"Iliad" <iliad@eastern.com.­ph> wrote in message >news:1111842338.81­9691.250460@f14g2000­cwb.googlegroups.com­...>> Three of 8 teams in the elite 8 are BIG TEN TEAMS. That's 37.5 percent>

and 95% of big ten fans are bandwaggoning out of the woodwork. >

Like the Big East wouldn't be (and with ten times as many "BIG EAST> R00LS EVERYBODY ELSE SU><ORS" posts) if they had 3 teams in the E8.

"I don't look at myself as a basketball coach;> I look at myself as a leader who happens to coach> basketball."--Coach­ K.

When did the big ten get this "academic conference" tag? Northwestern> has fairly high standards. Michigan is an excellent state school.> Purdue has a decent engineering school. After that the other schools> have fairly similar standards as to most other large state universities> that represent the largest university in the state. If anything, the> ACC would be the "academic conference".

Like the Big East wouldn't be (and with ten times as many "BIG EAST> R00LS EVERYBODY ELSE SU><ORS" posts) if they had 3 teams in the E8.

Perusion Hostmaster wrote:>> On 2005-03-26, Archibald Q Leachington <archie.leach@spam.­munge>> wrote:>> > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:01:18 -0500, in rec.sport.basketbal­l.college>> > "jaybyrd" <Jbird@spamchck_pit­t.edu> wrote:>> >

Two national championships in a row tend to do that.>

When did the big ten get this "academic conference" tag? Northwestern> has fairly high standards. Michigan is an excellent state school.> Purdue has a decent engineering school. After that the other schools> have fairly similar standards as to most other large state universities> that represent the largest university in the state. If anything, the> ACC would be the "academic conference".

Perusion Hostmaster wrote:>>

I was speaking more to the academic requirements in terms of entrance> qual. for the student body.

A lot of the research and funding issues go so far beyond those issues> that it loses meaning.

Besides, from a basketball standpoint, I don't see what it matters> either way. Whether a school has higher standards in general may not> mean anything for the purpose of football and basketball. Duke,> Georgia Tech, Illinois, and Cincinatti(could have used 4 other> examples) are going to compete for the same types of players(ie the> best ones that can qualify) regardless of the fact that those schools> have overall undergraduate entrance requirements that differ(in that> order).>

I think the bottom line is what is the diploma worth. A degree from> Illinois or Wisconsin has a certain standing you can't get with a> degree from Maryland or Alabama.

The ACC can be called an academic conference too. Duke, Wake, UNC, > Viriginia, and Georgia Tech are all in the top 50 according to US News > and World Report. BC will be too. Maryland and Miami are just outside > of it.

I don't agree with this at all but I don't think it is worth arguing> about because it's just a matter of opinion. I think all 4 of these> schools are looked at fairly equally...they are all large state schools> and none of them really attracts a great number of top students from> across the country. Employers in the southeast are going to know> alabama better, employers along the coast Maryland better, and> employers in the midwest Illinois better. You certainly can't depend> on 'standing' to get you by from either of those schools like you could> a top 5 or 10 in some cases. Looking at average entrance requirements> at these four schools and you'll see that Illinois(main campus) and> Wisconsin(main campus) have somewhat of an edge on Bama but actually> are behind U of Maryland(main campus). I would be shocked if most U of> Maryland grads didn't think there school was "better" than> Wisconsin/Illinois,­ and I would be shocked if most Illinois/Wisconsin>­ grads didn't think there school was better than U of Maryland. I don't> know much about many of the grad/professional programs, but as far as> medical schools go UAB(not really U of A but it's affiliated with UA as> the main state funded medical school) is consistently ranked higher> than both of Wisconsin's med schools and U of Illinois med school. U> of Maryland also has slightly higher averages in that area. OTOH, I'm> sure that U of Illinois and Wisconsin have a lot of programs that are> ranked higher than Maryland. That's what you are going to expect with> two large public institutions with pretty similar academic> profiles......

OTOH, I'm> > sure that U of Illinois and Wisconsin have a lot of programs that are> > ranked higher than Maryland. That's what you are going to expect with> > two large public institutions with pretty similar academic> > profiles......>

I dropped out of this thread a while back (there's a game on, you know ­> but I just wanted to jump back in and say that I agree with you completely> on the above.

I don't know what's more remarkable, your reading this post DURING> THIS GAME or writing a reply DURING THIS GAME.

I don't know what's more remarkable, your reading this post DURING > THIS GAME or writing a reply DURING THIS GAME.

On 2005-03-28, Geoffrey F. Green <geoff-usenet2@stue­begreen.com> wrote:> > In article <d27gti$oin@netnews­.proxy.lucent.com>,>­ > "Drew" <yeah@right.not> wrote:> >

You haven't heard of Tivo? I am sure the Mich. St.-Kentucky game is over> now (I won't re-read articles until it is over). I hate the constant> commercials, so I pause then fast-forward through them.

I have TiVo.>

And you may want to catch up. ­

Yes, it is OK. But all Big 10 public universities are in the top 30 of > public research institutions, including four of the top 10. Northwestern> is top 10 among privates. That is pretty hard to beat; the Pac 10 is

USNWR has Indiana and Michigan State at 71. Clemson/VaTech are 74, and > NC State is 86 (this seems really low). I don't see the difference, > especially with how top heavy the ACC is.>

71 on all institutions, or among publics?

In any case, that rating is not what the Big 10 cares about. The US News> and World Report is a consumer guide -- they value teaching as much as> research, and their focus is heavily undergraduate. It would place Wake> Forest quite high, where it wouldn't even be on the Big 10's charts.

Whether that is valid or not, if you look at studies of research> institutions you will find that both Indiana and MSU rate quite a bit> higher. (NC State does too, being essentially tied with MSU.)

Not sure what Wake's research numbers are like, but if they're anything > like Duke, they are pretty impressive. And with the exception of FSU, > the ACC schools are also major state universities with large research > programs.

And with the exception of FSU, the ACC schools are also major state> universities with large research programs.

Fact is, all the numbers this year said ACC was best and SEC worst of the> power conferences. The Big East, Big 12, Pac 10, and Big 10 were roughly> a pick 'em.>

Perusion Hostmaster wrote:>

so you're saying that the ACC is much better than the big 10 this year?

this *year* or this tournament?>

not trying to start something wid ya, but i think you have to differentiate > between the two. having said that, i like the way izzo runs his club and i > think he's a stellar tactician. while i'm not a big 10 fan, per se, i just > can't root against the man or his teams. i wish uva could/would hire him. >

Perusion Hostmaster wrote:>

so you're saying that the ACC is much better than the big 10 this year? > Do big 10 fans out there agree?

If wisconsin would have pulled it out yesterday would you still say>the same?>

If the final is Mich st vs Illinois will you say the same?

so you're saying that the ACC is much better than the big 10 this year?> Do big 10 fans out there agree?

so you're saying that the ACC is much better than the big 10 this year?> Do big 10 fans out there agree?

If wisconsin would have pulled it out yesterday would you still say the> same?

If the final is Mich st vs Illinois will you say the same?

More or less, yes. If you hook the respective posters of rsbc, Illinois> of late, then would come Carolina, Wake, and Duke in some order, and> then would come MSU and Wisconsin.>

The fact that MSU and Wisconsin are biting better now than Duke and> Wake should not wipe out the regular season accomplishments.

IFYPFY.

I think so, although I'll echo others thoughts about the much. Even if> the tournament were the best measurement of strength, conferences still> go more than 3 deep. Illinois, Michigan State, and Wisconsin showed> they are on par with any other 3 (although I'd still give a slight> advantage to the ACC trio even if Wake lost in the 2nd), but Iowa and> Minnesota put two of the worst first round tournament performances out> there.

And Penn State and Purdue are enough to drag the Big Ten way> down. The ACC has nobody nearly that bad this year, and among other> BCS conferences, only Baylor and Georgia seem to be in that realm. The> bottom teams have to be part of the conference when you are measuring> strength of a conference, but the tournament can only be used to> evaluate the good teams from a conference.>

What is FSU -- they are a major state university, but I take it > they're not a big research institution?

BC is not a state school, but from what I know it's got a decent rep > academically.

Nope. Duke is outstanding indeed and rates third (or fifth) among> privates. Wake is not in the top 50 in either of the studies I am> looking at.

Again, it may be a snobbish, elitist view; but what matters to the> Big 10 is standing among peers in research. Five Big 10 (or four, depending> on which study you cite) are rated in the top 10 of *public* universities.> Eight are in the top 20. All ten are in the top 30. Northwestern is the> only private school, and it rates either 7th or 6th.>

By the way, the studies I cite were done by UT-Austin and Georgia and> were for 2001 and 2000. There is another one for 2003 done by Illinois> which has similar rankings, but I thought it would be best not to use> that one. 8-)>

Certainly Virginia, UNC, Maryland, NC State, Georgia Tech, and Duke> would fit in the Big 10 academically. But not FSU, Miami, Clemson, Wake,> BC, or Virginia Tech. That is why you don't see Louisville as the third> Big 10 team in the final four -- they would love to get in and their> football program would now justify inclusion. But they were not strongly> considered because of academics.

Is Notre Dame up there (I know they're private)? I've always heard the > Big 10(11) wanted them, your numbers would be an interesting barometer > on whether they would be allowed in because of academic standards, > athletic performance, or both.

advantage to the ACC trio even if Wake lost in the 2nd), but Iowa and> Minnesota put two of the worst first round tournament performances out

Yes, Iowa did. But Iowa also beat two of the four teams in the final Four > and took another to overtime. The fourth member of the final four (North > Carolina) beat them pretty handily.>

Based on this common opponent it looks like a pretty easy run for Carolina.

"JGibson" <james.m.gibson@gma­il.com> wrote in message > news:1112035388.748­480.76720@g14g2000cw­a.googlegroups.com..­.>

Yes, Iowa did. But Iowa also beat two of the four teams in the final Four > and took another to overtime. The fourth member of the final four (North > Carolina) beat them pretty handily.>

Based on this common opponent it looks like a pretty easy run for Carolina.

Yes, Iowa did. But Iowa also beat two of the four teams in the final Four> and took another to overtime. The fourth member of the final four (North> Carolina) beat them pretty handily.

Based on this common opponent it looks like a pretty easy run for Carolina.

Based on Wisconsin and Illinois performance vs. Wake, perhaps not so> easy. 8-) Common opponents nor even previous games matter much in this> rarified air.>

I wonder what the record for difference in margin for two games> is -- where one team wins each game? If Miss. St. had beat Alabama> in their second game (I think they lost by 8 or so) then it would> have been at least 50. I know of a game where one team beat the> other by 23 at home and lost by 25 on the road.

That is one school where the studies are mixed. UT-Austin has them as> 18 among privates, while Georgia put them at 27. (Illinois has them> at 22.) Considering Dartmouth and Brown are rated right above them,> that seems compatible, but all I know is that the Big 10 thought they> were good enough.>

(By the way, they are tied with University of Miami, which I didn't> know was private. So one more ACC school goes into the Big 10 compatible> list.)>

I don't even know that these sorts of studies are what the conferences> use to decide such things. I do know that Louisville and Missouri didn't> make the cut, and Pitt, Penn St., and Notre Dame did. The rest is just> my guesses.>

To reply to the original point, I think the Big 10 is doing fine> and doesn't desperately need expansion. I think they would *like*> to add a 12th school, but unless Pitt or Notre Dame change their> mind or the Big 10 changes its mind about Missouri, I don't know> where that school would come from.

The one thing I am sure of is that the conference will not take> on all comers just to improve sports ranking. They will make do> with what they have, and try to upgrade coaching and facilities> to improve where they can.