2016-17 Schedule

[MoValley John]

Let's say either ISUb or Evansville had won Arch Madness. At least ISUb wouldn't pee their pants at the sight of a P-6 opponent.
Or take UNI. Their resumé wouldn't have gotten them an at-large, but once they won Arch Madness their wins over UNC and Iowa St got them an 11-seed instead of a 13 or 14. So why not schedule up?

Crap...

[MoValley John]

I promise you, most Creighton people, the vast majority, don't confuse the Big East with the P-5. The Big East is a very good BASKETBALL conference, that is it. I can't remember who won the Big East in football.

If we are going to use the term P-6, as crazy as it is, the sixth conference would be the AAC, and the thought of that is laughable. I'm sorry JayPak came over here and did his best LuskingforGuttin impression.

[SHOCKvalue]

Blind test. Which school is in the big time Big East, and which one is the low major in the MVC?


School A:

Athletics Revenues - $19.9M
MBB Revenues - $6.5M
Research Funding - $25.6M
Carnegie Classification - M1 (first level of non-research, master's level instituitions)


School B:

Athletics Revenues - $25.3M
MBB Revenues - $6.8M
Research Funding - $58.9M
Carnegie Classification - R2 (second level of doctoral research universities)


Here's a hint: The Fox Sports TV money helped the BE school greatly narrow the gap between it and the lowly MVC school in athletics revenue; it did not widen the gap.

[jdshock]

Blind test. Which school is in the big time Big East, and which one is the low major in the MVC?


School A:

Athletics Revenues - $19.9M
MBB Revenues - $6.5M
Research Funding - $25.6M
Carnegie Classification - M1 (first level of non-research, master's level instituitions)


School B:

Athletics Revenues - $25.3M
MBB Revenues - $6.8M
Research Funding - $58.9M
Carnegie Classification - R2 (second level of doctoral research universities)


Here's a hint: The Fox Sports TV money helped the BE school greatly narrow the gap between it and the lowly MVC school in athletics revenue; it did not widen the gap.

The MBB numbers make me think neither of those schools should be in the MVC, unfortunately.

Also, you're the only person I've ever heard refer to the Carnegie Classification, and I've seen you do it several times. Why is it an important characteristic? It probably isn't a very good indicator of the quality of the school, right? A school like Williams wouldn't be classified as an "R2" (at least, I wouldn't think so) even though it's obviously a more elite school than either Wichita State or Creighton.

[SHOCKvalue]

The MBB numbers make me think neither of those schools should be in the MVC, unfortunately.

Also, you're the only person I've ever heard refer to the Carnegie Classification, and I've seen you do it several times. Why is it an important characteristic? It probably isn't a very good indicator of the quality of the school, right? A school like Williams wouldn't be classified as an "R2" (at least, I wouldn't think so) even though it's obviously a more elite school than either Wichita State or Creighton.

Primarily related to level of research going on at the institution. Instead of looking up specific NSF research numbers, you can just look up the Carnegie Classification to see who your peer group is and isn't. It is absolutely related to the quality of the school, because those research dollars come from outside sources and are competitive in nature.

Research funding is one of the keys to the status and standing of both a university and its individual faculty. It is essentially the sole driver to the new WSU Innovation Campus going up and under development.

[MoValley John]

The MBB numbers make me think neither of those schools should be in the MVC, unfortunately.

Neither school fits the Valley mold. Fortunately for Creighton, they were the right religious order, had the right president, with the right connections, at the right time, that when the Big East broke up, they got lucky. That probably wasn't fair to a couple of other Catholic schools with larger enrollments and bigger budgets.

That said, The Big East is NOT a P-6. Whatever a P-6 is supposed to be.

Unfortunately for Wichita State, they didn't have football when things started shifting, and geographically, Wichita State is a difficult fit for any other conference. On a sidenote, the conspiracy therorist in me wonders if ESPN want the Shockers in another conference. In the Valley, ESPN gets Shocker coverage for free. It's not in ESPN's interest to negotiate with other conferences based on the added value of Wichita State.

[jdshock]

Primarily related to level of research going on at the institution. Instead of looking up specific NSF research numbers, you can just look up the Carnegie Classification to see who your peer group is and isn't. It is absolutely related to the quality of the school, because those research dollars come from outside sources and are competitive in nature.

Research funding is one of the keys to the status and standing of both a university and its individual faculty. It is essentially the sole driver to the new WSU Innovation Campus going up and under development.

Sure, research money is important, it just seems like an odd measurement if a school chooses not to have PhD degrees for whatever reason. Creighton's classification as an "M" only has to do with degrees conferred, as far as I can tell. Their classification as a "1" has to do with level of funding. Creighton's per student endowment is way higher than WSU's. Like I said, Williams is maybe the best liberal arts, undergraduate institution in the country, but by this really specific measure, WSU blows them out of the water. Creighton is at a higher tier within the master's class than WSU is in the doctoral class. I'm just not convinced number of PhDs conferred is the best measurement for whether a school should be in a P6 conference.

Now, tell me about WSUs employment numbers being better than Creighton's and I'm definitely on board that WSU is a better school to go to, even if it's irrelevant to the P6 discussion.

[DUShock]

Blind test. Which school is in the big time Big East, and which one is the low major in the MVC?


School A:

Athletics Revenues - $19.9M
MBB Revenues - $6.5M
Research Funding - $25.6M
Carnegie Classification - M1 (first level of non-research, master's level instituitions)


School B:

Athletics Revenues - $25.3M
MBB Revenues - $6.8M
Research Funding - $58.9M
Carnegie Classification - R2 (second level of doctoral research universities)


Here's a hint: The Fox Sports TV money helped the BE school greatly narrow the gap between it and the lowly MVC school in athletics revenue; it did not widen the gap.

[SHOCKvalue]

No idea why I'm allowing myself to go down one of jdshock's rabbit trails...

Sure, research money is important, it just seems like an odd measurement if a school chooses not to have PhD degrees for whatever reason.

I'm confused. Are you wanting to talk about doctoral programs or research funding?

Creighton's classification as an "M" only has to do with degrees conferred, as far as I can tell. Their classification as a "1" has to do with level of funding.

A few minutes ago you asked me to explain what Carnegie Classification was, and now you want to openly speculate as to what the various identifiers mean?

The classifications run the gamut from the the highest levels of large-scale research universities, all the way down to junior college associates level stuff. Shall we discuss how - ultimately - the University of Michigan has nothing on Butler Community College? Where do you personally want to draw the line of demarcation so that we can scale your relativism appropriately?

Creighton's per student endowment is way higher than WSU's.

Goodness, I should hope so, they're a private school. Totally pointless to compare and contrast the endowments of privates versus publics.

Like I said, Williams is maybe the best liberal arts, undergraduate institution in the country, but by this really specific measure, WSU blows them out of the water.

The idea that an over-priced trust fund petri dish college, who exclusively bestows useless (by any reasonable measure of what is required in the modern job market) liberal arts degrees, is better than a state university with a COA 75% less that is in the business of producing accountants, engineers, financial analysts, and scientists, is an argument that could only resonate within a liberal elite mind such as your own.

We get it... Liberal arts grads grasp for any available lifeline to prove their education worthy in an economy that is literally screaming the opposite via massive piles of empirical data.

Creighton is at a higher tier within the master's class than WSU is in the doctoral class.

Solid observation. Unfortunately, the classifications are linear, not parallel, so being top of NCAA D2 doesn't trump being middle-of-the-pack in NCAA D1.

I'm just not convinced number of PhDs conferred is the best measurement for whether a school should be in a P6 conference.

Did you actually mean to type "P6"?

Anyways, if you'd like to discover the undeniable correlation between the two seemingly unrelated issues then I'm happy to oblige. Calling it a correlation is actually almost a disservice. The B10's infatuation with AAU membership isn't a thing by accident.

Now, tell me about WSUs employment numbers being better than Creighton's and I'm definitely on board that WSU is a better school to go to, even if it's irrelevant to the P6 discussion.

I would sure hope - all outside influences nullified - that WSU would have higher average starting salary for newly-minted undergrads than Creighton. CU is Friends or Newman on steroids; WSU has a huge engineering school, and a business school twice larger. Liberal arts starting salaries (CU) are terrible; engineering or accounting or whatnot (WSU) are near the top.

And there's that silly "P6" thing again.

[_kai_]

The MBB numbers make me think neither of those schools should be in the MVC, unfortunately.

Also, you're the only person I've ever heard refer to the Carnegie Classification, and I've seen you do it several times. Why is it an important characteristic? It probably isn't a very good indicator of the quality of the school, right? A school like Williams wouldn't be classified as an "R2" (at least, I wouldn't think so) even though it's obviously a more elite school than either Wichita State or Creighton.

Bardo has emphasized research classification before when talking conference realignment.

[jdshock]

No idea why I'm allowing myself to go down one of jdshock's rabbit trails...

I mean, okay. You listed three items suggesting Creighton was less deserving of being in a major conference than WSU. I asked why 1 of the 3 things you listed was an important characteristic. I wasn't trying to start an argument. I was just trying to understand why it was important to the discussion, and I told you that my initial thoughts are that it couldn't be that important. But sure, it's my rabbit trail, and I appreciate you joining me on it.

I'm confused. Are you wanting to talk about doctoral programs or research funding?

Both? The "R" comes from us having over 20 doctorates conferred yearly. The number (1, 2, or 3) comes from research activity. You're the one who mentioned research dollars. This is my exact point, though. If you're a 1 at your level (M or R), you could be better than a 2 or 3 in a higher level. In point of fact, I'd probably take some of the M1's over schools like University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, that make the R1 category.

A few minutes ago you asked me to explain what Carnegie Classification was, and now you want to openly speculate as to what the various identifiers mean?

I did not. I asked you to tell me why it was important. I'm not openly speculating. The cut off to become an "R" is 20 doctorate degrees. 1's have the highest research activity, 2 has "higher" research activity and 3 has moderate. Funding might not be the test, I don't know. It's not particularly important to the discussion you and I are having.

The classifications run the gamut from the the highest levels of large-scale research universities, all the way down to junior college associates level stuff. Shall we discuss how - ultimately - the University of Michigan has nothing on Butler Community College? Where do you personally want to draw the line of demarcation so that we can scale your relativism appropriately?

Are you making the argument that Michigan has nothing on Butler? My argument is that we don't need a line of demarcation. If a school chooses not to have PhD programs because they only have professional degrees, or even no grad programs, I just don't think that's a reason they're inherently worse than a school that offers an advanced degree. UWM isn't better than Williams because Williams is an undergraduate institution and UWM has people who get PhD's from there. Similarly, lack of graduate degrees is not the only thing that makes Butler worse than Michigan.

The idea that an over-priced trust fund petri dish college, who exclusively bestows useless (by any reasonable measure of what is required in the modern job market) liberal arts degrees, is better than a state university with a COA 75% less that is in the business of producing accountants, engineers, financial analysts, and scientists, is an argument that could only resonate within a liberal elite mind such as your own.

We get it... Liberal arts grads grasp for any available lifeline to prove their education worthy in an economy that is literally screaming the opposite via massive piles of empirical data.

You've always pegged me as a a liberal arts grad. You've done it multiple times. I have a business degree from Wichita State, so I don't understand your fascination with that argument. You're quicker to insult liberal arts majors than anyone else I've ever interacted with. Because I went to Wichita State, I hate to take the side of the argument that it's a worse school than somewhere else, but you're just delusional if you think Williams isn't a better school. WSU notable alumni; Williams notable alumni. Sure, if I'm hiring an aerospace engineer, I'm going to hire the WSU grad and not the political science major from Williams. But if you think liberal arts degrees are meaningless, it's only because your only experience is at state schools like Wichita State. The grads from Williams are going to run the country. You and I both (probably) agree that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to get a liberal arts degree from a school like Wichita State.

Solid observation. Unfortunately, the classifications are linear, not parallel, so being top of NCAA D2 doesn't trump being middle-of-the-pack in NCAA D1.

Finally we get to the crux of our disagreement. Feel free to just quote this part. 1. How can they be linear if a school merely chooses not to have PhD programs? It is obviously linear within each grouping (R, M, etc.) but I don't understand how it is linear from grouping to grouping. and 2. Even if it were linear, why would that be a good measurement for who should be in a conference? I appreciate that @kai: mentioned Bardo thinks it is important. I didn't know he said so, and I think Bardo is a great president, so maybe that is good enough for me. I just don't know why I should be sold on this measurement.

Did you actually mean to type "P6"?

Haha, good catch. I'm blaming that on MVJ for saying P6 in the post immediately prior to mine.

Anyways, if you'd like to discover the undeniable correlation between the two seemingly unrelated issues then I'm happy to oblige. Calling it a correlation is actually almost a disservice. The B10's infatuation with AAU membership isn't a thing by accident.

This is a good argument and has made me begin to understand why a conference would value an R over an M. The AAU is obviously a prestigious organization, and one that is focused purely on research, as well. Now, I'm starting to think I was right that Carnegie Classification does not mean an R3 is better than an M1, but that might not be super important to the conference discussion.

I would sure hope - all outside influences nullified - that WSU would have higher average starting salary for newly-minted undergrads than Creighton. CU is Friends or Newman on steroids; WSU has a huge engineering school, and a business school twice larger. Liberal arts starting salaries (CU) are terrible; engineering or accounting or whatnot (WSU) are near the top.

Right, exactly, which is why I went to Wichita State. I'm not arguing Creighton is a better school than Wichita State. You didn't address my concern here, though. Do you think average starting salary is important to WSU's ability to get into a better conference? I honestly don't know the answer.

[DUShock]

[ShockerFever]

Sure, research money is important, it just seems like an odd measurement if a school chooses not to have PhD degrees for whatever reason. Creighton's classification as an "M" only has to do with degrees conferred, as far as I can tell. Their classification as a "1" has to do with level of funding. Creighton's per student endowment is way higher than WSU's. Like I said, Williams is maybe the best liberal arts, undergraduate institution in the country, but by this really specific measure, WSU blows them out of the water. Creighton is at a higher tier within the master's class than WSU is in the doctoral class. I'm just not convinced number of PhDs conferred is the best measurement for whether a school should be in a P6 conference.

Now, tell me about WSUs employment numbers being better than Creighton's and I'm definitely on board that WSU is a better school to go to, even if it's irrelevant to the P6 discussion.

This dude just outed himself with the "P6" drops. No WSU fan, or any non-paranoid fan in general ever uses this made-up "P6" terminology.

Pathetic.

[Shocker-maniac]

..

[shock]