UMass back to FCS?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Matt Vautour @GazetteUMass
There is a motion that will be presented by the fac senate today to call on admin to consider reversing decision to move football to FBS

Hustle Belt @HustleBelt
The UMass faculty wants to discuss a proposal to move football back to FCS. To be a fly on the wall of that meeting.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

What's driving this:

http://www.masslive.com/umassfootball/index.ssf/2012/12/faculty_senate_ad_hoc_committe.html


If you thought the debate on the University of Massachusetts campus about the upgrade of the football program to the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly known as Division I-A) was over once the team took the field, think again.

While the majority of the discussion among fans is driven by the consequences of moving home games to Gillette Stadium, it’s the financial commitment of the university that has some members of the Faculty Senate’s Ad Hoc Committee on FBS Football raising concerns.

“We started looking just at the initial projections by the athletic department and then the actual experience of this first year,” Page said. “That’s what this report is.”

One issue is the $555,410 differential between the football program’s projected 2012 fiscal year budget and its actual one, the burden of which is likely to fall upon state funds. It should be noted, though, that the initial projections did not include $678,612 in staff compensation listed as a "one-time buyout."

Another concern is money spent on the football program from within the university, but outside the athletic department. In the 2013 fiscal year, the school spent $700,000 through its external relations department on the football program.

Hm.

[Hammerhead]

You mean one win and an average home attendance just under 11,000 isn't good enough?

[NoDak 4 Ever]

Isn't FBS supposed to be the promised land?

[DFW HOYA]

Faculty senates don't make executive decisions.

Most think of athletics as a zero sum game and assume if there wrre no athletic teams, it's more money for their endless research projects.

[cbarrier90]

Also worth mentioning that this is a faculty petition and the faculty has zero power to enforce any movement. (HOYA beat me to it.) Will be interesting to see what happens if it does gain traction. Would be unprecedented.

[BEAR]

Faculty senates don't make executive decisions.

Most think of athletics as a zero sum game and assume if there wrre no athletic teams, it's more money for their endless research projects.

Exactly. Same thing is happening here at UCA. Faculty want their raises and pulled the same crap. Didn't work as they have zero power to make it happen. Hope they got their raises anyway. xlolx

[darell1976]

You mean one win and an average home attendance just under 11,000 isn't good enough?

If that was the case Idaho would have been back to the Big Sky a decade ago.

[asumike83]

Playing your home games 90 miles from campus is not a successful model for any football program, regardless of division. Should have had that situation figured out before they made a move.

[MplsBison]

What a joke. Propaganda and nothing else.

A) oh wierd, *faculty* complaining about money being spent. Like they can do anything about it.

B) their trump card: $555k budget over projection (for a budget I'm guessing at least 5-8 million) when the projection did NOT include a $678 buy-out!


LFN, you saw some article that you mistook as fitting your anti-I-A agenda, got wide eyed and ran over here as fast as your little fingers could carry you to shout it to anyone who would listen.


Shut the thread down.

[JMUNJ08]

90 miles is almost JMU playing at the old RFK in DC! It would be nice every once in awhile, but you aren't going to get the students support. Which, to me, is initially more important than the donors because they will grow into those future donors....

[TheValleyRaider]

Faculty senates don't make executive decisions.

Most think of athletics as a zero sum game and assume if there wrre no athletic teams, it's more money for their endless research projects.

Nothing else needs to be said here... xreadx

[RichH2]

No, No . This a prime hijack topic for PL expansion.

[ngineer]

UMass to the PL! (;-)

[Laker]

If the Big East folds, get UMass and UConn, have Vermont and Boston U to restart football and form the Yankee Conference again! xsmiley_wix

Ben and Jerry could have bankrolled the Catamounts- they must not like football too much. xpeacex

[cougarpines]

What a joke. Propaganda and nothing else.

A) oh wierd, *faculty* complaining about money being spent. Like they can do anything about it.

B) their trump card: $555k budget over projection (for a budget I'm guessing at least 5-8 million) when the projection did NOT include a $678 buy-out!


LFN, you saw some article that you mistook as fitting your anti-I-A agenda, got wide eyed and ran over here as fast as your little fingers could carry you to shout it to anyone who would listen.


Shut the thread down.

Looks like it's a little more than the budget overspending. About $3 mill more.

http://www.masslive.com/umassfootball/index.ssf/2012/12/breaking_down_what_the_umass_faculty_senate_fbs_di scussion_really_meant.html

[Tubakat2014]

Faculty members expressed financial concerns inside their individual departments that included lack of teaching assistants, inability to pay for travel to conferences, inability to fund laboratory sections for introductory classes and even sub-standard cleanliness in university restrooms.

Okay, yes, moving up to FBS is costly. But cry me the Amazon River, you want more teaching assistants? Why don't these professors try, you know, teaching classes THEMSELVES. But fine, they can have their teaching assistants. Just don't complain when I use the person sitting next to me as my test-taking assistant! Sure, research is important, but I'm paying to get an education and enjoy the college experience, not fund egotistical divas that couldn't care less about passing their knowledge on to students.

Sorry if I seem bitter. There are legitimate reasons to worry about a bloated athletics budget, but every time some "esteemed" faculty member at a university speaks up about what to do with that money, their ideas are equally as frivolous or worse. I recently had a professor at SHSU who spent loads of time doing research and going to conferences, and guess what? She did a pretty poor job of actually teaching us.

Put your effort into giving me the best education you can during the week and let me enjoy my dang football on Saturday! Is that so much to ask for?

I hope things get better for UMass soon. I have a feeling they will!

[Saint3333]

I heard that the coverage the FCS receives is down just 5 years ago and the trend is getting worse, anyone else hear about this?

[henfan]

The student & faculty groups can bellyache all they want. Part of UM's impetus to try FBS FB was the lack of financial viability of FCS FB in Amherst. IMO, UMass isn't likely ever going to return to the FCS. Anyone hoping that will happen is peeing up a rope.

[Twentysix]

Okay, yes, moving up to FBS is costly. But cry me the Amazon River, you want more teaching assistants? Why don't these professors try, you know, teaching classes THEMSELVES. But fine, they can have their teaching assistants. Just don't complain when I use the person sitting next to me as my test-taking assistant! Sure, research is important, but I'm paying to get an education and enjoy the college experience, not fund egotistical divas that couldn't care less about passing their knowledge on to students.

Sorry if I seem bitter. There are legitimate reasons to worry about a bloated athletics budget, but every time some "esteemed" faculty member at a university speaks up about what to do with that money, their ideas are equally as frivolous or worse. I recently had a professor at SHSU who spent loads of time doing research and going to conferences, and guess what? She did a pretty poor job of actually teaching us.

Put your effort into giving me the best education you can during the week and let me enjoy my dang football on Saturday! Is that so much to ask for?

I hope things get better for UMass soon. I have a feeling they will!

Professors/assistant professors/associate professors are for teach graduate courses and upper level undergrad courses, the graduate students are for teaching undergrads intro level courses, derp derp. Its like some of you never went to a university.

If UMass were to have professors teach every course they offer I gurantee you would see tens of millions in additional salary required every year.

A grad student costs 10-20k a year to teach 2-6 courses. A professor costs 131k (2012 average salary for Umass-amherst) a year to teach 4-8 courses (part of earning full professorship is only being required to teach 2 a semester at NDSU, unsure about amherst but it should be the same) do the math.

Say there are 40 sections of composition I (thats roughly 800 students a semester in comp I) each semester, thats 80 classes, if you had grad students teaching those classes it would cost the university roughly $300,000. If you have professors teach those classes it costs the university roughly $2,626,000. (Each student would have to pay roughly $1641.50 to pay just the salary of the professors required for that one class's 40 sections each semester)

I am by no means arguing Umass should return to the FCS. I am merely pointing out most people have zero clue wtf they are talking about when arguing university finances, esp if they can't see the benefit of a TA vs a tenured Dr.

[Apphole]

Has never and will never happen.

Sorry rubes.

[Babar]

Money always has to come from somewhere. UMass football costs a lot of money. The move to FBS increases those costs. Those costs are mostly subsidized by the university and even the optimistic projections have them mostly subsidized from the university through 2020.

For this subsidy to make sense for the university on a balance sheet, the football program would need to generate the equivalent of tens of millions of dollars in publicity or goodwill. Maybe it will? And I've always been of the opinion that if sports are worth playing, they're worth spending money on, and self-supporting sports tend to take on cancerous characteristics. But UMass doesn't have unlimited resources.

...and good luck improving your national profile this way when nearly every other FBS school is spending money on the same strategy in hope of the same result in an arena in which wins actually are zero-sum, particularly at a time when schools outside the power conferences are reasonably worried about the possibility of being locked out of the limelight permanently, particularly in the region of the country where support for college football is most scarce.

[GannonFan]

The faculty at Rutgers talked about de-emphasizing football pretty much every year, especially back when Rutgers was lucky to win a single game in a season. Of course, all that's happened since is Rutgers has been invited to join the Big 10.

Why is there even a thing such as a faculty senate? Is there a budget for those things?

[Tubakat2014]

Professors/assistant professors/associate professors are for teach graduate courses and upper level undergrad courses, the graduate students are for teaching undergrads intro level courses, derp derp. Its like some of you never went to a university.

If UMass were to have professors teach every course they offer I gurantee you would see tens of millions in additional salary required every year.

A grad student costs 10-20k a year to teach 2-6 courses. A professor costs 131k (2012 average salary for Umass-amherst) a year to teach 4-8 courses (part of earning full professorship is only being required to teach 2 a semester at NDSU, unsure about amherst but it should be the same) do the math.

Say there are 40 sections of composition I (thats roughly 800 students a semester in comp I) each semester, thats 80 classes, if you had grad students teaching those classes it would cost the university roughly $300,000. If you have professors teach those classes it costs the university roughly $2,626,000. (Each student would have to pay roughly $1641.50 to pay just the salary of the professors required for that one class's 40 sections each semester)

I am by no means arguing Umass should return to the FCS. I am merely pointing out most people have zero clue wtf they are talking about when arguing university finances, esp if they can't see the benefit of a TA vs a tenured Dr.

My apologies for coming across like an uninformed idiot.

I fully understand why universities use graduate assistants to teach certain intro undergrad classes. From a cost-benefit point of view, it makes perfect sense. My issue is not with the system, but the attitude that many professors within the system choose to take. Some professors seem to use TAs as a crutch to keep them from actually having to teach anything. I have a huge issue with that. I personally feel that the number one reason for ANY university to exist is to educate students. All other things (including football) are secondary. Research is important, but being able to efficiently transmit their knowledge to their students is more important, even if they use TAs to do so. Again, my problem is not with the concept of TAs, but the way in which some professors take advantage of the system to reduce the amount of time they spend teaching.

I guess the reason I'm so anal about this is because I have indeed had some great intro professors. Professors that, though they may teach higher level classes that are more specialized to their field of study, still put a huge amount of effort into making their intro classes enjoyable, educational, and fun. It makes the uninspired professors that simply go through the motions that much more undesirable.

[ccd494]

I think UMass is much more likely to drop football than to go back to FCS.

Although, they did achieve their goal, they were on the front cover of the Globe!

[NoDak 4 Ever]

My apologies for coming across like an uninformed idiot.

I fully understand why universities use graduate assistants to teach certain intro undergrad classes. From a cost-benefit point of view, it makes perfect sense. My issue is not with the system, but the attitude that many professors within the system choose to take. Some professors seem to use TAs as a crutch to keep them from actually having to teach anything. I have a huge issue with that. I personally feel that the number one reason for ANY university to exist is to educate students. All other things (including football) are secondary. Research is important, but being able to efficiently transmit their knowledge to their students is more important, even if they use TAs to do so. Again, my problem is not with the concept of TAs, but the way in which some professors take advantage of the system to reduce the amount of time they spend teaching.

I guess the reason I'm so anal about this is because I have indeed had some great intro professors. Professors that, though they may teach higher level classes that are more specialized to their field of study, still put a huge amount of effort into making their intro classes enjoyable, educational, and fun. It makes the uninspired professors that simply go through the motions that much more undesirable.

It's not a cost thing, at larger research universities the professors are conducting research and teaching grad classes. My wife is finishing her PhD at Ohio State and she has taught a capstone class for the last 2 semesters. The most "grueling" class schedule offered in her job search was 4 classes a semester, the job she is being considered for is 2 classes.

That's just the way it is. Research brings in $.

[dbackjon]

It's not a cost thing, at larger research universities the professors are conducting research and teaching grad classes. My wife is finishing her PhD at Ohio State and she has taught a capstone class for the last 2 semesters. The most "grueling" class schedule offered in her job search was 4 classes a semester, the job she is being considered for is 2 classes.

That's just the way it is. Research brings in $.

Which is why Undergrad Education at a school like NAU is superior to undergrad education at heavy Research schools.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I think UMass is much more likely to drop football than to go back to FCS.

Although, they did achieve their goal, they were on the front cover of the Globe!

Yes, they were.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/12/12/umass-football-plagued-attendance-problem/g7gKSRY6HhclPTsOgc9tpM/story.html


No one responsible for investing millions of public dollars to upgrade the University of Massachusetts Amherst football program and move the team’s home games to Gillette Stadium saw this coming. When the Minutemen played their first homecoming game in Foxborough — a 24-0 loss in October to Bowling Green — they drew a crowd of only 10,846 to the 68,756-seat stadium.

The sea of empty seats was especially stunning because the Minutemen had been accustomed to nearly packing their campus stadium for homecoming games. Over the previous five years, they had played before average crowds of 13,937 at the 17,000-seat McGuirk Alumni Stadium, on the UMass Amherst campus.

The program’s precipitous attendance drop at Gillette — never more evident than when the Minutemen completed their 1-11 debut in the elite Football Bowl Subdivision by losing to Central Michigan before a paltry 6,385 — has driven up the cost of the school’s effort to enter the ranks of big-time college football and intensified concerns about the upgrade’s prospects for success.

With students and taxpayers picking up the tab for at least some of the cost overruns, the lower-than-expected attendance has prompted some to wonder whether UMass should reconsider its plan to transform the Minutemen into a national football program.

http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Boston/2011-2020/2012/12/12/BostonGlobe.com/Metro/Images/umass.jpg

[UNHWILDCATS05]

Yes, they were.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/12/12/umass-football-plagued-attendance-problem/g7gKSRY6HhclPTsOgc9tpM/story.html



http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Boston/2011-2020/2012/12/12/BostonGlobe.com/Metro/Images/umass.jpg

Much better than when they were FCS:

17372

17373

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

Umass should have stayed in FCS and Temple should have stayed in the MAC....

[MplsBison]

Which is why Undergrad Education at a school like NAU is superior to undergrad education at heavy Research schools.

In what sense?

You're saying the average NAU undergrad learns more concepts, better than the average Cal Tech undergrad?

[MplsBison]

Looks like it's a little more than the budget overspending. About $3 mill more.

http://www.masslive.com/umassfootball/index.ssf/2012/12/breaking_down_what_the_umass_faculty_senate_fbs_di scussion_really_meant.html

As I thought, more gobbledygook from people who have a vested interest in getting their own hands on that money.

Nothing more and it should be dismissed as that.

[fc97]

In what sense?

You're saying the average NAU undergrad learns more concepts, better than the average Cal Tech undergrad?

no, what he is saying is being taught by qualified professors > being taught by graduate students where that isn't their primary job

i can see arguments for both sides.

[MplsBison]

Yes, they were.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/12/12/umass-football-plagued-attendance-problem/g7gKSRY6HhclPTsOgc9tpM/story.html



Congrats to the Globe, they did their job: sell entertainment.

It's nothing more than a piece on something they caught wind of which they knew would rile people up - nothing more. There's nothing new there, it's not news.



No reasonable, non-obtuse person would hold the expectation that the UMass football brand must sell out Gillette in its first season and go undefeated as national champions.

[MplsBison]

no, what he is saying is being taught by qualified professors > being taught by graduate students where that isn't their primary job

i can see arguments for both sides.

Here that ALL the time.

Professors do research and try to get published. That's what the job is. Someone who is good at that is not necessarily any more qualified to teach an advanced concept than anyone else who understands that concept.

So I don't buy it on its face. No doubt, there are some professors who are brilliant teachers. There are also some professors who don't have a friggin clue how to teach a concept that they understand very well. We've all had those.

[dbackjon]

In what sense?

You're saying the average NAU undergrad learns more concepts, better than the average Cal Tech undergrad?

Not sure what percentage of undergrad classes are taught by Grad Assistants at a small school like Cal Tech, but if you are comparing NAU to ASU, UCLA, etc, you are going to have a full prof teach most classes at NAU, a Grad Assist at the big schools.

The big schools emphasis is on Grad/Doctoral/REsearch, not undergrad.

[Laker]

No reasonable, non-obtuse person.

OBTOSE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtiF_n_R9sA

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Congrats to the Globe, they did their job: sell entertainment.

It's nothing more than a piece on something they caught wind of which they knew would rile people up - nothing more. There's nothing new there, it's not news.

Apparently it was newsworthy enough to make their front page, which is no mean feat in a busy burg like Boston - and it made it over Red Sox hot stove talk, the Patriots' dismantling of the Texans, the Celtics...

[MplsBison]

Not sure what percentage of undergrad classes are taught by Grad Assistants at a small school like Cal Tech, but if you are comparing NAU to ASU, UCLA, etc, you are going to have a full prof teach most classes at NAU, a Grad Assist at the big schools.

The big schools emphasis is on Grad/Doctoral/REsearch, not undergrad.

You said major research school - which Cal Tech is one of the top research schools in the nation. You didn't specify large, public, research university.

But even in that case, grad students teach classes at those schools only for standard undergraduate classes. Ones in which students are expected to be capable of putting in the time to learn the concepts on their own, basically. And if you can't do that, you need to challenge yourself as to why you're wasting your parents money.

[MplsBison]

Apparently it was newsworthy enough to make their front page, which is no mean feat in a busy burg like Boston - and it made it over Red Sox hot stove talk, the Patriots' dismantling of the Texans, the Celtics...

They're in the business of selling newspapers.

This article will sell newspapers. End

[MplsBison]

OBTOSE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtiF_n_R9sA

Yep, that's where I heard it too :D

[carney2]

90 miles is almost JMU playing at the old RFK in DC!

Or like moving Lafayette-Lehigh across two state lines to Yankee Stadium.

Uh oh, is this one of those Patriot League hijack attempts that Rich warned us about?

[fc97]

Here that ALL the time.

Professors do research and try to get published. That's what the job is. Someone who is good at that is not necessarily any more qualified to teach an advanced concept than anyone else who understands that concept.

So I don't buy it on its face. No doubt, there are some professors who are brilliant teachers. There are also some professors who don't have a friggin clue how to teach a concept that they understand very well. We've all had those.

its a comment in general and we all know how generalities run.

but in his defense, smaller state schools, regional schools and liberal arts schools the professors are primarily there to teach and anything else is secondary and even at those types of schools, most professors aren't doing research and trying to get published; teaching is the primary mission.

the original poster was also comparing a type of school to the type of school nau is.

[dgtw]

At Cal Tech you might get Sheldon Cooper for a professor.

Maybe UMass should have a money drop at one of their games. I hear that brings in a crowd.

[MplsBison]

its a comment in general and we all know how generalities run.

but in his defense, smaller state schools, regional schools and liberal arts schools the professors are primarily there to teach and anything else is secondary and even at those types of schools, most professors aren't doing research and trying to get published; teaching is the primary mission.

Simply: no.

That's called a lecturer. There's a reason why they have the two different titles.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

Simply: no.

That's called a lecturer. There's a reason why they have the two different titles.

Prime example, my wife used to be an instructor at UW-Oshkosh. Once she completes her PhD, she will be a professor at a research university.

I would imagine that small colleges would be the exception but at NDSU I had several classes taught by grad students when I was an undergrad.

[dgtw]

A friend of mine is head of the Department of Marketing at a major, BCS level university. He teaches one class per semester and it is conducted on line.

[Twentysix]

Not sure what percentage of undergrad classes are taught by Grad Assistants at a small school like Cal Tech, but if you are comparing NAU to ASU, UCLA, etc, you are going to have a full prof teach most classes at NAU, a Grad Assist at the big schools.

The big schools emphasis is on Grad/Doctoral/REsearch, not undergrad.

I would contend this is most likely bull****; pick a department, lets see how it goes.

[Twentysix]

Prime example, my wife used to be an instructor at UW-Oshkosh. Once she completes her PhD, she will be a professor at a research university.

I would imagine that small colleges would be the exception but at NDSU I had several classes taught by grad students when I was an undergrad.

At NDSU it really depends what department, as to whether it is taught by grads or instructors/lecturers/professors/associates/assistant/adjuncts.

In Anth the TA's function more as a helper and administer the tests. In English the grad's teach alot maybe even most of the undergrad courses, with exceptions. In History the TA's function like Anth; in Psych they teach classes by themselves.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

At NDSU it really depends what department, as to whether it is taught by grads or instructors/lecturers/professors/associates/assistant/adjuncts.

In Anth the TA's function more as a helper and administer the tests. In English the grad's teach alot maybe even most of the undergrad courses, with exceptions. In History the TA's function like Anth; in Psych they teach classes by themselves.

I was in Comm. My Geology 110 was taught by a full professor.

[Twentysix]

So just for ****s I went into the NAU spring catalog for English offerings. 2 classes in the 100-200 range are taught by full professors; 26 are not. Thats every class listed from 100-299. There are 27 300 level classes, 3 of which are taught by full professors.

19/38 of the NAU english department staff are listed as full professors.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I think I'd better prepare for the end of the world. A UMass to FCS thread started by a Patriot League school fan has been hijacked by a bunch of alumni from state schools talking about academics.

[Twentysix]

I think I'd better prepare for the end of the world. A UMass to FCS thread started by a Patriot League school fan has been hijacked by a bunch of alumni from state schools talking about academics.

Thats Very High Research state schools to you :p

[bullitt_60]

What a cluster... I feel bad for the students that want to support their team. Who here could have afforded the fuel required to go to their (UMass) home games when they were in college? Not me.

[dbackjon]

I would contend this is most likely bull****; pick a department, lets see how it goes.

Every single one of my Accounting Classes, except 101 (and only because of an illness), every business class, every biology, botany, forestry etc classes at NAU were taught by PHD professors.

I had a couple of geology and education classes taught by doctoral candidates on last year before getting PHD. All my history classes except a summer class were taught by full PHD professors.

NAU prides itself on this.

[Twentysix]

Every single one of my Accounting Classes, except 101 (and only because of an illness), every business class, every biology, botany, forestry etc classes at NAU were taught by PHD professors.

I had a couple of geology and education classes taught by doctoral candidates on last year before getting PHD. All my history classes except a summer class were taught by full PHD professors.

NAU prides itself on this.

There is a huge difference between a full professor and someone with a Ph.D. I guess you didn't mean exactly what you said.

http://nau.edu/CEFNS/NatSci/Math/Faculty-Full-Time/ Mathematics and statistics

[NDSU_grad]

There is a huge difference between a full professor and someone with a Ph.D. I guess you didn't mean exactly what you said.

http://nau.edu/CEFNS/NatSci/Math/Faculty-Full-Time/ Mathematics and statistics
Every single science class I had at NDSU was taught by a person with a terminal degree.

[bojeta]

Here that ALL the time.

Professors do research and try to get published. That's what the job is. Someone who is good at that is not necessarily any more qualified to teach an advanced concept than anyone else who understands that concept.

So I don't buy it on its face. No doubt, there are some professors who are brilliant teachers. There are also some professors who don't have a friggin clue how to teach a concept that they understand very well. We've all had those.

This is true! Teaching is both an art and a science. Skilled, passionate teachers are best prepared to instruct students. Researchers who are skilled, and passionate teachers are quite rare!!

[Twentysix]

Every single science class I had at NDSU was taught by a person with a terminal degree.



same here then again I only took 3.

[PAllen]

There is a huge difference between a full professor and someone with a Ph.D. I guess you didn't mean exactly what you said.

http://nau.edu/CEFNS/NatSci/Math/Faculty-Full-Time/ Mathematics and statistics

I think you may be mixing a few things here. Assistant/Associate/Full Professors are all professors. They are different ranks of professor (ie, assistants get promoted to associate, associates get promoted to full). All are considered full time faculty and usually require a doctorate and some level of self funded research. Lecturers can be anything from a grad student to a full professor who no longer wants to do research.

[DFW HOYA]

I think you may be mixing a few things here. Assistant/Associate/Full Professors are all professors. They are different ranks of professor (ie, assistants get promoted to associate, associates get promoted to full). All are considered full time faculty and usually require a doctorate and some level of self funded research. Lecturers can be anything from a grad student to a full professor who no longer wants to do research.

Usually goes like this:

Lecturer: Adjunct, non-tenure track. Hired semester by semester. May have a PhD, may not.
Assistant Professor: PhD, has 5-6 years to get tenure or he/she is essentially fired. Also, tougher to get hired at next school after denial of tenure. Denial of tenure is the academic equvalent of an ROTC grad not being promoted past lieutenant in the Army--it may be time to find another profession.
Associate Professor: PhD, tenured, has a job for the duration.
Professor: PhD, highest pay grade, may involve an department chair
University Professor: Ceremonial title, usually an endowed position.

[Twentysix]

I think you may be mixing a few things here. Assistant/Associate/Full Professors are all professors. They are different ranks of professor (ie, assistants get promoted to associate, associates get promoted to full). All are considered full time faculty and usually require a doctorate and some level of self funded research. Lecturers can be anything from a grad student to a full professor who no longer wants to do research.

Indeed, perhaps you meant to quote dbon, which is exactly what I was posting. He said "full professor" which are only the highest level of tenure, not to mention about 1/2 of that stats/math department are non tenure track instructors or lecturers.

A large amount of them only have Masters, which is completely contradictory to everything Dbon was trying to say. No full professor is listed as a lecturer, they have tenure that would keep them at their position, they just won't be able to earn emeritus or distinguishment awards without research.

16 of the 42 listed at NAU's math and stats department as full time faculty have no degree higher than a masters. An even larger number than that are non tenured lecturers or instructors.


Every single one of my Accounting Classes, except 101 (and only because of an illness), every business class, every biology, botany, forestry etc classes at NAU were taught by PHD professors.

I had a couple of geology and education classes taught by doctoral candidates on last year before getting PHD. All my history classes except a summer class were taught by full PHD professors.

NAU prides itself on this.

The requote is for PAllen to reference.


Not sure what percentage of undergrad classes are taught by Grad Assistants at a small school like Cal Tech, but if you are comparing NAU to ASU, UCLA, etc, you are going to have a full prof teach most classes at NAU, a Grad Assist at the big schools.

The big schools emphasis is on Grad/Doctoral/REsearch, not undergrad.

[Twentysix]

Usually goes like this:

Lecturer: Adjunct, non-tenure track. Hired semester by semester. May have a PhD, may not.
Assistant Professor: PhD, has 5-6 years to get tenure or he/she is essentially fired. Also, tougher to get hired at next school after denial of tenure. Denial of tenure is the academic equvalent of an ROTC grad not being promoted past lieutenant in the Army--it may be time to find another profession.
Associate Professor: PhD, tenured, has a job for the duration.
Professor: PhD, highest pay grade, may involve an department chair
University Professor: Ceremonial title, usually an endowed position.

I agree with everything you posted, at NDSU the evaluations of assistant professors are done on a 3 year basis, perhaps they would be given an extension if they 'almost' made tenure. I would also add that we have some chairs that are not full professors. It is also my understanding at NDSU atleast, Full professors are only required to teach 2 classes per semester, where as assistants are required to teach 4 per semester.

[MplsBison]

Thats Very High Research state schools to you :p

He wouldn't know what that means. Patriot League schools grade themselves mainly on the average test scores of the incoming undergraduate class and the number of applicants they turned down.

[MplsBison]

What a cluster... I feel bad for the students that want to support their team. Who here could have afforded the fuel required to go to their (UMass) home games when they were in college? Not me.

This is just a guess, but I think they bus students out there.

Maybe I'm just weird, but as an undergrad cooped up out in Amherst all week - given the chance to go to Boston on Saturday, go to the game for free, then party that night ... seems like a good deal. Guess I don't know if buses back would only be right after the game ends.

[MplsBison]

This is true! Teaching is both an art and a science. Skilled, passionate teachers are best prepared to instruct students. Researchers who are skilled, and passionate teachers are quite rare!!

Well - frankly...it's probably not too hard to be passionate about teaching a subject you love to 10 students who are all as talented as you.

Trying to teach to 60+ students an advanced topic...that must be a bit overwhelming. Especially when they're all sending emails that they expect responses to that same day.

[ccd494]

This is just a guess, but I think they bus students out there.

Maybe I'm just weird, but as an undergrad cooped up out in Amherst all week - given the chance to go to Boston on Saturday, go to the game for free, then party that night ... seems like a good deal. Guess I don't know if buses back would only be right after the game ends.

Gillette is nowhere near Boston.

[MplsBison]

Gillette is nowhere near Boston.

Yes it is.

[DSUrocks07]

Yes it is.

If you consider a 40 minute drive as "close"

[MplsBison]

If you consider a 40 minute drive as "close"

*shrug* 28 miles up the interstate.

[Twentysix]

If you consider a 40 minute drive as "close"


Minneapolis and Winnipeg are both a short drive from Fargo ;)

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Gillette is nowhere near Boston.


Yes it is.

It's witty repartee like this that makes AGS great. xlolx xlolx xlolx

[bojeta]

Well - frankly...it's probably not too hard to be passionate about teaching a subject you love to 10 students who are all as talented as you.

Trying to teach to 60+ students an advanced topic...that must be a bit overwhelming. Especially when they're all sending emails that they expect responses to that same day.

As one who currently has 170 students, I again concur.

[DFW HOYA]

If you consider a 40 minute drive as "close"

For 16 years, that was the approximate time Georgetown students traveled in school buses to home basketball games at Capital Centre (more for evening games during rush hour).

Not recommended.

[MplsBison]

It's witty repartee like this that makes AGS great. xlolx xlolx xlolx

It was meant to provoke a more thoughtful explanation than "it's nooo waaaaahhh neeeeehh Baaaaahhh-stuuun"

[MplsBison]

As one who currently has 170 students, I again concur.

170 is impossible. You have to expect they can learn and teach themselves to some degree.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

With the Big East essentially breaking up now, what does UMass do? Suddenly, trying to emulate UConn doesn't seem like such a great idea.

[MplsBison]

With the Big East essentially breaking up now, what does UMass do? Suddenly, trying to emulate UConn doesn't seem like such a great idea.

Stay the course in the MAC/A10. Worked fine for Temple.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Stay the course in the MAC/A10. Worked fine for Temple.

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[fc97]

Simply: no.

That's called a lecturer. There's a reason why they have the two different titles.

that depends on the school you're talking about. not everything is as it is defined in your mind. that's a real problem with you, you dictate what you think to be right as fact, while the rest of us are talking on generalities.

simply put, you're wrong, again. every time I give you the benefit of the doubt, you prove why i shouldn't do that.

[MplsBison]

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

What?

[MplsBison]

that depends on the school you're talking about. not everything is as it is defined in your mind. that's a real problem with you, you dictate what you think to be right as fact, while the rest of us are talking on generalities.

simply put, you're wrong, again. every time I give you the benefit of the doubt, you prove why i shouldn't do that.

No, I'm right in this case.

[boogereagle]

Sorry rubes.

Uh .... Hunter S. Thompson? Posting on a message board? Wow. I thought you were dead.
Glad that's not the case.

Long live HST.

[fc97]

No, I'm right in this case.

dude, what don't you get. a lecturer position at one school is not the same as a lecturer position at another school. a professor at one school is not a professor at another school. school A has professors (tenured) solely for research with students performing lecturer (non-tenured) positions overseen by professors. school B has professors (tenured) doing teaching which could be much like lecturer positions or may be lecturer plus other responsibilities.

the point is, you are not right because there isnt a drop in the bucket definition school to school for any of this. which goes back to the original poster's comments - in many cases it is better to have qualified professors teach to paying students than students teach to students as that is their sole job.

end of story, you couldn't be more wrong about this.

[MplsBison]

dude, what don't you get. a lecturer position at one school is not the same as a lecturer position at another school. a professor at one school is not a professor at another school. school A has professors (tenured) solely for research with students performing lecturer (non-tenured) positions overseen by professors. school B has professors (tenured) doing teaching which could be much like lecturer positions or may be lecturer plus other responsibilities.

the point is, you are not right because there isnt a drop in the bucket definition school to school for any of this. which goes back to the original poster's comments - in many cases it is better to have qualified professors teach to paying students than students teach to students as that is their sole job.

end of story, you couldn't be more wrong about this.

A) no, you're wrong. The professorship progression is very well defined for higher education in the US.

B) as was already discussed in the thread, having a "qualified" professor teaching the class guarantees nothing as to the quality of learning that takes place in said classroom. Nothing.

It's a marketing gimmick that smaller schools have used for a long time.

[bojeta]

170 is impossible. You have to expect they can learn and teach themselves to some degree.

Exactly! It forces the instructor to focus at least as much time on motivation as on curriculum. There are actually pinheads out there that insist class size does not matter!

[fc97]

A) no, you're wrong. The professorship progression is very well defined for higher education in the US.

B) as was already discussed in the thread, having a "qualified" professor teaching the class guarantees nothing as to the quality of learning that takes place in said classroom. Nothing.

It's a marketing gimmick that smaller schools have used for a long time.

A) Again, no its not. There is no set forth definition for what any of this means. The accreditation services don't even provide it.

B) We've been through this. I never said it did or didn't

Last) There's your bias in your lasts sentence. Dude, you have some REAL problems. I am some real serious issues. I really hope you can get them sorted.

[MplsBison]

A) Again, no its not. There is no set forth definition for what any of this means. The accreditation services don't even provide it.

B) We've been through this. I never said it did or didn't

Last) There's your bias in your lasts sentence. Dude, you have some REAL problems. I am some real serious issues. I really hope you can get them sorted.

Yes it is.

Glad you agree that having a prof teaching the class does nothing to guarantee the quality of learning that takes place in said classroom.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

simply put, you're wrong, again.


No, I'm right in this case.


the point is, you are not right...you couldn't be more wrong about this.


A) no, you're wrong.


A) Again, no its not.


Yes it is.

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[fc97]

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

quite a bit silly isn't it.

[PAllen]

quite a bit silly isn't it.

No it isn't ! :D

[Apphole]

Uh .... Hunter S. Thompson? Posting on a message board? Wow. I thought you were dead.
Glad that's not the case.

Long live HST.
I faked my own death to stick it to the Bush administration. Res ipsa loquitur. Let the good times roll.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Hm.

http://ht.ly/g5izi


It's not the worst idea ever. While I don't think BC would be able to fill Gillette, this would serve to help out Massachusetts' fledgling Division I-A program.

Division I-A programs are required to average at least 15,000 fans once over a two year period to maintain its FBS standing. UMass, in its first year in Division I-A playing 90+ miles from campus, averaged just 10,901 a game, including a season low 6,385 in attendance for the regular season finale against Central Michigan.

As a result, UMass is going to have to get creative in 2013 if it wishes to keep playing "big boy" football. The hurdle is high. UMass will have to improve its per-game attendance average by more than 4,000 fans next season. With a 2013 home schedule headlined by Vanderbilt and including Maine, Akron, Miami (Ohio), Northern Illinois and Western Michigan, combined with a 1-11 inaugural season, the Minutemen's prospects of hitting that 15k average don't seem all that great.

The MAC has not been immune to flirting with relegation by NCAA bylaw. Last year, Eastern Michigan got Pepsi to purchase 50,000 tickets at $3 a pop to hit the magical 15k average. Similarly, Ball State was saved by an anonymous donor scooping up 35,000 tickets.

[ccd494]

Hm.

http://ht.ly/g5izi

You know how they say "never say never?" I'm saying never. I bet there is a bottle of champagne in some BC athletic office waiting for the day UMass drops back down to FCS.

[MplsBison]

You know how they say "never say never?" I'm saying never. I bet there is a bottle of champagne in some BC athletic office waiting for the day UMass drops back down to FCS.

Never happen. They'll drop football before dropping back to FCS.

No different than Idaho. Once you make that commitment, you're locked in.


And it's ridiculous that there is any such requirement of 15k. The NCAA has never enforced and never will. I dare them to try, they'd have their butts handed to them in court.

[Go...gate]

I faked my own death to stick it to the Bush administration. Res ipsa loquitur. Let the good times roll.

LOL! "Fear and Loathing in FCS Football" xreadx

[Babar]

And it's ridiculous that there is any such requirement of 15k. The NCAA has never enforced and never will. I dare them to try, they'd have their butts handed to them in court.

Actually, this is pretty much the rule that pushed the Ivy League out of 1A thirty years ago.

[MplsBison]

Actually, this is pretty much the rule that pushed the Ivy League out of 1A thirty years ago.

So you say. Regardless, in today's world they'll never force an I-A school down due to attendance. Attendance has nothing to do with a school's willingness and ability to pay for 85 scholarships.

[fc97]

So you say. Regardless, in today's world they'll never force an I-A school down due to attendance. Attendance has nothing to do with a school's willingness and ability to pay for 85 scholarships.

you're fooling yourself, if every school from fcs that could pay for 85 and the other fbs requirements (except attendance) moved up, i think you would definitely see the ncaa's hand being forced and it would turn into something similar to what happened 30 years ago. if it came down to it, i would be willing to be that most of the socon, caa, mvfc, southland, ivy, big sky, ovc, patriot, and some of the big south, nec, meac and swac could swing it.

if the ncaa sat and watched half or 70% of the fcs move up and thus cutting into the money at the bcs and fbs level schools, you can bet something would happen.

[henfan]

The next time a school reclassifies FBS to FCS will be the first since the early 1980's (well, I-A to I-AA). It just isn't likely to happen.

[fc97]

The next time a school reclassifies FBS to FCS will be the first since the early 1980's (well, I-A to I-AA). It just isn't likely to happen.

I agree, doing it voluntarily is way bad PR.

[MplsBison]

you're fooling yourself, if every school from fcs that could pay for 85 and the other fbs requirements (except attendance) moved up, i think you would definitely see the ncaa's hand being forced and it would turn into something similar to what happened 30 years ago. if it came down to it, i would be willing to be that most of the socon, caa, mvfc, southland, ivy, big sky, ovc, patriot, and some of the big south, nec, meac and swac could swing it.

if the ncaa sat and watched half or 70% of the fcs move up and thus cutting into the money at the bcs and fbs level schools, you can bet something would happen.

What cutting into the money? This isn't the NCAA men's bball tournament where every conference gets a piece.

The money in college football comes from TV contracts, most of which going to the five marquee conferences and the major bowl games. They don't have to and for the most part don't share that with any other conferences or teams. That wouldn't change just because a bunch of I-AA teams moved up.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The next time a school reclassifies FBS to FCS will be the first since the early 1980's (well, I-A to I-AA). It just isn't likely to happen.

These are extraordinary times, and there won't be any BCS formula anymore to guarantee a shot for the little guys to make it into the big money bowls. I'm not saying it will definitely happen, but it's a lot more possible than people think.

[MplsBison]

These are extraordinary times, and there won't be any BCS formula anymore to guarantee a shot for the little guys to make it into the big money bowls. I'm not saying it will definitely happen, but it's a lot more possible than people think.

The committee will provide more guarantee than the formula does now. You know this and are being dishonest, because it doesn't suit your anti-I-A agenda very well that I-AA moveups will actually have access to big money in I-A football.

You also know full well that no one in I-A is coming back down to I-AA. You wish it would happen, but know it never will.

[fc97]

What cutting into the money? This isn't the NCAA men's bball tournament where every conference gets a piece.

The money in college football comes from TV contracts, most of which going to the five marquee conferences and the major bowl games. They don't have to and for the most part don't share that with any other conferences or teams. That wouldn't change just because a bunch of I-AA teams moved up.

i didn't say it was the basketball tournament. i gave an IF. if enough schools moved up and 1) affect the voting capabilities of the big conferences to keep their majority stake to make sure they are top dog in everything and 2) start cutting into tv contracts for the top programs.

It's an IF dude, not a WILL, not a MIGHT and IF. You said it would never happen and I am simply laying out an IF that could make it happen.

[TheRevSFA]

The committee will provide more guarantee than the formula does now. You know this and are being dishonest, because it doesn't suit your anti-I-A agenda very well that I-AA moveups will actually have access to big money in I-A football.


You keep saying that, but what is the benefit of having smaller FBS conference winners in the "tournament" if it is all about money. Who would pay to see an 11-1 Ball State team get the **** kicked out of them by Georgia in the playoff? No one. The committee will want schools in that are Big 5 schools.

There's no monetary benefit to being FBS once the "playoff" system goes into effect.

[MplsBison]

You keep saying that, but what is the benefit of having smaller FBS conference winners in the "tournament" if it is all about money. Who would pay to see an 11-1 Ball State team get the **** kicked out of them by Georgia in the playoff? No one. The committee will want schools in that are Big 5 schools.

There's no monetary benefit to being FBS once the "playoff" system goes into effect.

Completely and utterly wrongheaded. And I think you know better too.

Now let me ask YOU a question. Who is going to tune in to watch Kansas St v Oregon -- OTHER than K St and Oregon alumni?? Very few.


If what you claim were true, the BCS would've never allowed or outright changed the rules that give lower teams access now. Nothing was shoved down their throats. They let it happen at the behest of TV execs who know that the bowl games with the major underdogs have the, by far, most compelling, entertaining storyline to sell to the coveted non-alumni demographic.

[TheRevSFA]

Completely and utterly wrongheaded. And I think you know better too.

Now let me ask YOU a question. Who is going to tune in to watch Kansas St v Oregon -- OTHER than K St and Oregon alumni?? Very few.


If what you claim were true, the BCS would've never allowed or outright changed the rules that give lower teams access now. Nothing was shoved down their throats. They let it happen at the behest of TV execs who know that the bowl games with the major underdogs have the, by far, most compelling, entertaining storyline to sell to the coveted non-alumni demographic.

Here's your 2010-2011 bowl ratings. How about the underdog UCONN vs Oklahoma...

BOWL GAME TEAMS TV RATING ATTEND.
Bowl Games
Championship Oregon-Auburn
15.29
78,603

Fiesta Connecticut-Oklahoma
6.15
67,232

Orange
Stanford-Virginia Tech
6.75
65,453

Rose Wisconsin-TCU
11.26
94,118

Sugar Ohio State-Arkansas
8.20
73,879

Other Bowls
Alamo
Oklahoma State-Arizona
3.29
57,593

Armed Forces
Army-SMU
1.55
36,742

BBVA Compass
Pittsburgh-Kentucky
2.56
41,207

Beef O'Brady's
Louisville-Southern Miss
2.29
20,017

Capital One
Michigan State-Alabama
3.69
61,519

Champs Sports
N.C. State-West Virginia
2.47
48,962

Chick-fil-A
Florida State-S. Carolina
5.02
72,217

Cotton
LSU-Texas A&M
5.81
83,518

Fight Hunger
Boston College-Nevada
1.87
41,063

Gator
Michigan-Mississippi State
1.71
68,325

GoDaddy.com
Miami (Ohio)-Mid. Tenn State
2.03
38,168

Hawaii
Tulsa-Hawaii
2.45
43,673

Holiday
Washington-Nebraska
4.04
57,921

Humanitarian
N. Illinois-Fresno State
2.13
25,449

Independence
Air Force-Georgia Tech
1.68
39,362

Insight
Missourio-Iowa
2.24
53,453

Las Vegas
Boise State-Utah
3.78
41,923

Liberty
Central Florida-Georgia
3.44
51,231

Little Caesars
Fla. International-Toldeo
1.63
32,431

Meineke Car Care
South Florida-Clemson
2.30
41,122

Military
Maryland-East Carolina
1.72
38,062

Music City
North Carolina-Tennessee
4.92
69,143

New Mexico
BYU-UTEP
2.11
32,424

New Orleans
Troy-Ohio
1.53
29,159

Outback
Florida-Penn State
7.05
60,574

Pinstripe
Syracuse-Kansas State
2.63
38,274

Poinsettia
San Diego State-Navy
2.62
48,049

Sun
Notre Dame-Miami (Fla.)
3.01
54,021

Texas
Illinois-Baylor
3.08
68,211

Ticket City
Texas Tech-Northwestern
N/A
40,121

http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819384

[MplsBison]

Thanks for posting that, as it proves my point very well.

UConn v Oklahoma was the same thing as Stanford v VT - only alumni of those big time programs cared. Yes UConn was an underdog...but I didn't say any old underdog.


TCU was a major underdog against Wisconsin and that game was highly rated.

[TheRevSFA]

Thanks for posting that, as it proves my point very well.

UConn v Oklahoma was the same thing as Stanford v VT - only alumni of those big time programs cared. Yes UConn was an underdog...but I didn't say any old underdog.


TCU was a major underdog against Wisconsin and that game was highly rated.

The Rose Bowl is always highly rated no matter who plays in it as it's a New Years tradition.

The Fiesta Bowl was the lowest rated BCS bowl that year with UConn in it.

When Boise State played Oklahoma it was the next to lowest BCS bowl in terms of rating.

Bigger schools get bigger ratings. More money for advertising. Did you ever take a TV class or a marketing class in college? Did you ever go to college?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The BCS formula has had amendments over the years to make sure the "little guys" have some sort of access to the BCS/championship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Championship_Series#Controversies


To address these problems, five conferences, six bowl games, and leading independent Notre Dame joined forces to create the Bowl Coalition, which was intended to force a de facto "national championship game" between the top two teams. By entirely excluding all the other conferences, the Bowl Coalition also made it impossible for a non-Bowl Coalition team to win a national championship.

After a protracted round of negotiations, the Bowl Alliance was reformed into the Bowl Championship Series for the 1998 season; former Southeastern Conference commissioner Roy Kramer is considered to be the "father" of the BCS. The Tournament of Roses Association agreed to release the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions if it was necessary to force a national championship game. In return, the Rose Bowl was added to the yearly national championship rotation, and the game was able to keep its coveted exclusive TV time slot on the afternoon of New Year's Day. However, beginning with the 2006 season, the BCS National Championship Game became a separate event played at the same site as a host bowl a week following New Year's Day. The new Bowl Championship Series not only included the Big Ten and the Pac-10 conferences but also teams from mid-major conferences, based on performance.

In 2008, a lawsuit was threatened due to the exclusion of teams from the non-automatic qualifying conferences in the BCS system.[39][40] Following Utah's win over Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff announced an inquiry into whether the BCS system violates federal anti-trust laws.[41][42] In 2009, senior Utah senator Orrin Hatch announced that he was exploring the possibility of a lawsuit against the BCS as an anti-competitive trust under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. On November 27, 2009 the Fort Worth Star-Telegram ran a story that said that Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, announced that he would hold anti-trust hearings on the BCS, again based on the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and its provisions outlawing non-competitive trusts, beginning in May 2010.

Unmentioned in the article were years of pressure to make the BCS "formula" public and open-source - partially due to the threat of lawsuits, as mentioned above. With the retiring of the "formula", the computation for the playoff participants goes back into the smoke-filled room, away from the media and prying eyes, where the people with the money will fight like hell to keep all of it for themselves.

[Babar]

Thanks for posting that, as it proves my point very well.

UConn v Oklahoma was the same thing as Stanford v VT - only alumni of those big time programs cared. Yes UConn was an underdog...but I didn't say any old underdog.


TCU was a major underdog against Wisconsin and that game was highly rated.

The UConn Fiesta Bowl was a disaster. Almost nobody traveled on UConn's side, and the school lost millions of dollars in unused tickets. The ratings were extremely low for an Oklahoma BCS bowl.

If you think only alumni cheer for Oklahoma...there's not much point in continuing this discussion. You're either being disingenuous or have never been exposed to big time college football. Click over to an OU/Bama/Nebraska/tOSU message board some time and search for a thread asking "how many of you are alums." Even among the constant posters, the alums don't dominate.

[MplsBison]

The UConn Fiesta Bowl was a disaster. Almost nobody traveled on UConn's side, and the school lost millions of dollars in unused tickets. The ratings were extremely low for an Oklahoma BCS bowl.

If you think only alumni cheer for Oklahoma...there's not much point in continuing this discussion. You're either being disingenuous or have never been exposed to big time college football. Click over to an OU/Bama/Nebraska/tOSU message board some time and search for a thread asking "how many of you are alums." Even among the constant posters, the alums don't dominate.

Minor mistake only. Yes, I was wrong - not just alumni, obviously. So just change alumni out for "fans" everywhere in the argument and it's valid.

By the same token, for every non-alumni fan you pick up, you lose AT LEAST one alumni non-fan. I guarantee there are more alumni non-fans of any particular school's football team than there are non-alumni fans.

So my argument, if anything, is only more valid now. Thanks

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Now let me ask YOU a question. Who is going to tune in to watch Kansas St v Oregon -- OTHER than K St and Oregon fans?? Very few.

If what you claim were true, the BCS would've never allowed or outright changed the rules that give lower teams access now. Nothing was shoved down their throats. They let it happen at the behest of TV execs who know that the bowl games with the major underdogs have the, by far, most compelling, entertaining storyline to sell to the coveted non-alumni demographic.


Minor mistake only. Yes, I was wrong - not just alumni, obviously. So just change alumni out for "fans" everywhere in the argument and it's valid.

Of course, Mpls' nonsensical ramblings have no bearing on the truth. First, as I pointed out above, the BCS was only forced via legal action in Congress to open up its access to smaller schools, along with public pressure to make the BCS formula more transparent. Second, there are enough "fans" of the "money-making" schools to singlehandedly take a crap bowl and to give it strong ratings. Just look at Penn State's minor bowl last year, for example.

[MplsBison]

The Rose Bowl is always highly rated no matter who plays in it as it's a New Years tradition.

The Fiesta Bowl was the lowest rated BCS bowl that year with UConn in it.

When Boise State played Oklahoma it was the next to lowest BCS bowl in terms of rating.

Bigger schools get bigger ratings. More money for advertising. Did you ever take a TV class or a marketing class in college? Did you ever go to college?

Wrong about the Rose bowl. The Parade of Roses is a tradition. The Rose Bowl is a football game. If there is not an exciting, compelling matchup - people won't watch. End of story.

TCU v Wisconsin was an exciting, compelling matchup that pitted a non-BCS conf major underdog TCU against a big machine from a big boy conference. People bought in, they watched it. The numbers prove I'm correct.


UConn was from a BCS conference. Red herring.


Every time a non-BCS team has been in a BCS bowl, that game has been higher rated than the lowest rated game of the BCS bowls (including the Boise-Oklahoma game which you incorrectly noted as the lowest, when in fact the Louisville-Wake Forest Orange bowl was significantly lower), with two exceptions:

- 2005 Fiesta bowl in which the Urban Meyer led Utah team crushed the 4-way tiebreaker winning Pitt team - this was also the very first time a non-BCS team made it into a BCS bowl game
- 2008 Sugar bowl in which the Colt Brennan QB'ed Hawaii team was smashed by Georgia. And the ratings for this game were nearly identical to the Kansas-VT Orange bowl (featuring the Kansas team that was formally #1 ranked) and the WV-Oklahoma Fiesta bowl.


So you argument is thoroughly defeated. The statement "Bigger schools get bigger ratings." is factually wrong, as the numbers prove.


You may now retreat away in shame.

[MplsBison]

Of course, Mpls' nonsensical ramblings have no bearing on the truth. First, as I pointed out above, the BCS was only forced via legal action in Congress to open up its access to smaller schools, along with public pressure to make the BCS formula more transparent. Second, there are enough "fans" of the "money-making" schools to singlehandedly take a crap bowl and to give it strong ratings. Just look at Penn State's minor bowl last year, for example.

I didn't say big schools don't have a lot of fans.

I'm saying - how do you get non-fans of the teams playing the game to watch the game on TV?? It's nearly impossible to do, unless you have a compelling storyline. This is the concept TV networks covet.


And as your post correctly pointed out - those conferences only even formed the bowl coalition in the first place to try to get #1 to play #2 at the end of the season.


By all rights, conferences could've well just kept playing in their contracted bowl games and let AP writers rank the teams at the end of the season. They didn't ever have to make the BCS in the first place.

They chose to "fix" the "problem", at the behest of the TV execs.

[TheRevSFA]

Wrong about the Rose bowl. The Parade of Roses is a tradition. The Rose Bowl is a football game. If there is not an exciting, compelling matchup - people won't watch. End of story.

TCU v Wisconsin was an exciting, compelling matchup that pitted a non-BCS conf major underdog TCU against a big machine from a big boy conference. People bought in, they watched it. The numbers prove I'm correct.


UConn was from a BCS conference. Red herring.


Every time a non-BCS team has been in a BCS bowl, that game has been higher rated than the lowest rated game of the BCS bowls (including the Boise-Oklahoma game which you incorrectly noted as the lowest, when in fact the Louisville-Wake Forest Orange bowl was significantly lower), with two exceptions:

- 2005 Fiesta bowl in which the Urban Meyer led Utah team crushed the 4-way tiebreaker winning Pitt team - this was also the very first time a non-BCS team made it into a BCS bowl game
- 2008 Sugar bowl in which the Colt Brennan QB'ed Hawaii team was smashed by Georgia. And the ratings for this game were nearly identical to the Kansas-VT Orange bowl (featuring the Kansas team that was formally #1 ranked) and the WV-Oklahoma Fiesta bowl.


So you argument is thoroughly defeated. The statement "Bigger schools get bigger ratings." is factually wrong, as the numbers prove.


You may now retreat away in shame.

Do you even know how to read? That's not a rhetorical question, that's a serious question.

1) The TCU-Wisconsin Rose Bowl was the SECOND LOWEST rated Rose Bowl on that list. No one bought into that match. The only one that was lower was USC vs Illinois. Even with that, the Rose Bowl always carries the second highest rating after the Championship, because of the prestige behind it, so while people did watch it (I will grant you that) not as many did as in other years when it was BCS conference vs BCS conference.

2) The Boise State vs Oklahoma bowl game was the second lowest rated BCS game that year. Once again..can you ****ing read?

When a BCS bowl involves a non-BCS teams, the ratings, while better than the other bowl games, still drop. Numbers don't lie.

Now run along before Ursus bans you again for being a complete ****ing idiot.

[MplsBison]

Within any year, any BCS bowl game that featured a non-BCS team did at least as well as every other BCS bowl as far as TV ratings are concerned.

Can't compare year to year. The fact that you resorted to that signals that you know you lost the argument and are grasping for something to save face.

[TheRevSFA]

Can't compare year to year. The fact that you resorted to that signals that you lost the argument.

Within any year, any bowl game that featured a non-BCS team did at least as well as every other bowl as far as TV ratings are concerned.

You have very clearly lost the argument.

Bull****..you have to compare year to year when it comes to TV ratings for bowls and attendance. The fact that you want to compare BCS bowls to non BCS bowls which is like comparing Apples to Oranges, plus the fact that no one sides with you on your argument, proves that you have no ground to stand on.

Run along.

[MplsBison]

Bull****..you have to compare year to year when it comes to TV ratings for bowls and attendance. The fact that you want to compare BCS bowls to non BCS bowls which is like comparing Apples to Oranges, plus the fact that no one sides with you on your argument, proves that you have no ground to stand on.

Run along.

I'm not comparing BCS bowls to non-BCS bowls. I clarified my post, you quoted it too fast. Easy tiger!

As I correctly said, you *can't* compare TV ratings year to year. You don't understand how TV ratings work.

[fc97]

I'm not comparing BCS bowls to non-BCS bowls. I clarified my post, you quoted it too fast. Easy tiger!

As I correctly said, you *can't* compare TV ratings year to year. You don't understand how TV ratings work.

you most certainly compare ratings year to year, that's exactly how ratings work and what is used to sell ad space, historical ratings along with projected ratings. this is exactly how it works.

tv stations as well as national and cable networks use ratings year to year to show trends in viewership.

seriously, drop it.

[MplsBison]

you most certainly compare ratings year to year, that's exactly how ratings work and what is used to sell ad space, historical ratings along with projected ratings. this is exactly how it works.

tv stations as well as national and cable networks use ratings year to year to show trends in viewership.

seriously, drop it.

As I said, you can't compare ratings year to year.

I'll be happy to educate you, if desired.

[fc97]

As I said, you can't compare ratings year to year.

I'll be happy to educate you, if desired.

no, what you said was "As I correctly said, you *can't* compare TV ratings year to year. You don't understand how TV ratings work."

i _AM_ educating you in how tv ratings work. the can and do compare ratings year to year to show trends in viewership to calculate the cost of the ad space. it is one of the many facets that go into risk management and price generation research for television. i KNOW how it works and its obvious you have no freaking earthly clue how it works.

[MplsBison]

no, what you said was "As I correctly said, you *can't* compare TV ratings year to year. You don't understand how TV ratings work."

i _AM_ educating you in how tv ratings work. the can and do compare ratings year to year to show trends in viewership to calculate the cost of the ad space. it is one of the many facets that go into risk management and price generation research for television. i KNOW how it works and its obvious you have no freaking earthly clue how it works.

You don't understand the specific definition of TV ratings.

Literally, by definition, TV ratings can't be compared year to year. TV viewership, in a more general sense - most definitely can.

But his link only showed the TV rating, not the viewership.


Once again, I'll be happy to educate you.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

no, what you said was "As I correctly said, you *can't* compare TV ratings year to year. You don't understand how TV ratings work."

i _AM_ educating you in how tv ratings work. the can and do compare ratings year to year to show trends in viewership to calculate the cost of the ad space. it is one of the many facets that go into risk management and price generation research for television. i KNOW how it works and its obvious you have no freaking earthly clue how it works.


You don't understand the specific definition of TV ratings. Once again, I'll be happy to educate you.

I do believe fc97 does indeed know how it works, and while I don't expect it to happen, I'd suggest you climb down now.

[MplsBison]

I do believe fc97 does indeed know how it works, and while I don't expect it to happen, I'd suggest you climb down now.

How much of your monthly income are you going to put down on it?

[fc97]

You don't understand the specific definition of TV ratings.

Literally, by definition, TV ratings can't be compared year to year. TV viewership, in a more general sense - most definitely can.

But his link only showed the TV rating, not the viewership.


Once again, I'll be happy to educate you.

Seriously, i don't know how much more simply i can put this for you. in simple terms, ratings are a simple numeric applied in general terms according to the total viewership. a ratings point equals a total of 1% of the total possible. the total possible is evaluated usually once per year, usually in august, sometimes before, but always before the fall season.

so therefore, yes, again, these numbers are used year to year to do exactly what i said and the numbers are comparable year to year. simple math is used to show the comparable numbers based on the increase or decrease in total audience or share size. these numbers are comparable year to year to perform risk management and business calculation to determine ad space prices along with other factors.

tv viewership cannot be compared because the sum total of all possible changes yearly. using an arbitrary value of viewership doesn't give you the full scope of what percentage of the possible sets were watching. therefore, the ratings are used because you have the percentage AND the total associated with it.

[MplsBison]

nm

[MplsBison]

Ok...I'll admit - I f____ed it up. I was looking at the definition of share, not rating.

So I was wrong, you can compare ratings year to year - so long as the total TV households is relatively static year to year.


But that does not invalidate the fact that BCS bowl games with non-BCS teams always have had ratings at least as good as the rest of the BCS bowl games and usually better than the lowest rated BCS game - within any given year.

When comparing year to year, you still have to compare the sum of the ratings of the BCS bowl games from year to year as well as comparing the ratio of the BCS bowl game with the non-BCS team to the sum of the ratings of the BCS bowl games within each year. Without that, you can't reach a valid conclusion!