The JHU conundrum for the ACC.

[omniorange]

^^^^snipped

Sure, but in general, what research activities will be funded? Different universities have different strengths, and how money gets doled out at the macro level can greatly influence which groups of peers and which institutions get funded.



Research trends = Funding trends

Again, the poster I'm quoting has stated he has served on these committees that help make these application decisions. He seems to know his stuff.

You can take it up with him over on the csnbbs boards if you like, but I can tell you right now, he doesn't suffer (to use his term) "fools" who have never been part of the process lightly.

If you do have first-hand knowledge of the process then it could be quite an enlightening thread.

But since you were unaware of the CIC purpose, I have my doubts about your having any first-hand knowledge.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[PeteCalvin]

The ACC will take them for one reason and one reason only: to further UMD's plunge into irrelevancy. You give JHU a home in the best lax conference, right inside of UMD's prime recruiting radius, playing the natural r!vals that the people of Maryland are used to playing...that has to have an effect on the outlook of Maryland's lacrosse program.

Although I'm semi-serious about that, here's the reality. This is now a high stakes chess match. It's about the ACC outwitting the BiG and holding them from growing any significant roots in the east. You let the BiG take a big lax fish in JHU, you give their fledgling lacrosse league instant credibility. But if Swofford takes JHU, he swallows all the big fish and creates a lax league that is virtually untouchable for the next decade.

I will be shocked if Swofford doesn't make a move, and soon.

 

[JeremyCuse]

The ACC will take them for one reason and one reason only: to further UMD's plunge into irrelevancy. You give JHU a home in the best lax conference, right inside of UMD's prime recruiting radius, playing the natural r!vals that the people of Maryland are used to playing...that has to have an effect on the outlook of Maryland's lacrosse program.

Although I'm semi-serious about that, here's the reality. This is now a high stakes chess match. It's about the ACC outwitting the BiG and holding them from growing any significant roots in the east. You let the BiG take a big lax fish in JHU, you give their fledgling lacrosse league instant credibility. But if Swofford takes JHU, he swallows all the big fish and creates a lax league that is virtually untouchable for the next decade.

I will be shocked if Swofford doesn't make a move, and soon.

I see your premise but JHU will continue to play Maryland every year regardless of what conference they are in, Maryland has had some good teams the last couple of years but they still havent won a title in 35+ years and graduate a very heavy senior class. To there credit they do have an outstanding recruiting class coming in next year but its likely they will take a few steps back next year. My point being that I dont see JHU being in the ACC or Big 10 really affecting Maryland all that much moving forward, they will continue to play each other every year as I noted regardless.

The bigger issue is that JHU is being treated like the holy grail when in reality there a shadow of what they once were. Outside of the first couple of years with Petro where Rabil, Harrison, Peyser and Company were running rough shot JHU has been an average program. There record the last 5 years against, SU, Princeton, Virginia, is something like 4-15 and they continue to have issues with transfers and there inability to score goals consistently. Not sure the ACC is going to bend over backwards for a program that in all honesty is fading and based on the landscape of Div 1 sports probably will continue to do so.

 

[Btstimpy]

The answer to this question is not easy...and it goes far beyond what is the significance insofar as whether JHU would increase the ACC Lax programs...because it would.

One of the key questions relates to the B1G and its desire to move into the East Coast. Even with JHU only in LAX...it places the B1G more substantially into the middle of the ACC.
--even though JHU is in Maryland and the B1G already has Univ of Maryland, it does portend a problem for the ACC in the future.

The ACC already has an associative member in Notre Dame and though this is on a significantly different level, I believe that JHU brings further positive notoriety to the ACC. And JHU really does fit the ACC better than the B1G. First it it a private university of the highest academic status (Ivy League would be best for JHU but the cost of travel may be too much to cover), it resides in the middle of the ACC and it truly is a blueblood Lax competitor.

Should the ACC take one more step from equal revenue sharing and full membership by allowing JHU to become an associate member for Lax. Interestingly, JHU has its own TV contract with ESPNU...you know, that company that owns all the ACC TV rights. Could this lead to another $$$ increase for the conference...would it provide increased content for the ACC Network...does it solve the need for a team in the Maryland-DC area??????

It has been indicated (source) and others that Louisville is moving toward a Lax team...it may take a few years to get up and running at the level of the ACC Lax teams. Interestingly, JHU is looking for a 3-5 year trial time frame to determine if conference association is best for it. That timing may prove to be a major point in the discussions...there could be an end in a reasonable time frame if it doesn't work out.

So what do you all think...should JHU be embraced as a Lax partner with the ACC...or should the ACC conference pass on the opportunity...and don't forget, JHU plays against 'Cuse, UVA, and other ACC teams nearly every year.

Discuss...and as always: ItIs Good to be 'Cuse!

I want to see it, and not for the reason of having 6 members in the conference for an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. Presently today with the addition of Louisville, the ACC will have 5 teams playing men's lacrosse and 8 playing women's. Boston College and Virginia Tech play Women's lacrosse along with Louisville. These are the three most likely schools to add men's lacrosse in the ACC because they already have women's. You mentioned Louisville. There are rumblings at Boston College as well because Boston University has added men's lacrosse. BC does not want to take a back seat to BU. Here's a link about this:

http://www.bcheights.com/alumni-call-for-the-return-of-varsity-lacrosse-1.2965747

The reasons I want Johns Hopkins are some of your other points. It would restore some ACC presence in Maryland even as slight as it is. That will help with the ACC Network in Maryland. JHU is a strong Lacrosse Brand, and it will help with content on the network. Their current ESPN affiliation is also a plus. In addition, the academic association adds another top 20 academic institution to the already strong ACC collection of schools. And finally, UVA, UNC, Duke, and Syracuse already have a history of playing JHU in lacrosse on a regular basis for many years. We all already have them on the schedule regularly. All this would mean would be allowing JHU to participate in the ACC Lacrosse Tournament. I don't want to see them drop us to go play Ohio State and Michigan. I really don't want that even though the ACC regular season schedule will be brutal as it is. I wouldn't think that the ACC would want the Big Ten further entrenching itself in what we consider ACC territory.

One thing I'd like clarity with though is that it looks like they only want to bring in Men's LAX. I would also like them to bring Women's LAX too.

 

[JeremyCuse]

I want to see it, and not for the reason of having 6 members in the conference for an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. Presently today with the addition of Louisville, the ACC will have 5 teams playing men's lacrosse and 8 playing women's. Boston College and Virginia Tech play Women's lacrosse along with Louisville. These are the three most likely schools to add men's lacrosse in the ACC because they already have women's. You mentioned Louisville. There are rumblings at Boston College as well because Boston University has added men's lacrosse. BC does not want to take a back seat to BU. Here's a link about this:

http://www.bcheights.com/alumni-call-for-the-return-of-varsity-lacrosse-1.2965747

The reasons I want Johns Hopkins are some of your other points. It would restore some ACC presence in Maryland even as slight as it is. That will help with the ACC Network in Maryland. JHU is a strong Lacrosse Brand, and it will help with content on the network. Their current ESPN affiliation is also a plus. In addition, the academic association adds another top 20 academic institution to the already strong ACC collection of schools. And finally, UVA, UNC, Duke, and Syracuse already have a history of playing JHU in lacrosse on a regular basis for many years. We all already have them on the schedule regularly. All this would mean would be allowing JHU to participate in the ACC Lacrosse Tournament. I don't want to see them drop us to go play Ohio State and Michigan. I really don't want that even though the ACC regular season schedule will be brutal as it is. I wouldn't think that the ACC would want the Big Ten further entrenching itself in what we consider ACC territory.

One thing I'd like clarity with though is that it looks like they only want to bring in Men's LAX. I would also like them to bring Women's LAX too.

If your counting Lville then the ACC will have 6 Mens Lax teams even after Maryland leaves. Syracuse, Duke, UNC, UVA, ND, Lville.

 

[Btstimpy]

If your counting Lville then the ACC will have 6 Mens Lax teams even after Maryland leaves. Syracuse, Duke, UNC, UVA, ND, Lville.

Understood. I just wasn't giving Louisville full credit for having Men's Lacrosse until they actually have it. I know that they are considering it. Louisville, Boston College, and Virginia Tech all have women's today, but no men's. They are each candidates to add men's.

 

[WoadBlue]

The answer to this question is not easy...and it goes far beyond what is the significance insofar as whether JHU would increase the ACC Lax programs...because it would.

One of the key questions relates to the B1G and its desire to move into the East Coast. Even with JHU only in LAX...it places the B1G more substantially into the middle of the ACC.
--even though JHU is in Maryland and the B1G already has Univ of Maryland, it does portend a problem for the ACC in the future.

The ACC already has an associative member in Notre Dame and though this is on a significantly different level, I believe that JHU brings further positive notoriety to the ACC. And JHU really does fit the ACC better than the B1G. First it it a private university of the highest academic status (Ivy League would be best for JHU but the cost of travel may be too much to cover), it resides in the middle of the ACC and it truly is a blueblood Lax competitor.

Should the ACC take one more step from equal revenue sharing and full membership by allowing JHU to become an associate member for Lax. Interestingly, JHU has its own TV contract with ESPNU...you know, that company that owns all the ACC TV rights. Could this lead to another $$$ increase for the conference...would it provide increased content for the ACC Network...does it solve the need for a team in the Maryland-DC area??????

It has been indicated (source) and others that Louisville is moving toward a Lax team...it may take a few years to get up and running at the level of the ACC Lax teams. Interestingly, JHU is looking for a 3-5 year trial time frame to determine if conference association is best for it. That timing may prove to be a major point in the discussions...there could be an end in a reasonable time frame if it doesn't work out.

So what do you all think...should JHU be embraced as a Lax partner with the ACC...or should the ACC conference pass on the opportunity...and don't forget, JHU plays against 'Cuse, UVA, and other ACC teams nearly every year.

Discuss...and as always: ItIs Good to be 'Cuse!

We should add Hopkins for lacrosse ASAP as long as Hopkins participates in the ACC IAC.

 

[orange79]

We should add Hopkins for lacrosse ASAP as long as Hopkins participates in the ACC IAC.

I would add them now, just to keep the B1G from adding them.

 

[riskylogic]

Again, the poster I'm quoting has stated he has served on these committees that help make these application decisions. He seems to know his stuff.

You can take it up with him over on the csnbbs boards if you like, but I can tell you right now, he doesn't suffer (to use his term) "fools" who have never been part of the process lightly.

If you do have first-hand knowledge of the process then it could be quite an enlightening thread.

But since you were unaware of the CIC purpose, I have my doubts about your having any first-hand knowledge.

Cheers,
Neil

I'll fess up to confusing the CIC with the AAU, a bit. But still: Peer review committees don't decide how much money they have to dole out. So, I'm sure the poster is entirely correct about the process he is a part of, but there is more to it than that. I know it happens, but where the politicking occurs, I can't say. In fact, maybe a good bit of it occurs within the AAU rather than in Washington. Land grant research vs. biomedical research, perhaps? In any case, if you know where the rain is going to fall, you can put your buckets out early. Failing that, moving the rain to where your buckets are works too.

 

[Toga]

I'll fess up to confusing the CIC with the AAU, a bit. But still: Peer review committees don't decide how much money they have to dole out. So, I'm sure the poster is entirely correct about the process he is a part of, but there is more to it than that. I know it happens, but where the politicking occurs, I can't say. In fact, maybe a good bit of it occurs within the AAU rather than in Washington. Land grant research vs. biomedical research, perhaps? In any case, if you know where the rain is going to fall, you can put your buckets out early. Failing that, moving the rain to where your buckets are works too.

Very wise young Grasshopper.

 

[omniorange]

I'll fess up to confusing the CIC with the AAU, a bit. But still: Peer review committees don't decide how much money they have to dole out. So, I'm sure the poster is entirely correct about the process he is a part of, but there is more to it than that. I know it happens, but where the politicking occurs, I can't say. In fact, maybe a good bit of it occurs within the AAU rather than in Washington. Land grant research vs. biomedical research, perhaps? In any case, if you know where the rain is going to fall, you can put your buckets out early. Failing that, moving the rain to where your buckets are works too.

I'd say the AAU's lobbying efforts (which is not the CIC) are more geared to making sure the money flows in these tight economic times.

Universities that receive grant money from federal science agencies are nonetheless bracing themselves for the fiscal cliff that awaits if Congress cannot reach a budget deal or find a way to extend the bargaining window before 2 January. The administration’s Office of Management and Budget estimates that most funding agencies would have their budgets slashed by 8.2% in the absence of an agreement. Claude Canizares, vice-president for research at MIT, says that the result would be a loss of $40 million in research revenue at the university, which drew $619 million in research support in 2011. An 8% cut in funding to the US Department of Energy (DOE) would mean an 8% loss in staff at the DOE Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, of which Smith will become vice-president in January.
Advocates for biomedical research are equally concerned about the prospect of the cuts. “I don’t know how you spare anyone or anything” at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), says Jennifer Zeitzer, director of legislative affairs at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Bethesda, Maryland. The automatic cuts would slash the agency’s $30.7-billion budget by $2.5 billion, a portion of which would be exacted from every NIH institute and centre.
http://www.nature.com/news/obama-reasserts-research-focus-1.11798

The varying federal administrators all have their own pet projects that they decide they want money to be focused on. From the same article above Obama wants a focus on climate change.


Again, you're more than welcome to ask Crazy Paco over on the csnbbs College Sports and Conference Realignment Board. It's free access, all you have to do is register.

I think what he outlined is quite specific, but here is another exchange between him and a great poster by the handle of JRSEC asking him clarifying questions.

JRsec Wrote: ...Your response is appreciated but just to make sure I am clear on a couple of points I have a couple of clarifying questions and observations.

First as pertains to lobbying the lobby itself is designed to make sure that funding is either enhanced or maintained for certain research projects. The awarding of the grants for said projects is not at all the product of the lobbying, but may be enhanced by its budgetary effectiveness.
That depends what you mean by "project". Project feasibility is determined at the scientific review level. There are some exceptions for very large projects, but that is by far the minority of them. Lobbying is done for general items...academic research in general, or areas like cancer or neurodegenerative diseases or substance abuse studies/interventions.

Second, there by definition can be no direct benefit, nor lack of consideration for a research proposal because of membership or lack thereof in any conference's, or any association's membership. Their lobbying efforts would simply be directed toward making sure that funding stayed current for research in progress.
Correct, absolutely no benefit. Conflict of interests are very carefully warded against and anyone sitting on a study section with a conflict (whether the same university or not) typically has to recuse themselves. Trust me, academic researchers that make up these committees couldn't care less about conference affiliation and most of them have no idea who is or who is not in the AAU or anything else. I can't stress how much such things are a complete non-factor. There isn't a perfect utopia, biases can happen with coloring scores assigned to applications of friends/colleagues or competitors, as with anything else, but that doesn't happen because a grant comes from a school that shares conference membership. That is ridiculous. If it is from the same university, you aren't getting that grant to review and you typically recuse yourself from the room if it is discussed.

Third, any claim of any conference that membership in that conference can get one selected into AAU is a bogus claim. Or is there politics involved in AAU selection? I have been led to believe that the qualifications for membership are written to essentially protect the interests of those who are already members. Is there any truth to this?
If qualifications for membership are there to protect existing members, then what happened to UNL and SU? Please think about the nonsense being thrown around. One of the primary purpose of the AAU is for inter-institutional data and policy sharing. For that to be relevant, the membership has to look similar and face similar issues. Retaining or inviting outliers serves no purpose. Membership qualifications rely heavily on federal research per faculty because that is what the member schools are all concerned with. Why did BU get invited, Bostonian politics? Ridiculous. There are politics in anything, but Big Ten vs ACC vs SEC has nothing to do with it. Some of those Big Ten schools helped to push UNL out.

Finally, I did try to look up the whole procedure to check what I had asserted. What I met with were numerous virus infected sites. I guess it's a popular topic.
NIH and NSF websites are not infected with viruses. There is even a good YouTube video that shows the entire grant review process if people are interested and want to know what goes on in these committees. Go to http://public.csr.nih.gov/Pages/default.aspx

Again, that process is essentially how (with variations based on institute) the vast majority of research is funded. These are not secret cabals. It's government, it's largely all open.

I have not worked with the grant end of procurement, but have with CRATS and GRATS and other private contributions to University endowments. Grant procurement was usually left to the research departments and I knew about the peer review. Who selects those who comprise the professionals on those panels? And how much bearing does that have upon who is selected to be a recipient? Thanks

Federal research application and award has absolutely nothing remotely in common to fundraising or similar institutional development processes. Let me stick to NIH because that is where 65% of academic federal research money comes from and this will be simplified, obviously, but watch the video above. NIH Scientific Review Officers, for particular NIH agencies and subfields, recruit scientists with expertise in the same field (who typically have NIH grants in the field themselves) and serve on these study section review committees on a rotating basis (every 2 years for NIH, at NSF often only meeting once). They are recruited from all over the country, regardless of institution, and flown in to the DC area to meet for a few days. It is considered an obligatory service duty to the scientific field to serve on these committees, but they purposely aren't permanent. Each member is assigned 3 or more primary grants and a few secondary ones so that each grant get at least 3 primary reviewers who assign scores and write comments, and then the grants (dozens) are discussed in committee. The comments/critiques are sent out to the applicant so if it doesn't receive a fundable score, then the applicant knows if and what any changes can be made to try to get it funded during the next cycle. After % scores are assigned then the NIH agency determines the cut-off based on its budget, which for most now is about 25% or less (some as low as 6%) but varies by agency, so even when you receive a score back, you still can't be sure it will be funded until budget decisions are made.​

People cite the increase in straight $ as how the CIC benefited PSU, which is the only example out there so by no means am I picking on them, but the actual truth is the federal government doubled its academic research budget in the 1990s so almost everyone's raw research $ went up. Penn State's % of total R&D expenditures and % of federal R&D expenditures actually fell during that time compared to its peers. According to the NSF reports, in FY 1990 Penn State R&D accounted for 1.57% of total R&D expenditures among all US colleges and universities (or 9th out of all colleges and universities in the US). In FY 2011, the latest available numbers, Penn State R&D was 1.23% of total academic R&D spending or #16 nationally. It lost ground...and, gasp!, to schools that aren't in the CIC! Coincidentally, since 1996 when US News began individual school rankings past 25th place, Penn State has dropped from #41 to #46 this year. Penn State has actually gotten worse by these measures. And to head off the inevitable poorly thought through comparisons sure to come in a few years that will undoubtedly make the suggestion that Rutgers will have received a positive impact from the CIC, they are in fact merging with UMDNJ this year and will see all of UMDNJ's research money combined with theirs, and that has absolutely nothing to do with the CIC. To suggest that CIC membership has some influence, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, over federal R&D allocations is a meaningless pile of BS those that haven't the foggiest clue what the hell they are talking about.

 

[riskylogic]

I'd say the AAU's lobbying efforts (which is not the CIC) are more geared to making sure the money flows in these tight economic times.

Universities that receive grant money from federal science agencies are nonetheless bracing themselves for the fiscal cliff that awaits if Congress cannot reach a budget deal or find a way to extend the bargaining window before 2 January. The administration’s Office of Management and Budget estimates that most funding agencies would have their budgets slashed by 8.2% in the absence of an agreement. Claude Canizares, vice-president for research at MIT, says that the result would be a loss of $40 million in research revenue at the university, which drew $619 million in research support in 2011. An 8% cut in funding to the US Department of Energy (DOE) would mean an 8% loss in staff at the DOE Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, of which Smith will become vice-president in January.
Advocates for biomedical research are equally concerned about the prospect of the cuts. “I don’t know how you spare anyone or anything” at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), says Jennifer Zeitzer, director of legislative affairs at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Bethesda, Maryland. The automatic cuts would slash the agency’s $30.7-billion budget by $2.5 billion, a portion of which would be exacted from every NIH institute and centre.
http://www.nature.com/news/obama-reasserts-research-focus-1.11798

The varying federal administrators all have their own pet projects that they decide they want money to be focused on. From the same article above Obama wants a focus on climate change.

That's what I'm talking about. Oxen are being gored as we type, at a rate of 8.2% per herd. At some point, it will be decided that some oxen are more expendable than others. And the research profile of large land grant universities tend to be quite different from the ivies and their close associates. So, it would not entirely surprise me to learn that MD to the B1G was driven more by a desire to forge a political alliance of land grant schools, as opposed to collecting cable revenues or giving Pod St some eastern fodder.

As for the CIC, I agree that it doesn't matter much. In fact, that's why I like to joke about it. JHU with their never-to-be surpassed history of lacrosse championships is the perfect foil for Amos Alonzo Stagg and Jay Berwanger.

 

[omniorange]

That's what I'm talking about. Oxen are being gored as we type, at a rate of 8.2% per herd. At some point, it will be decided that some oxen are more expendable than others. And the research profile of large land grant universities tend to be quite different from the ivies and their close associates. So, it would not entirely surprise me to learn that MD to the B1G was driven more by a desire to forge a political alliance of land grant schools, as opposed to collecting cable revenues or giving Pod St some eastern fodder.

As for the CIC, I agree that it doesn't matter much. In fact, that's why I like to joke about it. JHU with their never-to-be surpassed history of lacrosse championships is the perfect foil for Amos Alonzo Stagg and Jay Berwanger.

Perhaps, but the last 7 additions of the AAU have been Boston University, Georgia Tech, Stony Brook, Texas A&M. and UC-Davis, Irvine, and Santa Barbara.

Only two of those schools are in power sports conferences. And now basically half of the membership belongs to a P5 conference when it used to be about 55% before 1995, these last 7 additions, and booting Nebraska and Syracuse.

The CIC has its purpose and results in $$$ by the savings as their own video link above trumpets.

Btw, in case posters aren't aware JHU is #1 in receiving federal research grant monies. receiving 2.5 times more than their nearest competitor, the University of Michigan.

Cheers,
Neil