Saturday, May 31, 2014
Sports watch media ranked the conference
Ubben - Big12 - 8 members $23M per - 2 at $14M per
I've written this before, but I'd expect schools to bring in $15-20 million more a year starting next year with @secnetwork.
theGrove68
6/1/2014
"As of now in Football the B12 is coming up short in football ratings..using data from ESPN-Family,ABC,CBS,FOX,NBC,and Fox sports and dropping out games that would lower the avg. From BTN/LHN etc. Sports watch media ranked the conference as thus...
SEC- 3,805,794 2.34
B10-2,920,815 1.84
ACC- 1,961,674 1.25
P12-1,759,673 1.11
B12- 1,625,221 1.01"
hurtlocker
6/1/2014
"For just ESPN games the conferences broke down as follows:
B1G = 2.11
SEC = 2.08
ACC = 1.73
B12 = 1.60
Pac = 1.56"
WordupBU
"Looking at the games compared to their tv windows and network they played on you can "grade" them. Basically a % of what is expected based on network and time slot.
Using ALL games available over the past year for each of the P5 leagues and every game I have come across over the past few years for the window averages (ABC regional is roughly estimated using % of country that gets it on ABC and on a mirror network compared against ratings for both ABC and it's mirror station) we end up with the following:
LEAGUE-AVG RATING-AVG VIEWERS-% OF EXPECTED WINDOW-# of Games-Games per member
ACC - 1.37 - 1,924,815 - 95.89% - 55 - 3.93
Big12- 1.11 - 1,580,694 - 101.36% - 55 -5.50
B1G- 2.02 - 2,766,214 - 96.49% - 45 - 3.75
PAC- 1.24 - 1,809,867 - 99.85% - 50 - 4.17
SEC- 2.16 - 3,495,366 - 112.09% - 69 - 4.93
Ratings wise the B1G does well and the B12/P12 don't despite the B1G struggling in it's time slots and the Big 12 and Pac 12 performing better in theirs. This is partially due to the new network FS1 and how recently FOX started carrying major college football on Big FOX. Aside from that most of the leagues draw a similar % of what is expected of them given network and time slot.
The SEC is out in front of the rest considerably.
However we see that EVERYONE has a different amount of games going into this thing and when you break it out per team it's not very fair for only the best 1/3 of the B1G's games to go into the debate while the Big 12 has almost half of a typical team's season schedule factoring into the math.
So dropping everyone close to that 3.75 games per team average of the Big Ten to make it more apples to apples on average ratings and average viewers.
ACC- 1.41 - 1,991,751 - 96.96% - 53 - 3.75
Big 12- 1.51 - 2,134,005 - 114.49% - 38 - 3.8
B1G- 2.02 - 2,766,214 - 96.49% - 45 - 3.75
PAC- 1.36 - 1,974,719 - 103.42% - 45 -3.75
SEC- 2.67 - 4,298,646 - 112.18% - 53 -3.75
The Big 12 performs pretty well. In ratings and viewers it trails the B1G but relative to it's networks and time slots does really well compared to averages."
Thursday, May 29, 2014
FSU baseball attendance
You are what you eat...
Tired of FSU and the ACC wasting their time with logos. Fix your business and stop justifying bloated salaries (looking at you Swofford).
Ten Things About The ACC's New Brand Announcement
"1. Can you sum up the state of college athletics any better than a conference making a huge deal out of italicizing its logo and using buzzwords to talk up its brand? You mock Darren Rovell but Darren Rovell is the only one who really gets the world, you guys.
"
Ten Things About The ACC's New Brand Announcement
"1. Can you sum up the state of college athletics any better than a conference making a huge deal out of italicizing its logo and using buzzwords to talk up its brand? You mock Darren Rovell but Darren Rovell is the only one who really gets the world, you guys.
2. The title of the announcement. "Atlantic Coast Conference Launches New Brand." 18-year-old me and 35-year-old me don't agree on much, but we both agree that we loathe this.
3. "The ACC is well-positioned for many future successes and we are pleased with our new branding that reflects our limitless potential," Commissioner John Swofford said. "The new, contemporary look modernizes and energizes the ACC mark, and, at the same time, still reflects the league’s history and rich tradition."
What does any of that mean in human-speak? How can any of that be verified scientifically? How can anyone read this and not immediately go...
4. "The ACC and SME gathered input from member institutions, alumni and fans in creating the new design."
Show of hands...who got a call from the ACC or SME asking for their input? If you suggested, "just italicize it," keep your hand up so we know who you are.
5. "Set in a custom-designed font created specifically for the league, the logo leans forward toward the conference’s ever-present goal of excellence. The lettering is accentuated by a bold, silver underline that symbolizes the ACC’s journey toward a bright future."
Fact: Seven puppies died in the crafting of this paragraph.
6. "Fans will see the logo on display via many applications – team uniforms, merchandise, facilities and digital platforms such as websites, social media and television."
Again, if you went out and bought new merchandise today just because of the new logo, keep your hand up. We will set your soul free soon enough.
7. "We feel that it well represents the high standard and values the ACC has held for more than 61 years."
How? In what legitimate way is that a thing? Why is my brain collapsing on itself?
8. The ACC Brand Book, which accompanied the release, includes a quote from Aristotle. You made it, 'Stotle. Finally.
9. THIS BULLSHIT.
WE ARE A UNIQUE MEMBER. REMEMBER THAT!
10. If I'm Harriet Beecher Stowe, I am super, super psyched about this...
"Booster update
As always, great info from VP of Seminole Boosters, Jerry Kutz.
Locker Room Renovation??
Jerry Kutz
5/28/2014
"The locker room, coaches suites and Champions Hall Apartment Complex/football dorm will be completed before the start of August practice.
The locker room will have some high tech features in locker design and will add a head coach's game day office in what was the player's lounge. We'll renovate the hallways leading to the locker room update the coaches office suites. Athletics is looking at a phase two project (next year) to create a much bigger player's lounge and renovate all of the segment meeting rooms.
Seminole Boosters will launch a capital campaign in July that will offer naming opportunities in each of these facilities as well as the IPF.
We'll also launch a campaign to make renovations to Doak that will sandblast, weld, replace, prime and paint the core stadium and make as many concourse improvements as our fundraising campaign will allow. A club seat project around the University Center Club has been proposed and will go before the BOT and BOG which would generate the revenue to fund a bond issue for more extensive improvements to Doak.
We're looking to launch the Champions Campaign in July 2016 and start the big stadium projects sometime after the 2015 season pending approvals from the boards, fundraising success and the bonding process. The stadium projects could take two off seasons to complete."
"The Champions Hall apartment complex is being built by Seminole Boosters and will house both our football team and more than enough regular FSU students to meet the NCAA requirements, so the players will have the best of both worlds. They will have a place where they can all live together, and your leaders can lead, yet have the diversity of general student housing which is important in recruiting too.
No need to try to skirt any NCAA rules,
Two players will share a two bedroom, two bath unit so they will each have their own bedroom and bath, sharing a kitchen, living room. The facility will be built like a dormitory with a secure lobby and all rooms accessed by an interior hallway. Auburn completed a similar structure a year or two ago and believes it helped pull their team back together improving team chemistry and accountability.
Fisher said the IPF was priority 1 and the dorm priority 2. In August he will have both.
Even though Champions Hall will generate a positive cash flow from rental income, we will make the project part of the Champions Campaign offering naming opportunities ranging from $1000 up to $3 million.
We'll have a site dedicated to the Champions Campaign starting July 1."
"When we get all the scholarships endowed is largely up to you, our Seminole fans and Boosters. What I mean by that is every one of our capital campaigns -- including the Champions Campaign -- offers donors the opportunity to choose to give money toward the scholarship endowment. Some choose to give to scholarships but many choose to give to facilities.
We ran a campaign a few years ago that was geared up for scholarships yet many of the people who gave designated their gift towards facilities.
The key to successful fundraising is being donor centric. You have to offer an array of choices to your donors to inspire a passion gift and we certainly have a variety of needs to offer including scholarships.
Our longterm strategy for endowing scholarships also includes will and estate gifts. Many people like to see their money at work during their lifetime building facilities because it is tangible and urgent. When it comes to leaving their last gift, many choose the scholarship endowment because it is a gift that lasts forever. When those people pass away -- and I hope it isn't any time soon -- their estate will pass to the scholarship endowment and we will see growth in the endowment fund. We have several people who have left their life estate which would move the needle significantly.
In the meantime, we ask and encourage people to give to the endowment. And we create revenue generating projects (like Champions Hall and College Town and hopefully the Club Seat section) that generate revenue to fund the athletics budget so that we can avoid tapping into the earnings on the endowment fund and let the interest compound upon itself.
You all need to realize that VERY FEW athletic programs are fully endowed. Stanford I hear is but I don't know of another. North Carolina is significantly ahead of Florida State and Florida has more in their endowment but they are not close to fully endowed either.
To give you an idea of why, consider this: Right now it would take an endowment of about $190 million to fully fund scholarships at today's costs (over $9 million with 20 sports) if you could earn 5 percent on the endowment. But the cost of scholarships will continue to rise as tuition, housing, food, fees, etc. will constantly grow. So if scholarship costs rise to $10 million, you'd have to increase the endowment to $200 million to remain fully funded. Add a sport like soccer or lacrosse and you'd have to increase the endowment more.
Make sense?
In the meantime you have to fund your operating budget to remain competitive. You have to build facilities that will attract and retain the brightest coaches and players. And you have to improve the gameday experience for your fans who are tempted to stay home and watch games on television which is the greatest threat to athletics budgets.
There is work that MUST be done on Doak and there is work that NEEDS to be done on Doak to keep people coming. We ran a campaign a few years ago that was geared up for scholarships yet many of the people who gave designated their gift towards facilities.
Sandblasting, welding, priming, painting HAVE TO BE DONE to keep Doak safe and maintained.
Improved concourses, restrooms, concessions, WiFi, scoreboard improvements DO NOT HAVE to be done for safety but they NEED to be done to create a experience that keeps people coming rather than staying at home.
If we had all the money in the world, we would do all the things people demand on these message boards. But, like most of us, FSU has to prioritize based on our income. By state law athletics cannot operate a deficit budget nor can we borrow money without a revenue stream to secure it. Thus the Champions Club generates revenue that increases our bonding capacity and will allow us to tackle some of the HAVE TO BE DONE and NEED TO BE DONE projects.
Make sense?"
"We very well could have it done by the 2016 season if all goes well with the red tape and fundraising. We managed to get the IPF done in record time (and Champions Hall which will be done in July) so we do have a history for raising money and building things rapidly. This is a particularly challenging project as you are working with a big, old, existing structure parts of which have to be disassembled before you can sandblast, weld, prime and paint.
I think the fundraising side will go well as we have projects people will want to support with scholarships and football facilities where our players live, work and play. I think people will also enjoy voluntarily giving to improve Doak, improvements that will make their game day experience better.
The revenue engine that will drive many of these improvements will be the Champions Club seating section. It can generate enough revenue to support the bonds we will need to do the stadium improvements. If we can presell the Club Seat project and get BOT and BOG approval we can secure the bonding this time next year (2015) and start the work right after the last home game in the third week of November 2015. We think the right contractors can have the project completed by Sept. 1 of 2016. If not, they may be substantially complete to where they can finish during the season (taking Friday and Saturday off for the seven home games)."
"There's been thought to a field level box like Bama has in that South Endzone but maybe not enough thought. It could be cool and I will discuss it with our architects. We're still in the early planning stages and will do some additional surveys and a lot more detailed drawings before we go to bid next year. "
Locker Room Renovation??
Jerry Kutz
5/28/2014
"The locker room, coaches suites and Champions Hall Apartment Complex/football dorm will be completed before the start of August practice.
The locker room will have some high tech features in locker design and will add a head coach's game day office in what was the player's lounge. We'll renovate the hallways leading to the locker room update the coaches office suites. Athletics is looking at a phase two project (next year) to create a much bigger player's lounge and renovate all of the segment meeting rooms.
Seminole Boosters will launch a capital campaign in July that will offer naming opportunities in each of these facilities as well as the IPF.
We'll also launch a campaign to make renovations to Doak that will sandblast, weld, replace, prime and paint the core stadium and make as many concourse improvements as our fundraising campaign will allow. A club seat project around the University Center Club has been proposed and will go before the BOT and BOG which would generate the revenue to fund a bond issue for more extensive improvements to Doak.
We're looking to launch the Champions Campaign in July 2016 and start the big stadium projects sometime after the 2015 season pending approvals from the boards, fundraising success and the bonding process. The stadium projects could take two off seasons to complete."
"The Champions Hall apartment complex is being built by Seminole Boosters and will house both our football team and more than enough regular FSU students to meet the NCAA requirements, so the players will have the best of both worlds. They will have a place where they can all live together, and your leaders can lead, yet have the diversity of general student housing which is important in recruiting too.
No need to try to skirt any NCAA rules,
Two players will share a two bedroom, two bath unit so they will each have their own bedroom and bath, sharing a kitchen, living room. The facility will be built like a dormitory with a secure lobby and all rooms accessed by an interior hallway. Auburn completed a similar structure a year or two ago and believes it helped pull their team back together improving team chemistry and accountability.
Fisher said the IPF was priority 1 and the dorm priority 2. In August he will have both.
Even though Champions Hall will generate a positive cash flow from rental income, we will make the project part of the Champions Campaign offering naming opportunities ranging from $1000 up to $3 million.
We'll have a site dedicated to the Champions Campaign starting July 1."
"When we get all the scholarships endowed is largely up to you, our Seminole fans and Boosters. What I mean by that is every one of our capital campaigns -- including the Champions Campaign -- offers donors the opportunity to choose to give money toward the scholarship endowment. Some choose to give to scholarships but many choose to give to facilities.
We ran a campaign a few years ago that was geared up for scholarships yet many of the people who gave designated their gift towards facilities.
The key to successful fundraising is being donor centric. You have to offer an array of choices to your donors to inspire a passion gift and we certainly have a variety of needs to offer including scholarships.
Our longterm strategy for endowing scholarships also includes will and estate gifts. Many people like to see their money at work during their lifetime building facilities because it is tangible and urgent. When it comes to leaving their last gift, many choose the scholarship endowment because it is a gift that lasts forever. When those people pass away -- and I hope it isn't any time soon -- their estate will pass to the scholarship endowment and we will see growth in the endowment fund. We have several people who have left their life estate which would move the needle significantly.
In the meantime, we ask and encourage people to give to the endowment. And we create revenue generating projects (like Champions Hall and College Town and hopefully the Club Seat section) that generate revenue to fund the athletics budget so that we can avoid tapping into the earnings on the endowment fund and let the interest compound upon itself.
You all need to realize that VERY FEW athletic programs are fully endowed. Stanford I hear is but I don't know of another. North Carolina is significantly ahead of Florida State and Florida has more in their endowment but they are not close to fully endowed either.
To give you an idea of why, consider this: Right now it would take an endowment of about $190 million to fully fund scholarships at today's costs (over $9 million with 20 sports) if you could earn 5 percent on the endowment. But the cost of scholarships will continue to rise as tuition, housing, food, fees, etc. will constantly grow. So if scholarship costs rise to $10 million, you'd have to increase the endowment to $200 million to remain fully funded. Add a sport like soccer or lacrosse and you'd have to increase the endowment more.
Make sense?
In the meantime you have to fund your operating budget to remain competitive. You have to build facilities that will attract and retain the brightest coaches and players. And you have to improve the gameday experience for your fans who are tempted to stay home and watch games on television which is the greatest threat to athletics budgets.
There is work that MUST be done on Doak and there is work that NEEDS to be done on Doak to keep people coming. We ran a campaign a few years ago that was geared up for scholarships yet many of the people who gave designated their gift towards facilities.
Sandblasting, welding, priming, painting HAVE TO BE DONE to keep Doak safe and maintained.
Improved concourses, restrooms, concessions, WiFi, scoreboard improvements DO NOT HAVE to be done for safety but they NEED to be done to create a experience that keeps people coming rather than staying at home.
If we had all the money in the world, we would do all the things people demand on these message boards. But, like most of us, FSU has to prioritize based on our income. By state law athletics cannot operate a deficit budget nor can we borrow money without a revenue stream to secure it. Thus the Champions Club generates revenue that increases our bonding capacity and will allow us to tackle some of the HAVE TO BE DONE and NEED TO BE DONE projects.
Make sense?"
"We very well could have it done by the 2016 season if all goes well with the red tape and fundraising. We managed to get the IPF done in record time (and Champions Hall which will be done in July) so we do have a history for raising money and building things rapidly. This is a particularly challenging project as you are working with a big, old, existing structure parts of which have to be disassembled before you can sandblast, weld, prime and paint.
I think the fundraising side will go well as we have projects people will want to support with scholarships and football facilities where our players live, work and play. I think people will also enjoy voluntarily giving to improve Doak, improvements that will make their game day experience better.
The revenue engine that will drive many of these improvements will be the Champions Club seating section. It can generate enough revenue to support the bonds we will need to do the stadium improvements. If we can presell the Club Seat project and get BOT and BOG approval we can secure the bonding this time next year (2015) and start the work right after the last home game in the third week of November 2015. We think the right contractors can have the project completed by Sept. 1 of 2016. If not, they may be substantially complete to where they can finish during the season (taking Friday and Saturday off for the seven home games)."
"There's been thought to a field level box like Bama has in that South Endzone but maybe not enough thought. It could be cool and I will discuss it with our architects. We're still in the early planning stages and will do some additional surveys and a lot more detailed drawings before we go to bid next year. "
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Hydrogen Hopes
Bing Energy — founded on the work of FSU researchers — offers a tantalizing glimpse into a hydrogen-powered future.
"In 2004, Florida took a stab at establishing itself as a leader in hydrogen-fuel research. The state created a public-private partnership that trotted out a package of demonstration projects and tax incentives meant to provide a road map for hydrogen-fuel business development in Florida. The Florida Hydrogen Business Partnership’s efforts didn’t generate much momentum, however, and two showpiece hydrogen fueling stations the group helped set up in Florida have since shut down. (Today, there are only 10 hydrogen fuel stations in the U.S., according to federal data.)
A blip of hope for hydrogen in Florida began to take shape two years later, however, during a lunch at a Tallahassee Subway restaurant between two colleagues — both Chinese expatriates — at Florida State University.
Ben Wang was a founding director of FSU’s High Performance Materials Institute, where he had conducted pioneering research into uses for Buckypaper, a material made of microscopic carbon tubes 1/50,000th the diameter of a human hair. Sheets of Buckypaper are 250 times stronger than steel but 10 times lighter. The material, which conducts electricity about as well as silicon, holds big promise for a host of engineering applications in aircraft, prosthetics, building construction, ships, body armor and cars.
Jim Zheng, meanwhile, was a professor in FSU’s department of electrical engineering. He was focused on studying alternative energy sources, including fuel cells that combine hydrogen and oxygen to create a chemical reaction that generates electric current [“Fuel Cell Science”].
At the 2006 Subway lunch, the two discussed various applications for Buckypaper before figuring out that “this could be a pretty good way to develop a fuel cell,” Zheng says. “That was my idea.”
Using Buckypaper in fuel cells appeared to have two big advantages: One, it could make the cells lighter. More important, they thought, the properties of Buckypaper could reduce the amount of expensive platinum the cells needed to produce the chemical reaction.
Over three years of research, Zheng and Wang, with the help of post-doctorate student Wei Zhu (now Bing’s R&D director), developed a cell that met a technical goal set out by the U.S. Department of Energy: It could sustain a vehicle for 5,000 hours of running time — the equivalent of 100,000 miles. Zheng says the Buckypaper cell also appeared to be more stable than existing cells, with a longer lifespan.
By late 2009, Zheng started to think his invention should be in the hands of people who knew how to run a business. He called up an old college friend — Harry Chen — and that led to the formation of Bing Energy. (Wang, now an engineering professor at Georgia Tech, was not among Bing’s founders and has no role in the company.)
Today, the company’s fuel cells use less than half the platinum of traditional fuel cells. While it costs about 30 cents per square centimeter to build a Bing cell, about the same as a traditional cell, Bing CFO Dean Minardi says “our durability is more than two times as much,” cutting the life-cycle cost of the Bing cell in half.
Headquartered in a technology park in Tallahassee, Bing’s 10 employees include the executive team and other high-level workers with Ph.D.s who continue to do research and engineering work.
Some at Bing foresee a day when electric cars will be powered not by electricity stored in batteries, but entirely by power generated by hydrogen fuel cells.
All acknowledge that that day is still a long way off, however. And for the forseeable future, Bing’s transportation-related efforts in the U.S. will focus on producing fuel cells that don’t provide a primary power source for vehicles. Instead, the Bing cells will help extend an electric vehicle’s range by partially recharging its batteries as the car operates.
In mid-April, Bing Energy purchased the assets of a company in West Palm Beach called EnerFuel — giving Bing access to the company’s 40 patents and prototypes of vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells used as range extenders.
In the rear parking lot of Bing’s headquarters, Minardi shows visitors a green EnerFuel-labeled car that gets its primary power from batteries but is equipped with a Bing fuel cell range extender that can extend an electric vehicle’s range from 30 miles to 150 miles.
Minardi says the company plans to keep the EnerFuel brand and target fleet operations involving buses and package delivery companies — vehicles that can be recharged and refilled every night.
In time, use of hydrogen will grow, Minardi says. Natural gas filling stations, which are popping up as vast reservoirs of natural gas are unlocked in the United States, can easily be retrofitted to add a hydrogen fuel pump.
Meanwhile, Bing plans to earn revenue by selling its Buckypaper fuel cells — known as “membrane electrode assemblies” — to telecommunications companies in China for use as backup power generators for cell phone towers. Most of the current towers — “there are 1.3 million cell towers in China,” Minardi says — rely on inefficient, polluting backup generators that use diesel or lead acid batteries. Bing’s fuel cells are lighter and more compact than the batteries, which have to be replaced at least once every five years, or the diesel generators, which have to be run once a week for an hour and drained every six months.
“A 500-pound fuel cell makes no vibrations, no noise, and you have to turn it on and off maybe once or twice a month,” Minardi says. Bing’s fuel cells cost around $10,000, which Minardi says makes them competitive with the existing backup systems.
Most of Bing’s manufacturing activity is in China, which gave the company a major incentive deal to locate a manufacturing plant in Rugao, a city of 1.4 million people 125 miles northwest of Shanghai. In exchange for a 40% stake in Bing’s Chinese subsidiary, the Chinese government gave Bing a 110,000-sq.-ft. three-story manufacturing facility, a 30,000-sq.-ft. dorm for employees and an investment of $7.5 million over five years. The money was earmarked to pay for equipment and other capital investments.
In Florida, Bing produces the “core intellectual property,” including the Buckypaper and then ships incomplete fuel cells to China to be assembled. The completed fuel cell, or membrane electrode assembly, is then sold to end-users.
Minardi says a big telecommunications company in the U.S. is testing Bing Energy’s fuel cells as backup power generators, but the Chinese market remains more promising than the American market for the moment. “China is growing fast,” he says. “They need cell phones. They need power, but they can’t run diesel generators. They need cleaner power. In the U.S., it’s less mission-critical because we have a very stable power grid, and we don’t have the pollution.”
Navigant Research predicts the stationary fuel cell market will grow from $1.7 billion in 2013 to $9 billion by 2022, and Minardi says Bing intends to compete in the U.S. as well — and manufacture fuel cells domestically. “The way we are set up is as the market in the U.S. starts to get going, we will build it right here in Tallahassee,” Minardi says.
By the end of 2015 he predicts Bing will be “cash flow and profit positive.”
Meanwhile, Minardi says he’s optimistic that the most profitable way for Bing to tap into the automotive industry is by focusing on fuel cells as range extenders. Toyota is looking at incorporating fuel cells into its electric cars to create a new kind of hybrid, Minardi says. “We’re working on an order for range extenders right now,” Minardi says.
Ultimately, he says, the fuel cells’ promise for widespread automotive use endures: The only pollution they generate “is warm water.”
Teel Time: U.Va., Florida State lead ACC in championships during post-expansion decade
Teel Time: U.Va., Florida State lead ACC in championships during post-expansion decade
"Georgia Tech’s ACC baseball tournament title Sunday concluded not only the conference’s 2013-14 championship docket but also the league’s first decade since adding Virginia Tech and Miami.
In short, an appropriate time to calculate and ponder some numbers.
The ACC’s 25 team champions in 2013-14 broke down as follows:
FLORIDA STATE (7): Women’s cross country, men’s and women’s indoor track, men’s and women’s outdoor track, women’s soccer, football.
VIRGINIA (5): Men’s basketball, women’s swimming, men’s and women’s tennis, rowing.
NOTRE DAME (3): Softball, women’s basketball, men’s lacrosse.
MARYLAND (3): Field hockey, men’s soccer, women’s lacrosse.
VIRGINIA TECH (2): Wrestling, men’s swimming.
DUKE (2): Volleyball, women’s golf.
GEORGIA TECH (2): Baseball, men’s golf.
SYRACUSE (1): Men’s cross country.
Clemson, Wake Forest, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Miami, North Carolina State and North Carolina were shut out, the Tar Heels for the first time in the ACC’s 61-year history.
Here’s a 10-year snapshot of ACC championships. Since five titles were shared during the 10 years, a total of 255 championships were awarded.
VIRGINIA (51): Rowing (9), men’s tennis (9), men’s swimming (8), women’s swimming (7), women’s lacrosse (3), men’s cross country (3), men’s soccer (2), women’s soccer (2), men’s lacrosse (2), baseball (2), wrestling (1), men’s basketball (1), women’s tennis (1), men’s outdoor track (1). That’s 29 men’s and 22 women’s titles.
FLORIDA STATE (43): Men’s outdoor track (9), men’s indoor track (8), women’s cross country (7), volleyball (3), football (3), women’s indoor track (2), women’s outdoor track (2), women’s soccer (2), men’s cross country (1), women’s swimming (1), men’s swimming (1), men’s basketball (1), men’s golf (1), softball (1), baseball (1). Totals of 25 men’s and 18 women’s.
DUKE (33): Women’s golf (7), men’s basketball (5), volleyball (4), men’s lacrosse (4), women’s basketball (3), women’s cross country (2), men’s soccer (2), men’s golf (2), women’s tennis (2), men’s tennis (1), women’s lacrosse (1). Nineteen women’s and 14 men’s.
NORTH CAROLINA (27): Women’s soccer (5), field hockey (4), women’s basketball (4), wrestling (2), men’s basketball (2), baseball (2), volleyball (2), men’s soccer (1), women’s golf (1), men’s golf (1), women’s tennis (1), men’s lacrosse (1), women’s swimming (1). Eighteen women’s and nine men’s.
MARYLAND (26): Women’s lacrosse (6), field hockey (5), men’s soccer (4), wrestling (4), volleyball (2), men’s lacrosse (2), women’s basketball (2), women’s swimming (1). Sixteen women’s and 10 men’s.
GEORGIA TECH (19): Men’s golf (7), women’s tennis (4), softball (4), baseball (3), football (1). Eleven men’s and eight women’s.
VIRGINIA TECH (18): Football (4), softball (2), wrestling (2), women’s indoor track (2), women’s outdoor track (2), men’s indoor track (2), men’s outdoor track (1), men’s cross country (1), men’s golf (1), men’s swimming (1). Twelve men’s and six women’s.
CLEMSON (13): Women’s indoor track (4), women’s outdoor track (4), volleyball (1), football (1), women’s tennis (1), rowing (1), baseball (1). Eleven women’s and two men’s.
NORTH CAROLINA STATE (8): Men’s cross country (4), softball (2), wrestling (1), women’s cross country (1). Five men’s and three women’s.
MIAMI (7): Women’s indoor track (2), women’s outdoor track (2), men’s basketball (1), baseball (1), women’s tennis (1). Five women’s and two men’s.
WAKE FOREST (5): Women’s golf (2), football (1), women’s soccer (1), field hockey (1). Four women’s and one men’s.
*NOTRE DAME (3): Men’s lacrosse (1), women’s basketball (1), softball (1). Two women’s and one men’s.
**BOSTON COLLEGE (1): Men’s soccer (1).
*SYRACUSE (1): Men’s cross country (1).
* First year of membership.
** Nine years of membership.
Some other morsels from the past decade:
# Virginia, Florida State and Duke are the only schools to win at least one ACC title each academic year. Moreover, the Seminoles have collected a championship each year since starting ACC competition in 1992-93.
# Florida State won championships in 15 of the ACC’s 25 sports. Virginia was next with 14, followed by North Carolina’s 13, Duke’s 11 and Virginia Tech’s 10.
# Florida State is the only school to win titles in football and men’s basketball. Duke and North Carolina are the lone programs to claim championships in men’s and women’s basketball.
# The Seminoles’ football, men’s basketball and baseball league championships in the past 10 years make them a rarity among power five conference members. Only the Southeastern Conference’s LSU and Florida and Big Ten’s Ohio State can make the same claim.
Now let’s look at the 45 national championships won by ACC teams in the last 10 academic years. That total could grow in subsequent weeks with softball, baseball, rowing and men’s and women’s outdoor track still to be determined.
By school, here’s the breakdown:
NORTH CAROLINA (10): Women’s soccer (4), field hockey (2), men’s basketball (2), men’s soccer (1), women’s lacrosse (1).
MARYLAND (10): Field hockey (5), women’s lacrosse (2), men’s soccer (2), women’s basketball (1).
DUKE (9): Women’s golf (4), men’s lacrosse (3), men’s basketball (1), women’s tennis (1).
VIRGINIA (6): Men’s lacrosse (2), rowing (2), men’s soccer (1), men’s tennis (1).
BOSTON COLLEGE (3): Men’s ice hockey (3).
FLORIDA STATE (3): Men’s outdoor track (2), football (1).
WAKE FOREST (2): Field hockey (1), men’s soccer (1).
GEORGIA TECH (1): Women’s tennis (1).
NOTRE DAME (1): Men’s soccer (1).
Here’s the breakdown of national titles by sport:
Field hockey (8), men’s soccer (6), men’s lacrosse (5), women’s golf (4), women’s soccer (4), men’s basketball (3), women’s lacrosse (3), men’s ice hockey (3), men’s outdoor track (2), rowing (2), women’s tennis (2), men’s tennis (1) football (1), women’s basketball (1).
Five of those championships have occurred in 2013-14: Notre Dame men’s soccer, Florida State football, Maryland women’s lacrosse, Duke women’s golf and Duke men’s lacrosse.
Some final conclusions:
# Given the number and depth of conference championships, plus the ACC’s desperately needed national football title, Florida State has been the league’s flagship the last 10 years.
# Among the six schools to have joined the ACC during the last decade, Virginia Tech has been by far the most competitive. The Hokies’ four football championships surprised few, but 14 other ACC titles in nine different sports speak to exponentially improved Olympic programs.
That said, Notre Dame’s 2013-14 debut — three league titles and a men’s soccer national championship — was quite auspicious.
# As 26 ACC and 10 national titles during the last 10 years attest, Maryland’s departure to the Big Ten is hardly insignificant. But with national-caliber programs in football, men’s and women’s basketball, men’s and women’s soccer, baseball and softball, Louisville figures to be a worthy replacement."
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Gerald Ensley: We're looking prosperous
Gerald Ensley: We're looking prosperous
"Rich Oppel was in town last week. He was the Democrat's executive editor in 1977-1978. Though his wife, Carol, is a native of Tallahassee, they haven't visited much since they left town 35 years ago.
So the natural question was: What do you think of Tallahassee today? Oppel said: "It looks prosperous."
Generally, you ask that question of people who have been away for a while and you get comments simply on the size: "It's much bigger," "There's a lot more traffic" and "I almost didn't recognize the place."
But prosperous is interesting. It wouldn't have been the first word I thought of to describe Tallahassee. But upon reflection, it fits.
As we reported last week, the Leon County unemployment rate has dropped to 4.8 percent, which is its lowest since before the recession. So yes, people are working.
But prosperity is about more than jobs and money. It's about energy and vitality and activity. And we have those in spades these days.
There is new construction all over Tallahassee. Big apartment complexes are going up on Tennessee Street, College Avenue, Gaines, Madison and Pensacola streets. The new four-story Gateway Project is about to open at the city's busiest intersection, Monroe and Tennessee. Gaines Street has had a major facelift; Midtown keeps adding new businesses. The FAMU Way extension is under way. Tennessee and Calhoun streets are being resurfaced. SouthWood and Thomasville Road continue to boom.
Florida State University is throbbing with activity — and about to explode. Thanks to its pre-eminent status, FSU will add 500 new faculty members, who are going to propel more residential and retail construction.
The glass-steel-light artwork planned for the new roundabout on Gaines Street is a reminder of how public art is proliferating in Tallahassee. More than 170 sculptures, statues, murals, paintings, etc., adorn Tallahassee. Public art is a reflection of a city's energy and prosperity.
Does anything speak louder about our vitality than Cascades Park? People attending concerts, pedestrians flowing day and night, children romping in the fountains. Two months after opening, it's a popular hub of activity.
Almost unnoticed to those of us who live here, Tallahassee has become an energetic, thriving city.
The signs of prosperity must strike a person who's been away 35 years, because that wasn't the old Tallahassee. Despite being home to the state capital and two universities, Tallahassee traditionally had a languid, unambitious feel. It was a quiet Southern town except for legislative sessions and college football games. It was a fine place to live. But it didn't bustle.
When Oppel lived here, Tallahassee had only a handful of good restaurants, a couple of shopping malls, three or four movie theaters and some small parks. There was no Civic Center, no biking trails, no rock climbing gyms, nothing the scale of Cascades Park. People complained all the time, "There's nothing to do in Tallahassee."
Not, it should be noted, that Tallahassee was terribly "unprosperous."
Thanks to being the state capital, Tallahassee sailed through the Great Depression with far less pain than many cities. The federal government financed tons of new construction, much of which is still around (Tallahassee Senior Center, Leon High, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, the Firestone Building).
Thanks to state government and the universities, our employment has always been stable. Even at the worst of the recent Great Recession, when unemployment statewide in Florida climbed over 10 percent, Leon County barely inched above 7-percent unemployment.
Tallahassee may not have bustled in the past, but it didn't suffer as badly as other places.
Still, there was always the desire for more.
Milton Smith was the owner and editor of the Tallahassee Democrat from 1908 to 1929. Smith used his pulpit to constantly push for growth. One of his most outlandish ideas was to dig a canal from Wakulla Springs to Tallahassee, thus connecting to the Wakulla River and the coast, making Tallahassee a port city. It was Smith who invented an annual "Clean Up Day," to make Tallahassee more presentable for business ventures.
Legendary editor Malcolm Johnson pounded the same drum in the 1960s and 1970s. Malcolm wanted to route I-10 down Gaines Street to draw more business downtown. It was Malcolm who conceived of Innovation Park, convinced it would attract new technology commerce.
The dreams of Smith and Johnson are now coming to fruition. It's not entirely clear why.
We still don't have any major manufacturers. Our biggest industry, after government and education, is health care. Air service is still problematic.
Maybe we've reached critical mass for population. In 1980, shortly after Oppel left, the Leon County population was 148,600; today, we have more than 283,000 residents. In 1980, our colleges had fewer than 40,000 students total; now FSU, FAMU and TCC serve more than 65,000 students.
Maybe the recession created an urgency. No business sits still anymore. Chain restaurants, retail stores and apartment developers all look for new locations. Existing businesses look for ways to expand.
Whatever the reason, the signs of bustle are everywhere. We are, indeed, prosperous.
Sometimes, it takes an outsider to remind us."
FSU Presidential hire news
FSU prepares to rule on Thrasher
"Burr, a Jacksonville businessman who is friends with Thrasher, chairs the search committee. He was convinced that Funk was giving the 27-member committee sound advice. He was also pointing out the obvious, Burr said.
“We didn’t anticipate the impact (John’s presence) would have,” Burr said. “Maybe we should have.”
Former FSU President T.K. Wetherell is both friends with Thrasher and a veteran observer of university searches in the Sunshine State. FSU was never going to be able to conduct a true search without first dealing with Thrasher, Wetherell said.
“Here’s the problem they’ve got. (University of) Florida’s been looking for a president for two years and they can’t get anybody to apply,” Wetherell said. “FSU has Garnett (Stokes) as acting and John as a potential candidate. If you are a likely candidate, you’ve got to think they’re not going to apply.
“The board needs to make a decision on Garnett and John. If they want to hire one of them, hire ’em,” he added. “The board has to make some of the dominos start falling, one way or the other. The first two dominos are Thrasher and Garnett.”
"
Controversial decision
Not all oars were rowing together Wednesday when the search committee decided to make Thrasher the sole candidate — at least for now. The seven students and professors on the search committee, joined by the one dean (Marcy Driscoll from the College of Education) and the Board of Governors’ representative (Ed Morton) all voted against a June 11 interview with Thrasher and all that it entails, making it a 15-9 decision. Members of the audience who addressed the search committee during a hastily called public comment period all voiced strong opposition to a possible Thrasher presidency.
Some referred to his controversial attempt to split the joint FAMU-FSU College of Engineering last month, without any input from faculty or students.
Before the gavel had sounded on Wednesday’s two-hour meeting, associate communication professor Jennifer Proffitt, president of the faculty union, had issued a statement saying FSU’s chapter of United Faculty of Florida had “lost confidence” in the presidential search process.
“As this process began, there were numerous accounts in the media indicating that this search was merely for appearances’ sake and that FSU’s new president had already been selected behind closed doors. We trusted the rebuttals of those involved with the search, we believed the assertions that the search would be open, fair, and include faculty input, and we operated accordingly, providing input at any opportunity we had,” the statement said. “We now believe that there is ample evidence indicating that this process is not being conducted fairly, is not open and transparent, and is ignoring the needs of the faculty, students and taxpayers.”
The faculty and students are upset — or in some cases, downright angry — in part because the search began with FSU’s trustees in unison saying they wanted to continue on the course set by Barron, one focused on elevating FSU’s academic status while completing the university’s first $1 billion capital campaign.
At its April meeting, the search committee established a list of criteria for its next president heavily focused on academics and leadership.
Thrasher, despite his unquestioned passion for FSU, where he earned baccalaureate and law degrees, has never worked in higher education."
Thrasher candidacy has chased away others in FSU president search, presidential search adviser says
"A controversial search for a new Florida State University president took a heated turn Wednesday when the committee decided to stop looking while it interviews Sen. John Thrasher, a political favorite for the job.
The hunt for the university’s next leader has pitted business-minded committee members, who consider Thrasher an influential fundraiser, against faculty and students who prefer a president more familiar with academia.
The committee’s 15-9 vote allows it to suspend the search until it interviews Thrasher, a Republican from St. Augustine, and decides if he’s best for the job. Thrasher is the first, and so far only, serious candidate.
A consultant told the committee that the university was having trouble attracting qualified candidates due to the perception that Thrasher was going to get the job.
Thrasher, an FSU alumnus and a vocal supporter of funding for FSU within the state legislature, began expressing interest in the presidency soon after former president Eric Barron left in April to become Penn State University’s president.
“We could run this process for 60 or 90 days and end up with Sen. Thrasher and some unqualified candidates, and we felt that wouldn’t be an adequate search for this university,” said Ed Burr, chairman of the search committee and a member of FSU’s Board of Trustees.
Jennifer Proffitt, president of the FSU teacher’s union, said faculty felt the committee was skirting its purpose by selecting a finalist before any formal nominations were made.
“We’re very disappointed that the process wasn’t the open, transparent and fair process that was promised,” she said. “To only look at one candidate and vote up or down, it seems like a done deal, and I hope that it’s not.”
FSU Faculty Senate President Gary Tyson said he’s also concerned, noting Thrasher hasn’t officially applied for the job yet and that the process is moving forward despite dissenting votes from the students and faculty on the committee.
Thrasher told the Times-Union Wednesday he considers the interview to be another step in the process. He said he is keeping his options open and said he still plans to qualify next month to run for re-election.
“My goal is that I want what’s best for Florida State University,” he said. “I am honored and humbled to be asked to be interviewed.”
Thrasher said he believes people on the search committee who know him voted in favor of interviewing him for the job and those who don’t know him — students and faculty — voted against it.
“I think it’s partly an issue of getting to know me,” he said.
Proffitt said faculty are concerned about Thrasher’s lack of experience within higher education administration and might be wary of him since he pushed for a state bill to eliminate tenure for new public school teachers in favor of a merit-based system. She said faculty have also stated they’re worried Thrasher’s political influence will permeate into the university.
“Do we want this to be a university or a political extension of the Capitol?” she said."
The committee’s 15-9 vote allows it to suspend the search until it interviews Thrasher, a Republican from St. Augustine, and decides if he’s best for the job. Thrasher is the first, and so far only, serious candidate.
A consultant told the committee that the university was having trouble attracting qualified candidates due to the perception that Thrasher was going to get the job.
Thrasher, an FSU alumnus and a vocal supporter of funding for FSU within the state legislature, began expressing interest in the presidency soon after former president Eric Barron left in April to become Penn State University’s president.
“We could run this process for 60 or 90 days and end up with Sen. Thrasher and some unqualified candidates, and we felt that wouldn’t be an adequate search for this university,” said Ed Burr, chairman of the search committee and a member of FSU’s Board of Trustees.
Jennifer Proffitt, president of the FSU teacher’s union, said faculty felt the committee was skirting its purpose by selecting a finalist before any formal nominations were made.
“We’re very disappointed that the process wasn’t the open, transparent and fair process that was promised,” she said. “To only look at one candidate and vote up or down, it seems like a done deal, and I hope that it’s not.”
FSU Faculty Senate President Gary Tyson said he’s also concerned, noting Thrasher hasn’t officially applied for the job yet and that the process is moving forward despite dissenting votes from the students and faculty on the committee.
Thrasher told the Times-Union Wednesday he considers the interview to be another step in the process. He said he is keeping his options open and said he still plans to qualify next month to run for re-election.
“My goal is that I want what’s best for Florida State University,” he said. “I am honored and humbled to be asked to be interviewed.”
Thrasher said he believes people on the search committee who know him voted in favor of interviewing him for the job and those who don’t know him — students and faculty — voted against it.
“I think it’s partly an issue of getting to know me,” he said.
Proffitt said faculty are concerned about Thrasher’s lack of experience within higher education administration and might be wary of him since he pushed for a state bill to eliminate tenure for new public school teachers in favor of a merit-based system. She said faculty have also stated they’re worried Thrasher’s political influence will permeate into the university.
“Do we want this to be a university or a political extension of the Capitol?” she said."
Rep. Rehwinkel Vasilinda Enters FSU Presidential Race
"Florida Senator John Thrasher is now officially a candidate for the president's job at Florida State University. But, faculty and students don't agree with how it came about.
Cliff Madsen, an FSU faculty member and member of the FSU Presidential Search Advisory Committee, says, "John Thrasher has done a great deal for this institution. I don't think that there's any question at all that he loves this institution."
Other FSU faculty say that don't doubt Madsen's statement, but, say loyalty is not on the presidency criteria list.
During Wednesday's Presidential Search Committee meeting, faculty and students said it's not fair that Florida Senator John Thrasher's name had been rumored to be FSU's next leader when he hasn't submitted his resume or applied for the job.
"But, he did, through the back door, through the press, through rounding up letters of application that preceded his application. He's hijacked this process and I think the committee needs to stand up to that."
The committee voted Wednesday to have Thrasher turn in paperwork to allow him to move forward with on-campus interviews an go through the vetting and interview process as 'normal.'
Faculty member, Michael Bakan, says the due process is not accounted for. He says, "The chair of the committee, the consultants have decided that we are bringing in this candidate and not speaking for or against the candidate, but, that candidate should not be invited for an interview unless the search committee recommends that that be done and that has not happened. That is tremendously frustrating."
Faculty member and committee member, Jill Quadagno, says, "I don't know that he's the only viable candidate in the pool because of the lack of information."
The president of the search firm, Bill Funk, told the committee that it has been difficult to find qualified candidates. He says leaders have been reluctant to apply because of Thrasher's name floating around. Funk says potential applicants are concerned that the process would not be a leveled playing field because of Thrasher's prominence.
Faculty member Eric Walker had a solution to that problem. During the meeting he said, "Shut this thing down right now."
When asked what did he mean, he said, "To make a strong recommendation of Senator Thrasher that he take himself out of the mix -- as a service to the university."
The committee originally planned to not allow the public to speak at Wednesday's meeting. However, members ended up voting to add public comment to the agenda.
Several faculty members and students spoke out against Thrasher and the process by which the committee is allowing him to be a candidate. Students with groups such as Dream Defenders and Students for a Democratic Society, say they do not want Senator Thrasher to be FSU's next president, partly because of his attempts to split the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering."
Our Opinion: Thrasher’s candidacy
"If you go to Florida State University’s online job site, you won’t find “university president” listed. It’s not a 9-to-5 job. Indeed, it would be hard to list what the job requires.
So it is far from clear at this point whether John Thrasher would make a good president at FSU.
But in deciding to make Mr. Thrasher the only candidate it plans to interview at its next meeting, the search committee in charge of seeking the next president has made several things clear:
• The kind of person that universities seek as president is changing.
• The opinions of students and faculty are not high on the list of concerns.
• Politics rule.
John Thrasher, 70, an attorney, is a member of the Florida Senate who also was speaker of the Florida House. He helped lead George W. Bush’s re-election campaign in 2004, was chairman of the Republican Party of Florida and is now co-chair of Gov. Rick Scott’s re-election campaign. To put it mildly, he’s a politician.
He also has been a champion of FSU in the Legislature, steering millions to his alma mater. He has been chairman of the FSU Board of Trustees, and the building housing FSU’s medical school bears his name.
Less than a month after then-FSU President Eric Barron announced he was leaving for Penn State, the rumor mill at the Capitol gave Mr. Thrasher the inside track to replace him. Mr. Thrasher didn’t exactly deny his interest. And when former FSU President Sandy D’Alemberte penned a three-page letter last week recommending Mr. Thrasher, opponents howled.
It’s worth looking at the evolution of FSU presidents since 1960.
Gordon Blackwell was a college chancellor before coming to FSU, and he left to become president at Furman University. John Champion was a professor who worked his way up to dean, vice president of administration and, finally, president. Stanley Marshall was a physics professor, and at FSU he created programs to educate secondary-school science teachers. Bernie Sliger was an economist. Dale Lick had been a professor or administrator for 40 years.
That changed in 1993, when Mr. D’Alemberte was appointed. He was a noted lawyer and had been president of the American Bar Association. He served in the Florida House. He was dean of FSU’s law school for five years, but clearly this was a president whose strength was political rather than academic.
FSU’s next president was T.K. Wetherell, a former speaker of the Florida House. He held an education degree and had been president of Tallahassee Community College, but again, his strength was in snaring money in the legislative process.
Eric Barron is held up as an academic’s academic by faculty appalled by the idea of Mr. Thrasher as president. But before he came to FSU, Mr. Barron was director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which draws almost all of its funding from government. So he was no babe in the political woods.
Political heft has served presidents of other Florida universities well, including Miami’s Donna Shalala (secretary of Health and Human Services in the Clinton administration), Florida Atlantic’s Frank Brogan (who was lieutenant governor and now is chancellor of Pennsylvania’s state universities), Betty Castor (a legislator who became president of the University of South Florida) and the University of North Florida’s John Delaney (who was mayor of Jacksonville).
Of course, measured against Mr. Barron, almost any candidate suffers. He had a quiet start at FSU (his first speech at the annual Chamber of Commerce retreat is remembered well by those who managed to stay awake), but by the time he left, he had developed a clear, exciting vision for his pre-eminent university and for this community. It was the perfect blend: He could raise money, he knew what academic success looked like, and he had the contacts to make things happen.
Surely, there are problems with Mr. Thrasher’s candidacy — besides the fact the he became the sole candidate before he even applied for the job. He has zero academic experience. He is bound to have problems dealing with Florida A&M, after introducing the idea of splitting the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering. The strong opposition expressed so far by faculty and students are a distraction and could hurt FSU — and, by extension, this community.
On the plus side, Mr. Thrasher is a proven supporter of FSU. He would command the respect of the trustees and others in power. And to be honest, when it comes to getting a budget request through the Legislature, logic and reason don’t always rule.
It’s a new era in higher education. There is no reason to reject Mr. Thrasher out of hand. But there is good reason to worry about how much political influence will shape the final decision FSU’s trustees make."
Gerald Ensley: Thrasher isn't president yet
"Oh, I get that presidencies of universities are important positions. I get that selecting them ought to be an open process. And I get that all those who work for FSU, attended FSU or ever watched an FSU football game feel they have a personal stake in the selection of its next president.
But I'm willing to believe the fix is not in for Thrasher. I believe all the opposing parties will get their chance to be heard. I believe Thrasher won't be considered unless a majority of the selection committee — composed entirely of people who care about FSU — endorse him. I believe, even if he's considered, other candidates will be heard.
Call me naive."
This is insanely naïve.
"One critic said Thrasher hijacked the selection process — and he certainly did. By introducing a controversial bill to separate the FAMU-FSU engineering school, he advertised himself for FSU president, figuratively saying: "If FSU wants somebody who gets things done, that's me." You can call it arrogance or you can call it astute gamesmanship."
He FAILED at 'getting this done.' How is he getting credit for something he failed at and pissed off a lot of people who will take it out on FSU? Insanity.
Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda applies for FSU presidency
"Rehwinkel Vasilinda, a Democratic representative for Tallahassee in the state legislature, said Friday that she believes herself to be a better candidate for the position than Thrasher.
“I don’t think the committee had the appropriate choices, so I decided to put myself up against John Thrasher,” she said. “He’s a lawyer and I’m a lawyer; he’s a legislator and I’m also a legislator. But I have experience working in higher education.”
Bill Proctor: Consider Thrasher’s impact on FAMU
"Speaking for my constituents in Leon County, we are alarmed, stunned and aghast that state Sen. John Thrasher looms as Florida State University’s president-in-waiting. Sen. Thrasher disrespects and has demonstrated ill will toward current and future Florida A&M University students. His name generates ill will across many pockets.
There could be no more divisive and polarizing figure than this former chairman of Florida’s Republican Party to become FSU’s president. Has the FSU presidency become a Lotto grab available to the highest political bidder under the province of Florida’s Republican Party? Speaking for my constituents, we believe the Florida State University Board of Trustees should distance this university from a red-hot political polarizer and the domain of a conservative political party.
Thrasher is a loud and proud Republican whose politics, attitudes and actions make his name more explosive than a Fourth of July fireworks show. Having Thrasher as the president of Florida State will serve to further the distance between FSU and the black community, which does not have a favorable view of him.
I urge each Board of Trustees member to review the recent dialogue on the floor of the Florida Senate, the day when Sen. Thrasher proposed to separate the FAMU-FSU College of Engineering and to provide millions of dollars to Florida State and zero dollars to Florida A&M to sustain the continuing existence for its College of Engineering. Thrasher is perceived to be a mean man. He has publicly vowed to separate FAMU’s engineering school even without listening to or hearing from the voices of higher educational leaders or holding necessary and formal legislative hearings. Moreover, he vows to separate the engineering school over the objections of the FAMU Board of Trustees and university.
Not only is Thrasher co-chair of the campaign for the re-election of Gov. Rick Scott, but he is a leading Republican whose conservative politics will ignite a combustible, explosive and polarizing impact for students at Florida State and for other stakeholders across Leon County. What was his vote on tuition increases for university students? His record demonstrates that he has been hostile against students who are disadvantaged. Why would Florida State hire a politician whose record opposes students’ access and success within higher education in Florida?
The trustees should note the acidic and inflammatory politics of this senator. He is viewed as a heavy-handed political bully. A decision to hire Thrasher will have a counterproductive impact with numerous citizens and students.
Clearly, if the trustees review the questions coming from Sens. Dwight Bullard and Arthenia Joyner on the Senate floor, they will note Sen. Thrasher’s indifference to the future of FAMU and FAMU’s College of Engineering. In view of his political positions, there are three questions my constituents desire trustees to answer:
• Where does the FSU Board of Trustees stand regarding future relations with the Florida A&M University and its efforts to educate our state’s many disadvantaged students?
• More importantly, why would you seek out to hire the trigger-man who sought to destroy FAMU College of Engineering and to erase more than 200 students’ futures in the STEM fields?
• Out of all of the possible people to lead Florida State, why is this board rewarding John Thrasher with the leadership post when he has unilaterally sought to harm FAMU?
The FSU Board of Trustees would send a strong message in choosing this particular politician to rule Florida State. He is perceived as a clear and present danger to Florida A&M University.
Sen. Thrasher’s abrasive and arrogant style are widely known. However, it is his more widely known conservative politics that cause many to hold negative views of him. The board should clarify publicly the direction that Florida State is heading in its imminent decision to hire Thrasher.
The Board of Trustees has an opportunity to build upon the legacy of Eric Barron, whose leadership style and approach to stakeholders of our community were respected. The choice of John Thrasher does not build on this legacy. Instead, this choice would sink Florida State University into an era of backwardness, good ol’ boyness and lost respect as a meaningful center of higher education.
My constituents have urged me to convey to the FSU Board of Trustees their sentiments and desire that they do not select John Thrasher as president of Florida State University."
Proctor is wrong on basically everything except that Thrasher should not be the next FSU president.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Presidential $$$ predictions
Always fascinated by the often repeated claims of past and possible future, non qualified, politically connected presidents at FSU have or will 'bring the money' to FSU.
It isn't accurate as the facts state, but the claim is floated to excuse politically motivated cronyism type hires at FSU by the fan base for some reason.
We are seeing it again with the upcoming FSU presidential hire, so let's record some of these for future evaluations.
The good news for these folks is, after FSU won a national title, there will be a money bump, but it will be due to the national title, not the president.
D'Alemberte nominates Thrasher for FSU president
pauldirac
5/23/2014
"If Thrasher is able to mobilize alumni fundraising and legislative support I personally think that he would be a far superior president for FSU right now that a weak or even slightly above average average academic. For example, I would rather see him as FSU's president than an academic with weak leadership and communications and political skills. Just to take a few examples, if I compare Thrasher to someone like Garnett Stokes, Eric Walker or the head of the UFF, I see more that Thrasher can do to move the institution forward than the others I've mentioned. "
Re: FSU faculty union: We've lost confidence in presidential search process
pauldirac
5/24/2013
"Are you one of the the donor in the tens or hundreds of millions FSU needs to complete its billion dollar campaign? I recall the same argument being made by alumni about not giving when D'Alemberte and Wetherell were appointed president, but I'm not sure it made much of a difference -- I suspect that the disadvantage of any new outside president is that it will take years to build the relationships and credibility to win those kinds of high-level donations. Thrasher knows the pool of high level donors and they know him, so he can hit the ground running -- and by my count FSU has a lot of running to do if it is to hit the $1 billion mark on time."
It isn't accurate as the facts state, but the claim is floated to excuse politically motivated cronyism type hires at FSU by the fan base for some reason.
We are seeing it again with the upcoming FSU presidential hire, so let's record some of these for future evaluations.
The good news for these folks is, after FSU won a national title, there will be a money bump, but it will be due to the national title, not the president.
D'Alemberte nominates Thrasher for FSU president
pauldirac
5/23/2014
"If Thrasher is able to mobilize alumni fundraising and legislative support I personally think that he would be a far superior president for FSU right now that a weak or even slightly above average average academic. For example, I would rather see him as FSU's president than an academic with weak leadership and communications and political skills. Just to take a few examples, if I compare Thrasher to someone like Garnett Stokes, Eric Walker or the head of the UFF, I see more that Thrasher can do to move the institution forward than the others I've mentioned. "
Re: FSU faculty union: We've lost confidence in presidential search process
pauldirac
5/24/2013
"Are you one of the the donor in the tens or hundreds of millions FSU needs to complete its billion dollar campaign? I recall the same argument being made by alumni about not giving when D'Alemberte and Wetherell were appointed president, but I'm not sure it made much of a difference -- I suspect that the disadvantage of any new outside president is that it will take years to build the relationships and credibility to win those kinds of high-level donations. Thrasher knows the pool of high level donors and they know him, so he can hit the ground running -- and by my count FSU has a lot of running to do if it is to hit the $1 billion mark on time."
Friday, May 23, 2014
FSU Georgia Tech Partners to Improve Prosthetic Socket for Veteran Amputees
When FSU's president Dr. Eric Barron signed the ACC G.O.R., much to the consternation of a decent portion of the FSU fan base, one of the many reasons given, REPEATEDLY, was how academics was an important part of the ACC relationship.
I believe those unhappy with the ACC would of actually felt better about this, if there was any substance behind such claim. Sadly, there isn't.
That said, here is an example (below) of FSU and fellow ACC school, Ga Tech, working together. Some might wonder if this is such an example of substantive academic relationship due to the ACC? Well, no. Dr. Wang is an ex FSU professor and past FSU patents were the reason behind the relationship, NOT because of their membership in the ACC.
But it is an example that the ACC should be pushing. Not just empty websites and words, but actual relationships. It would go a LONG way to making the ACC what the talking heads said it was and not just empty platitudes.
I firmly believe the reason we don't see these relationships is the elite academic schools in the ACC want NO part of a relationship with the likes of FSU, Louisville, etc. I believe they see it as beneath them and not worth anything. Which, in of itself is fine, but these same schools preached academics as a core part of the ACC during G.O.R./expansion period when it suited them, because it suited their athletic mission. But it was merely a bait and switch to cover for their unappealing athletic/revenue situation by suggesting academics was a part of the relationship. It is not.
It was very much a situation of 'whats yours is mine and whats mine is mine.' Until these types of, of clearly, disingenuous aspects of the ACC family are corrected, FSU will never fully feel a part of the conference. Nor should other ACC schools.
It is one sided when it comes to academics, locations of Conference Title locations, TV contracts (Raycom), etc, when it suits the 'haves' of the conference. But when the 'haves' don't stack up well in a particular area, well the ACC is a big family and we all have to stick together and share and share alike. It just doesn't ring true.
This conference is a relationship based on inconsistencies, subtle deception (constant Swofford P.R. campaigns), threats (exit penalty, G.O.R.), and a less than symbiotic relationships. All easily fixed, but the ACC is based on dysfunction and the 'haves' of the conference are OK with the one sided nature of the relationship. The ACC could be so much more.....
Georgia Tech Partners to Improve Prosthetic Socket for Veteran Amputees
"Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology are major players in a team that will develop an advanced prosthetic socket system that could offer better comfort, functionality and mobility for military-veteran amputees.
Georgia Tech is part of a $4.4 million contract awarded to Florida State University by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Ben Wang and Chuck Zhang, professors in the Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, will lead the work that Georgia Tech will be conducting on the project.
The VA Innovation Initiative (VAi2) project is aimed at addressing the shortcomings of current prosthetic socket systems — the part where a patient's limb connects to a prosthetic device — through the development, testing and delivery of “Socket Optimized for Comfort with Advanced Technology” (SOCAT) prototypes.
“This transformative project will leverage the latest advances in innovative materials and advanced manufacturing technologies to build the next-generation prosthetic socket system with significantly improved comfort," said Wang, who is also the executive director of the Georgia Tech Manufacturing Institute.
The project will integrate several technologies to create a more holistic above-knee socket system that could be worn longer and more comfortably.
In close collaboration with researchers at the High-Performance Materials Institute at FSU, Georgia Tech’s team will conduct major research tasks toward the success of this project. This includes creating the overall socket system design, evaluating advanced manufacturing technologies and developing innovative adaptive materials to better manage changes in limb volume and pressure while providing active cooling and temperature control.
"These improved wearability functions and features will be achieved and enhanced by integrating advanced materials, such as composites and nanomaterials, and by implementing new manufacturing technologies, including additive manufacturing and printed electronics,” Georgia Tech's Zhang said.
More than 1.8 million amputees are living in the U.S., and that number is expected to triple by 2050, according to a recent report by the National Limb Loss Information Center.
A prosthetic socket joins the residual limb to the prosthesis. Each socket is custom-made for the patient according to the shape and condition of the residual limb and mobility grade. While new and emerging technologies have improved amputees’ quality of life, many continue to suffer from discomfort and skin ailments as a result of poor fit, elevated temperatures and moisture accumulation within the socket.
Along with materials researchers and engineers from Georgia Tech and FSU, the multidisciplinary project team includes orthotic and prosthetic practitioners and engineers from Advanced Materials Professional Services, Prosthetic and Orthotic Associates, Quantum Motion Medical and St. Petersburg College.
“Despite the advances made in prosthetics over the years, the socket continues to be a major source of discomfort for our amputees due to issues arising from poor fit, elevated temperatures and moisture accumulation,” said Changchun (Chad) Zeng, a Florida A&M University-FSU College of Engineering assistant professor and principal investigator on the project. “These adverse conditions effectively limit the basic activities of amputees and can greatly diminish their quality of life. This award gives us the opportunity to tackle those problems so our veteran amputees can live better, more fulfilling lives.”
The first phase of the two-year contract will focus on developing and testing the specific technologies for individual socket components.The second phase will involve the refinement of each system and material, as well as the complete production of the prototypes.
Launched in 2010, VAi2 leverages cutting-edge progress in the private sector and academic communities with the federal workforce to improve access to healthcare and services, control costs and increase quality. In 2012, VAi2 became known as the Veteran Affairs Center for Innovation (VACI).
“Ideas are the heart of innovation, and VACI provides the dynamic ecosystem that lowers the barrier of entry for innovation at VA,” VACI Director Jonah Czerwinski said. “The SOCAT project represents the kind of innovation in service to veterans and the broader population that we are after.”
I believe those unhappy with the ACC would of actually felt better about this, if there was any substance behind such claim. Sadly, there isn't.
That said, here is an example (below) of FSU and fellow ACC school, Ga Tech, working together. Some might wonder if this is such an example of substantive academic relationship due to the ACC? Well, no. Dr. Wang is an ex FSU professor and past FSU patents were the reason behind the relationship, NOT because of their membership in the ACC.
But it is an example that the ACC should be pushing. Not just empty websites and words, but actual relationships. It would go a LONG way to making the ACC what the talking heads said it was and not just empty platitudes.
I firmly believe the reason we don't see these relationships is the elite academic schools in the ACC want NO part of a relationship with the likes of FSU, Louisville, etc. I believe they see it as beneath them and not worth anything. Which, in of itself is fine, but these same schools preached academics as a core part of the ACC during G.O.R./expansion period when it suited them, because it suited their athletic mission. But it was merely a bait and switch to cover for their unappealing athletic/revenue situation by suggesting academics was a part of the relationship. It is not.
It was very much a situation of 'whats yours is mine and whats mine is mine.' Until these types of, of clearly, disingenuous aspects of the ACC family are corrected, FSU will never fully feel a part of the conference. Nor should other ACC schools.
It is one sided when it comes to academics, locations of Conference Title locations, TV contracts (Raycom), etc, when it suits the 'haves' of the conference. But when the 'haves' don't stack up well in a particular area, well the ACC is a big family and we all have to stick together and share and share alike. It just doesn't ring true.
This conference is a relationship based on inconsistencies, subtle deception (constant Swofford P.R. campaigns), threats (exit penalty, G.O.R.), and a less than symbiotic relationships. All easily fixed, but the ACC is based on dysfunction and the 'haves' of the conference are OK with the one sided nature of the relationship. The ACC could be so much more.....
Georgia Tech Partners to Improve Prosthetic Socket for Veteran Amputees
"Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology are major players in a team that will develop an advanced prosthetic socket system that could offer better comfort, functionality and mobility for military-veteran amputees.
The VA Innovation Initiative (VAi2) project is aimed at addressing the shortcomings of current prosthetic socket systems — the part where a patient's limb connects to a prosthetic device — through the development, testing and delivery of “Socket Optimized for Comfort with Advanced Technology” (SOCAT) prototypes.
“This transformative project will leverage the latest advances in innovative materials and advanced manufacturing technologies to build the next-generation prosthetic socket system with significantly improved comfort," said Wang, who is also the executive director of the Georgia Tech Manufacturing Institute.
The project will integrate several technologies to create a more holistic above-knee socket system that could be worn longer and more comfortably.
In close collaboration with researchers at the High-Performance Materials Institute at FSU, Georgia Tech’s team will conduct major research tasks toward the success of this project. This includes creating the overall socket system design, evaluating advanced manufacturing technologies and developing innovative adaptive materials to better manage changes in limb volume and pressure while providing active cooling and temperature control.
"These improved wearability functions and features will be achieved and enhanced by integrating advanced materials, such as composites and nanomaterials, and by implementing new manufacturing technologies, including additive manufacturing and printed electronics,” Georgia Tech's Zhang said.
More than 1.8 million amputees are living in the U.S., and that number is expected to triple by 2050, according to a recent report by the National Limb Loss Information Center.
A prosthetic socket joins the residual limb to the prosthesis. Each socket is custom-made for the patient according to the shape and condition of the residual limb and mobility grade. While new and emerging technologies have improved amputees’ quality of life, many continue to suffer from discomfort and skin ailments as a result of poor fit, elevated temperatures and moisture accumulation within the socket.
Along with materials researchers and engineers from Georgia Tech and FSU, the multidisciplinary project team includes orthotic and prosthetic practitioners and engineers from Advanced Materials Professional Services, Prosthetic and Orthotic Associates, Quantum Motion Medical and St. Petersburg College.
“Despite the advances made in prosthetics over the years, the socket continues to be a major source of discomfort for our amputees due to issues arising from poor fit, elevated temperatures and moisture accumulation,” said Changchun (Chad) Zeng, a Florida A&M University-FSU College of Engineering assistant professor and principal investigator on the project. “These adverse conditions effectively limit the basic activities of amputees and can greatly diminish their quality of life. This award gives us the opportunity to tackle those problems so our veteran amputees can live better, more fulfilling lives.”
The first phase of the two-year contract will focus on developing and testing the specific technologies for individual socket components.The second phase will involve the refinement of each system and material, as well as the complete production of the prototypes.
Launched in 2010, VAi2 leverages cutting-edge progress in the private sector and academic communities with the federal workforce to improve access to healthcare and services, control costs and increase quality. In 2012, VAi2 became known as the Veteran Affairs Center for Innovation (VACI).
“Ideas are the heart of innovation, and VACI provides the dynamic ecosystem that lowers the barrier of entry for innovation at VA,” VACI Director Jonah Czerwinski said. “The SOCAT project represents the kind of innovation in service to veterans and the broader population that we are after.”
ACC vs Power 5 in non conf
What I take from this article and past ones that show ACC success in recruiting (at least modest success) and the draft, is the ACC has horrible coaching (because ADs have no pressure to move on and they don't want to spend money on football staffs akin to SEC schools) and are week in the facilities/support area (again, a desire to not spend the money of other Power 5 schools in football).
There is no incentive to. If you are Duke or UNC, you only care about basketball and you can sit at home during bowl season and get more money than FSU does from the ACC.
Where is the incentive to change?
Duke is spending $15 Million on their football stadium and trumpeting it as some big move to join big time football. Texas A&M is about to drop $450 Million on their already very nice stadium. The ACC is just not in the race here.
Unless the entire culture of the ACC changes overnight, it would take some major, outside the box conference change to see the ACC do anything except hope 2-3 teams carry the whole conference year after year.
By the numbers: Nonconference scheduling
"The biggest news to come from last week’s ACC league meetings was a decision on future conference scheduling. With expansion, there was a push to move to a nine-game conference slate, along with the potential to switch up the conference title game format. For now, however, things are going to stay more or less the same.
What has changed in terms of scheduling is a rule that will require all teams to play at least one nonconference game against a team from a Power 5 conference (Pac-12, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC). While that won’t affect the four ACC teams with annual rivalry games against the SEC (FSU, Clemson, Louisville and Georgia Tech), it will force some others to up the ante on future scheduling.
Rather than look ahead, however, we decided to take a look back at how the ACC has fared against Power 5 competition in recent years.
As colleague Andrea Adelson pointed out, the 2013 nonconference slate in the ACC was one of the toughest in the nation, and the 2014 schedule projects to be similarly daunting.
But while the ACC played a fair number of tough nonconference games, it didn’t exactly perform particularly well in them.
In fact, going back five years to the 2009 season, the numbers are pretty bleak.
The 11 current ACC members who have been a part of the conference since 2009 have played a total of 73 regular-season, nonconference games against Power 5 teams. Their combined record is a dismal 22-51 (.301).
Here’s how bad it actually is:
• Three of those 22 wins actually came against Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville when those programs were not part of the ACC.
• Seven more wins came against Vandy, Kansas, Rutgers and Indiana — hardly traditional powers despite their conference affiliations.
• No ACC team has a winning record in nonconference, regular-season games against Power 5 teams during that span. The team that has performed the best during that stretch is North Carolina, which is 3-3.
The number of games played by ACC teams against nonconference opponents in the regular season since 2009:
• The most impressive nonconference, regular-season wins over Power 5 teams for the ACC in the last five years amounts to a short list: Clemson over Georgia (2013), Miami over Florida (2013), Clemson over Auburn (2011), FSU over Florida (2010), Miami over Oklahoma (2009) and Virginia Tech over Nebraska (2009).
The failures against Power 5 teams are league-wide, but the spread is a bit one-sided. Since 2009, there are a few teams that have distinctly avoiding playing nonconference, regular-season games against Power 5 teams. The full list is in a chart on the right.
What’s worse, four of those six games played by NC State and Virginia Tech came in 2009, meaning those two programs have each played just one regular-season, nonconference game against a Power 5 team in the last four years. (Virginia Tech played Alabama last season, while NC State played Tennessee in 2012.)
Of course, conference games are also played against Power 5 foes, and the ACC has won its share of bowl games against teams from major conferences as well. With that in mind, here are the league’s standings since 2009 based on all games against teams currently in a Power 5 conference (plus Notre Dame).
Every ACC team's record vs. Power 5 conference teams, plus Notre Dame, since 2009:
It’s probably no surprise that Florida State, Clemson and Virginia Tech -- the league’s power teams -- have performed the best.
Georgia Tech’s solid 31-24 record might be a nice feather in Paul Johnson’s cap, if not for the five straight losses to UGA.
Miami and North Carolina have played .500 football in big games the last five years, which puts them in the middle of the pack but, of course, is far below the expectations for two programs with the resources to perform much better.
The league’s newcomers -- Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville -- have won a few significant games, but the ACC obviously has higher hopes for all three schools moving forward.
(Note: Losing Maryland certainly isn't hurting the ACC with respect to these numbers. The Terps were a dismal 13-33 (.282) against all Power 5 teams in the last five years and just 1-5 in regular-season, nonconference games against Power 5 foes.)
Overall, however, the win-loss records don’t exactly tell the story of the ACC as a rising power in the national landscape. In fact, the new scheduling strategy is effectively a carbon copy of the one installed by the SEC, but the difference between the performance of the two leagues in those games is actually quite stark.
In the last five years, the 12 continuous SEC programs are 41-24 (.631) in nonconference, regular-season games against Power 5 opponents, winning at more than double the rate of the ACC. While the ACC doesn’t have a single team that has won more than half of its games against Power 5, nonconference teams in the regular season, the SEC has three teams (Alabama, LSU and South Carolina) that are undefeated in such games.
The knock on the SEC, of course, is that its programs have widely shied away from top-notch competition outside the league. While ACC teams have played, on average, 6.6 regular-season, nonconference games against Power 5 foes in the last five years, the SEC has averaged just 5.4.
But that doesn’t really mean much in the grand scheme of things. Scheduling big-name opponents wasn’t really the problem in the first place. Winning more of those games is the big hurdle the conference needs to clear."
There is no incentive to. If you are Duke or UNC, you only care about basketball and you can sit at home during bowl season and get more money than FSU does from the ACC.
Where is the incentive to change?
Duke is spending $15 Million on their football stadium and trumpeting it as some big move to join big time football. Texas A&M is about to drop $450 Million on their already very nice stadium. The ACC is just not in the race here.
Unless the entire culture of the ACC changes overnight, it would take some major, outside the box conference change to see the ACC do anything except hope 2-3 teams carry the whole conference year after year.
By the numbers: Nonconference scheduling
"The biggest news to come from last week’s ACC league meetings was a decision on future conference scheduling. With expansion, there was a push to move to a nine-game conference slate, along with the potential to switch up the conference title game format. For now, however, things are going to stay more or less the same.
What has changed in terms of scheduling is a rule that will require all teams to play at least one nonconference game against a team from a Power 5 conference (Pac-12, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC). While that won’t affect the four ACC teams with annual rivalry games against the SEC (FSU, Clemson, Louisville and Georgia Tech), it will force some others to up the ante on future scheduling.
Rather than look ahead, however, we decided to take a look back at how the ACC has fared against Power 5 competition in recent years.
As colleague Andrea Adelson pointed out, the 2013 nonconference slate in the ACC was one of the toughest in the nation, and the 2014 schedule projects to be similarly daunting.
“The ACC played one of the most challenging nonconference schedules in the country a season ago, featuring games against Georgia, USC, Florida, Northwestern, Penn State, Alabama, South Carolina, BYU and Oregon.
This year, Oklahoma State, Georgia, Ohio State, Nebraska, UCLA, USC and Iowa are on the nonconference schedule, in addition to the standard SEC rivalry games for Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Louisville.”
But while the ACC played a fair number of tough nonconference games, it didn’t exactly perform particularly well in them.
In fact, going back five years to the 2009 season, the numbers are pretty bleak.
The 11 current ACC members who have been a part of the conference since 2009 have played a total of 73 regular-season, nonconference games against Power 5 teams. Their combined record is a dismal 22-51 (.301).
Here’s how bad it actually is:
• Three of those 22 wins actually came against Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville when those programs were not part of the ACC.
• Seven more wins came against Vandy, Kansas, Rutgers and Indiana — hardly traditional powers despite their conference affiliations.
• No ACC team has a winning record in nonconference, regular-season games against Power 5 teams during that span. The team that has performed the best during that stretch is North Carolina, which is 3-3.
ACC's NONCONFERENCE HISTORY
The number of games played by ACC teams against nonconference opponents in the regular season since 2009: | Team | No. of Games |
|---|---|
| Clemson | 10 |
| Wake Forest | 10 |
| Georgia Tech | 9 |
| Boston College | 8 |
| Florida State | 7 |
| Virginia | 7 |
| Miami | 6 |
| North Carolina | 6 |
| Duke | 4 |
| NC State | 3 |
| Virginia Tech | 3 |
The failures against Power 5 teams are league-wide, but the spread is a bit one-sided. Since 2009, there are a few teams that have distinctly avoiding playing nonconference, regular-season games against Power 5 teams. The full list is in a chart on the right.
What’s worse, four of those six games played by NC State and Virginia Tech came in 2009, meaning those two programs have each played just one regular-season, nonconference game against a Power 5 team in the last four years. (Virginia Tech played Alabama last season, while NC State played Tennessee in 2012.)
Of course, conference games are also played against Power 5 foes, and the ACC has won its share of bowl games against teams from major conferences as well. With that in mind, here are the league’s standings since 2009 based on all games against teams currently in a Power 5 conference (plus Notre Dame).
ACC VS. POWER 5 TEAMS
Every ACC team's record vs. Power 5 conference teams, plus Notre Dame, since 2009: | Team | Record | Winning Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Florida State | 39-15 | .722 |
| Virginia Tech | 34-16 | .680 |
| Clemson | 37-19 | .661 |
| Georgia Tech | 31-24 | .564 |
| Louisville | 15-13 | .536 |
| Miami | 25-24 | .510 |
| North Carolina | 24-25 | .490 |
| Pittsburgh | 17-20 | .459 |
| Syracuse | 16-23 | .410 |
| NC State | 18-28 | .391 |
| Boston College | 18-32 | .360 |
| Wake Forest | 16-35 | .314 |
| Duke | 14-36 | .304 |
| Virginia | 13-35 | .270 |
It’s probably no surprise that Florida State, Clemson and Virginia Tech -- the league’s power teams -- have performed the best.
Georgia Tech’s solid 31-24 record might be a nice feather in Paul Johnson’s cap, if not for the five straight losses to UGA.
Miami and North Carolina have played .500 football in big games the last five years, which puts them in the middle of the pack but, of course, is far below the expectations for two programs with the resources to perform much better.
The league’s newcomers -- Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville -- have won a few significant games, but the ACC obviously has higher hopes for all three schools moving forward.
(Note: Losing Maryland certainly isn't hurting the ACC with respect to these numbers. The Terps were a dismal 13-33 (.282) against all Power 5 teams in the last five years and just 1-5 in regular-season, nonconference games against Power 5 foes.)
Overall, however, the win-loss records don’t exactly tell the story of the ACC as a rising power in the national landscape. In fact, the new scheduling strategy is effectively a carbon copy of the one installed by the SEC, but the difference between the performance of the two leagues in those games is actually quite stark.
In the last five years, the 12 continuous SEC programs are 41-24 (.631) in nonconference, regular-season games against Power 5 opponents, winning at more than double the rate of the ACC. While the ACC doesn’t have a single team that has won more than half of its games against Power 5, nonconference teams in the regular season, the SEC has three teams (Alabama, LSU and South Carolina) that are undefeated in such games.
The knock on the SEC, of course, is that its programs have widely shied away from top-notch competition outside the league. While ACC teams have played, on average, 6.6 regular-season, nonconference games against Power 5 foes in the last five years, the SEC has averaged just 5.4.
But that doesn’t really mean much in the grand scheme of things. Scheduling big-name opponents wasn’t really the problem in the first place. Winning more of those games is the big hurdle the conference needs to clear."
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Presidential hire and the TK tie in
Interesting notes for historical perspective.
Re: D'Alemberte nominates Thrasher for FSU president
DemocraticNole
5/22/2014
"Thrasher is already starting out in a huge hole with the faculty. The faculty is universally against this move. Now, I don't think the university should just hire whoever the faculty want. However, the intense opposition amongst them is a huge problem. T.K. didn't have this kind of ardent opposition from the faculty prior to his hire; it was his leadership as university president that made him universally reviled.
I have linked a 2002 article from the Jacksonville Times-Union about the hiring of T.K. Allow me to provide some snippets:
Many observers saw Wetherell, 56, as the insider candidate because of his ties to trustees and experience with the university and the Legislature. His resume listed three pages of references that included FSU football coach Bobby Bowden, incoming Senate President Jim King, incoming House speaker Johnnie Byrd and several current and past Florida university presidents. -- Sounds a lot like Thrasher
Wetherell also has personal connections to some trustees: He described trustee Stanley Marshall as a mentor while he was in college, has known trustee Ann McGee for years and worked with trustee Chairman John Thrasher as a lobbyist at Southern Strategy Group. -- Thrasher has numerous personal connections to the BoT and PSAC.
Re: D'Alemberte nominates Thrasher for FSU president
DemocraticNole
5/22/2014
"Thrasher is already starting out in a huge hole with the faculty. The faculty is universally against this move. Now, I don't think the university should just hire whoever the faculty want. However, the intense opposition amongst them is a huge problem. T.K. didn't have this kind of ardent opposition from the faculty prior to his hire; it was his leadership as university president that made him universally reviled.
I have linked a 2002 article from the Jacksonville Times-Union about the hiring of T.K. Allow me to provide some snippets:
Many observers saw Wetherell, 56, as the insider candidate because of his ties to trustees and experience with the university and the Legislature. His resume listed three pages of references that included FSU football coach Bobby Bowden, incoming Senate President Jim King, incoming House speaker Johnnie Byrd and several current and past Florida university presidents. -- Sounds a lot like Thrasher
Wetherell also has personal connections to some trustees: He described trustee Stanley Marshall as a mentor while he was in college, has known trustee Ann McGee for years and worked with trustee Chairman John Thrasher as a lobbyist at Southern Strategy Group. -- Thrasher has numerous personal connections to the BoT and PSAC.
Top five recruiting jobs in college football
Top five recruiting jobs in college football
1 UF
Dollars and cents: Florida reported total football expenses of $23,045,846 and total football revenue of $74,117,435 in 2011-12. Florida will benefit greatly from the launch of the SEC Network in August, which is a 20-year agreement between the SEC and ESPN.
2 Texas
Dollars and cents: In 2011-12, the Texas reported total football expenses of $25,896,203 and total revenue of $103,813,684, which was easily the highest revenue in college football. Texas and ESPN are also in the third year of a 20-year, $300 million agreement for the Longhorn Network.
3 Bama
Dollars and cents: In 2011-12, Alabama led the way in total football expenses at $36,918,963, and reported total football revenue of $81,993,762.
4 USC
Dollars and cents: USC's football expenses were $23,123,733 and reported a revenue of $34,410,822 in 2011-12.
5 FSU
"Proximity to out-of-state talent: FSU is the closest major university to parts of talent-rich South Georgia, is 245 miles from Mobile, Alabama, 270 miles from Atlanta, 385 miles from New Orleans, 710 miles from Houston and 865 miles from Washington, D.C.
Dollars and cents: Florida State reported football expenses of $22,052,228 in 2011-12, with total football revenue of $34,484,786.
National appeal: Florida State is one of a handful of football programs on the tip of the tongue of prospects from coast-to-coast. Florida State’s run of success in the 1990s has stood the test of time, with the 2013 national title season only cementing the Seminoles as one of the elites. The Seminoles have three national titles, three Heisman Trophy winners and 17 conference titles.
Facilities and atmosphere: FSU’s facilities and Doak Campbell Stadium might not rank among the elite in college football facilities, but they are certainly not a deterrent in recruiting and are considerably ahead of in-state recruiting rival Miami. The game-day atmosphere is among the top-15 annually and a nationally recognized uniform are both key assets to recruiting nationally.
Recent NFL draft success: Florida State has produced 13 first-round picks and 53 total selections in the last decade. At the beginning of the 2013 season, they had 38 active players on NFL rosters.
Identifiable player: Deion Sanders has certainly stood the test of time with the youth in the country. While his work with the NFL Network and in commercials keeps him in the mainstream media, Sanders is one player from the 1990s who still remains relevant with today’s top prospects.
Bottom line: Florida State is a recruiting juggernaut. The university is in the most talented state in the country, is a drive from a several other talented areas in the region and is recognized nationally for its accomplishments on the field and for producing NFL players."
POWER IN RECRUITING
Are these the best recruiting jobs in college football? ESPN has ranked recruiting classes since 2006, here's what those numbers say.| Team | Avg. Class ranking | No. 1 classes |
|---|---|---|
| Florida | 4.1 | 2 |
| Texas | 6.7 | 0 |
| Alabama | 5.3 | 3 |
| USC | 7.3 | 1 |
| FSU | 8 | 1 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)