greater out of state enrollment is usually associated with being a better academic school.....yeah thats part of the point. but the big point I was aiming at was the conference affiliation is spreading their academic brand into california. of course with you lower intelligence levels I guess I have to be super specific to explain a point that you should of come up with yourself. this is starting to get ridiculous. talking with you I need to use a scientific method style mentality where I go through every little detail possible just to make sure you understand what i am saying because you are too stupid to jump to conclusions on your own with the information i give you.

Greater out of state enrollment doesn't make a school better academically. Good academics generally lead to better out of state enrollment. Increasing out of state enrollment through other means isn't the same thing as increasing the school's academics. Correlation ≠ Causation.

Do I have to explain everything to your dumb ass?

And I'm still waiting on anything that vaguely resembles proof of any of your assertions. So far all you've done is talk about everything except academics, despite that being the whole fucking point of your earlier assertion.

 

[dcZONAfan]

SLAAAAAAPDICK!!!

 

[dcZONAfan]

this is such a bad argument that I am now quoting trolly's paraphrasing of slapdick and getting it completely wrong because of it, simply because i can tell it's clearly not worth reading any of this shit because you guys argue about, literally, the dumbest points ever. but keep going trolly, i do enjoy when you make slapdick look like a 3 year old

 

[john01992]

And who gives a fuck what the general population thinks? You're great at bring up shit that doesn't matter. If Johnny Slapdick on the street associates OSU with Michigan, that doesn't magically make OSU a better school.

and you think that point is not relevant ==> that further proves you stupidity. the fact that you don't get this shows how horrible you are at logic & reasoning. the point i am making (or trying to make to a clueless dumbfuck) is that when people think about michigan and the schools michigan associates with they think athletes not whatever research project UM is working on with harvard

Good for fucking you. I wasn't talking about Louisville. I wasn't comparing those schools to Louisville. I was providing examples of schools that have a good academic profile that didn't get it because of athletics.

god you are so fucking dumb. FUCKING DUMB. again i have to be super specific about this. it is completely unfair to compare schools like harvard to louisville. they developed into major name brand schools at different times. one is in the top 10 of academic rankings, the other is lucky to be in the top 200. you simply can not say "well harvard went about becoming an academic school without athletics" well FUCKING DUH!!!!! not every school behaves the same. the two are as polar opposites as it gets. louisville trying to copy "how harvard did it" is like saying a single AA baseball club can win the world series "if they just spend like the yankees" well guess what ==> they don't have the money to do that.

do you not understand that there are different levels of d1 schools. LV belongs in the group of BSU, ucf, usf, houston etc. schools who developed much later in the game and whose name brand is based mostly on athletic success. that is the formula they have to follow because harvard is a school of a much higher academic class and established themselves as a national name before football became a major sport.

I can not believe that i had to explain all of that to you. you can not blindly take two schools that are as polar opposites as LV & harvard and say they require the same recipe for academic success. ever watched moneyball "if we play like the yankees in here.....we will lose to the yankees out there"

Greater out of state enrollment doesn't make a school better academically. Good academics generally lead to better out of state enrollment. Increasing out of state enrollment through other means isn't the same thing as increasing the school's academics. Correlation ≠ Causation.

Do I have to explain everything to your dumb ass?

And I'm still waiting on anything that vaguely resembles proof of any of your assertions. So far all you've done is talk about everything except academics, despite that being the whole fucking point of your earlier assertion.

for the 2nd time on the same subject you totally miss the point. arizona is extending its brand to california as a result of pac12 membership. its like a never ending cycle of dumbfuck with you.

and fyi. greater out of state enrollment means you are having......
1. higher tuition for those students
2. more competitive admissions process

out of state enrollment is almost always associated with a larger pool of applicants. all zona is doing is getting more people from cali to apply while at same time the same amount of people from arizona continue to apply.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

and you think that point is not relevant ==> that further proves you stupidity. the fact that you don't get this shows how horrible you are at logic & reasoning. the point i am making (or trying to make to a clueless dumbfuck) is that when people think about michigan and the schools michigan associates with they think athletes not whatever research project UM is working on with harvard

Branding ≠ academics. You can keep running your cock gobbler all night long about branding and perception and that still won't make a school, any school, a better academic institution.

god you are so fucking dumb. FUCKING DUMB. again i have to be super specific about this. it is completely unfair to compare schools like harvard to louisville. they developed into major name brand schools at different times. one is in the top 10 of academic rankings, the other is lucky to be in the top 200. you simply can not say "well harvard went about becoming an academic school without athletics" well FUCKING DUH!!!!! not every school behaves the same. the two are as polar opposites as it gets. louisville trying to copy "how harvard did it" is like saying a single AA baseball club can win the world series "if they just spend like the yankees" well guess what ==> they don't have the money to do that.

do you not understand that there are different levels of d1 schools. LV belongs in the group of BSU, ucf, usf, houston etc. schools who developed much later in the game and whose name brand is based mostly on athletic success. that is the formula they have to follow because harvard is a school of a much higher academic class and established themselves as a national name before football became a major sport.

I can not believe that i had to explain all of that to you. you can not blindly take two schools that are as polar opposites as LV & harvard and say they require the same recipe for academic success. ever watched moneyball "if we play like the yankees in here.....we will lose to the yankees out there"

And you can keep explaining until you're blue in the face. It still won't make your point actually relevant to the topic. I brought up those four schools as counter examples, not comparisons. Of course they're nothing like Louisville. That's the point, Youjizz.

for the 2nd time on the same subject you totally miss the point. arizona is extending its brand to california as a result of pac12 membership. its like a never ending cycle of dumbfuck with you.

and fyi. greater out of state enrollment means you are having......
1. higher tuition for those students
2. more competitive admissions process

out of state enrollment is almost always associated with a larger pool of applicants. all zona is doing is getting more people from cali to apply while at same time the same amount of people from arizona continue to apply.

1. Higher tuition. That sounds more like a money issue than an academic issue. In fact, I'm sure of it.
2. Increasing the number of applicants, and/or changing the location of said applicants doesn't necessarily mean that your raising the overall level of the applicants. If you get an extra 500 dummies from California applying to AZ, that doesn't magically mean that you're getting better students enrolled. And that's one of the many places your theory falls apart. There is no proof that you're getting better applicants because of an increased profile somewhere. You might get more, but more ≠ better.

So while you claim that the conference realignment is about academics, your case for it falls apart.

If anything you've done a pretty good job of proving it's about money.

 

[john01992]

Branding ≠ academics. You can keep running your cock gobbler all night long about branding and perception and that still won't make a school, any school, a better academic institution.


increasing the poll of applicants = academics. promoting your schools name and having people known about your university is a big part of that. it is like pepsi/coke/bud light ads. half the time you don't hear them pitch the benefits of their product. they just pitch their product with a funny 25 second bit followed by 5 seconds with their logo. that is advertising 101 and college athletics is the exact same concept. BSU football is what separates bsu from the other schools in BSUs academic tier of schools. thats how they get ahead in the academic world.

And you can keep explaining until you're blue in the face. It still won't make your point actually relevant to the topic. I brought up those four schools as counter examples, not comparisons. Of course they're nothing like Louisville. That's the point, Youjizz.

and you are still too dumb to understand that it is totally unfair to compare schools like that. you are essentially saying that 1970-2014 is exactly the same as 1636. sorry but it is not. the two schools are the products of 2 completely different era's and you are two dumb to understand this

1. Higher tuition. That sounds more like a money issue than an academic issue. In fact, I'm sure of it.
2. Increasing the number of applicants, and/or changing the location of said applicants doesn't necessarily mean that your raising the overall level of the applicants. If you get an extra 500 dummies from California applying to AZ, that doesn't magically mean that you're getting better students enrolled. And that's one of the many places your theory falls apart. There is no proof that you're getting better applicants because of an increased profile somewhere. You might get more, but more ≠ better.

So while you claim that the conference realignment is about academics, your case for it falls apart.

If anything you've done a pretty good job of proving it's about money.

he is so stupid. jeez you don't think that more money = beter academic facilities, professors etc. jesus. and didn't you say not to long ago the academic money & athletic money are totally different? your pathetic dummies analogy doesn't even work. more people ALWAYS makes the process more competitive. no ifs, ands, or buts, about this.

keep yappin

 

[john01992]

poll =pool

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

he is so stupid. jeez you don't think that more money = beter academic facilities, professors etc. jesus. and didn't you say not to long ago the academic money & athletic money are totally different? your pathetic dummies analogy doesn't even work. more people ALWAYS makes the process more competitive. no ifs, ands, or buts, about this.

Well, it's about time you finally fucking agreed with me. It's about the money. Always was. Always will be.

UofL joined the ACC because of money, and the ACC invited UofL because of money.

 

[john01992]

Well, it's about time you finally fucking agreed with me. It's about the money. Always was. Always will be.

UofL joined the ACC because of money, and the ACC invited UofL because of money.

i guess you forgot every other part of the conversation then and focused on that one sentence.

nice i guess that regression of yours is a de-facto admission of defeat

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Defeat? Because you finally agreed with me? Hardly.

 

[john01992]

Defeat? Because you finally agreed with me? Hardly.

that more money = better academic facilities means conference realignment is all about money??????

only the losers of an argument pull the bullshit that you are right now (taking something that is not even close to the main point of my argument and acting like it is)

the amount of reaching you have to do to try to get under my skin is quite fascinating.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

that more money = better academic facilities means conference realignment is all about money??????

only the losers of an argument pull the bullshit that you are right now (taking something that is not even close to the main point of my argument and acting like it is)

the amount of reaching you have to do to try to get under my skin is quite fascinating.

You said conference realignment was all about academic association.

I showed that was bullshit.

Then you tried to turn it into something about endowments.

I showed that was bullshit.

Then you tried to spin it into they (conferences and institutions) wanted to improve their academic standing through conference associations.

I showed that was bullshit.

So then you finally come around and admit it's actually just about the money. Like I said all along. It would have been easier if you'd just agreed in the first place, but honestly making you look stupid repeatedly was a lot more fun, so thanks.

No doubt you'll try to spin it even more tomorrow... and it'll still be about money at the end of the day.

But please... don't drop the "Everybody thinks OSU is a better school now since they play UM in football, and those same everybody people, are all smarterer than the people already there, so if they enroll, it'll make OSU the smarterest school around, because Big Ten." argument. It's priceless.

 

[jonvi]

Dawkins has been "en fuego" from the arc. He's always been a great shooter. If Syracuse stays back in that zone he could go off for 30. But Duke will win or lose by it's defense. They have to stop Syracuse from getting dunks and layups first and foremost.

Well it's on now big man. It's awesome SU is still undefeated. That adds to the drama.

I think my boys have this one.

SU won't sit back in the zone unless Duke is missing them or shooting way beyond NBA range. If someone is hitting 3's, JB extends the zone out. My guess is with Dukes limited inside presence, I expect the zone to be extended out from tip off.

Good luck to your boys.

 

[john01992]

You said conference realignment was all about academic association.

I showed that was bullshit.

Then you tried to turn it into something about endowments.

I showed that was bullshit.

Then you tried to spin it into they (conferences and institutions) wanted to improve their academic standing through conference associations.

I showed that was bullshit.

So then you finally come around and admit it's actually just about the money. Like I said all along. It would have been easier if you'd just agreed in the first place, but honestly making you look stupid repeatedly was a lot more fun, so thanks.

No doubt you'll try to spin it even more tomorrow... and it'll still be about money at the end of the day.

But please... don't drop the "Everybody thinks OSU is a better school now since they play UM in football, and those same everybody people, are all smarterer than the people already there, so if they enroll, it'll make OSU the smarterest school around, because Big Ten." argument. It's priceless.

dumbfuck. it has nothing to do with people thinking osu is better because they play UMin football. but everyone who hears Ohio State thinks of michigan/big ten as well. what is this.....the50th time i have had to explain something nice& slow to you.

as for the money thing. you are pathetic as it gets on that subject. congrats on whining the biggest troll award for that one ==> which is pretty hard to do.

 

[john01992]

oh and I love how you misspelled both smarter & smartest

 

[dcZONAfan]

oh and I love how you misspelled both smarter & smartest

you are THAT stupid, that you can't see that he purposefully misspelled those two words?

SLAPDICK AT HIS FINEST!

this is the dumbest argument of all time, btw. not surprising that trolly goaded you into spewing pages of bullshit, the guy owns you 7 ways to sunday and you still somehow seem to think you came out on top....as always...such a pity