Arms race of athletic facilities....taj mahal down south

[MerrittsMustache]

Why would it? They're independent universities with individual chancellors, etc.

The same holds true for the Illinois universities. They have different chancellors but the same president.

[Aughnanure]

Somewhat ironic that you would say this on a board primarily devoted to basketball, as all but two NBA titles since 1980 have been won by the same 7 teams.

NBA Champions since 1980
1980: Lakers
1981: Celtics
1982: Lakers
1983: 76ers
1984: Celtics
1985: Lakers
1986: Celtics
1987: Lakers
1988: Lakers
1989: Pistons
1990: Pistons
1991: Bulls
1992: Bulls
1993: Bulls
1994: Rockets
1995: Rockets
1996: Bulls
1997: Bulls
1998: Bulls
1999: Spurs
2000: Lakers
2001: Lakers
2002: Lakers
2003: Spurs
2004: Pistons
2005: Spurs
2006: Heat
2007: Spurs
2008: Celtics
2009: Lakers
2010: Lakers
2011: Mavericks
2012: Heat
2013: Heat

In a sport where there are only 5 people on the court for a team, it really isn't all that surprising. It's simply about who has the best 1 or 2 players in the world. The Pistons in 04 are really the only exception to that rule. And besides the Lakers' 10 in the time frame, nothing is too ridiculous - but that;ll happen when you have Kareem, Magic, Kobe, and Shaq playing for you in their primes.

Also 9 is more than every major soccer league has, and about every league has at least one team with more championships than the most winning NBA team (Lakers) in the same period. Even the number 2 team usually has more than the Bulls. And this is a sport with 11 people on the field at one time and little scoring! But nice try.

Here's the No. of Championships since 1980 in the major leagues. And if you actually look at the timeline, you'll see it's only getting worse. The only reason these are not more lopsided is because we are stretching it back to the 1980s.

Premier League
Man U - 13 (all after 1992)
Arsenal - 5
Liverpool - 6
Chelsea - 3
Total: 27 championships of last 34

Italian Serie A
Juventus - 11
Milan - 8
Internazionale - 7
Total: 26 championships of last 34

Spanish La Liga
Real Madrid - 12
Barcelona -13
Total: 25 championships of last 34

German Bundesliga
Bayern Munich - 18
Borussia Dortmund - 5
Total: 23 championships of last 34

[Coleman]

Four year schools. Your link suggests 9 for Illinois, with two schools having several campuses.

Let's cut down Wisconsin's number to be proportional to Illinois.

If Illinois has about 13M in population, divided by 9 schools, that's 1.44M per school. Wisconsin's population is about 5.7M. At that rate, Wisconsin needs about 4 4-year state schools.

No.

Wisconsin's 4 year public universities are a model for the nation. Why try to be like Illinois? Don't fix what isn't broken.

Being an MU fan, as much as I like to rag on UW the last state we should be trying to emulate is Illinois.

I'd agree with a merger of UW-Stout and UW-Eau Claire but that's it.

[TallTitan34]

Am I the only one who doesn't have a problem with these elaborate facilities?

If Marquette Basketball was still in the old gym, everyone here would be complaining we need an elaborate facility to compete.

If you have the money to improve you program spend it. 

[Aughnanure]

Am I the only one who doesn't have a problem with these elaborate facilities?

If Marquette Basketball was still in the old gym, everyone here would be complaining we need an elaborate facility to compete.

If you have the money to improve you program spend it. 

Agreed. Talk to Georgetown fans who've been trying to build the IAC for more than a decade now.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

No.

Wisconsin's 4 year public universities are a model for the nation. Why try to be like Illinois? Don't fix what isn't broken.

Being an MU fan, as much as I like to rag on UW the last state we should be trying to emulate is Illinois.

I'd agree with a merger of UW-Stout and UW-Eau Claire but that's it.

What makes it a model for the nation?

[Galway Eagle]

Am I the only one who doesn't have a problem with these elaborate facilities?

If Marquette Basketball was still in the old gym, everyone here would be complaining we need an elaborate facility to compete.

If you have the money to improve you program spend it. 

I don't have a problem with it.  I just think that with facilities like this they are compensated enough without being paid to play.

[Galway Eagle]

Um, that would be 9 different team, Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Heat, Mavericks and if you add in the other teams mentioned that made it to the finals it means 18 teams have played for the title since then (combining Seattle and OKC since they are the same team). Which is nearly 2/3rds of the league since 1980 having a shot at the title.

But 51 of all the 66 finals appearances were by the same 8 teams.  When you look at it like that it's not really as fair as you're implying. 

[MUMonster03]

But 51 of all the 66 finals appearances were by the same 8 teams.  When you look at it like that it's not really as fair as you're implying. 

Actually it is getting more fair, which is what the NBA has been trying to do. Lets take out the 80's which saw only the Celtics, Lakers, Rockets, 76ers, and Pistons get shots at championships the percentages go up.

The 90's you had 11 different teams play for the championship and the 2000's you had 11 different teams as well. And since 2010 you have had 6 different teams play for it already. The NBA has always been the type of league where you are good for multiple years and then have a down swing. If I'm counting your 8 teams correctly (Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Heat, Pistons) they have all gown down and back up at least once, if not twice since the 80's.

The NBA is probably the worst example of the 4 big sports leagues in the US of having parity, teams have just missed their window due to teams rebuilding better than others or just being good at the wrong time.

[MU B2002]

The Cubs are installing a jumbotron and more signage! Obviously a World Series is not far behind!

Jaguars just ordered a new scoreboard as well, SUPERBOWL BOUND!.  And everyone uses that as the go to defense when I say that Khan is moving the team to London in 5 years. 

[Spotcheck Billy]

The Packers just added 2 new scoreboards, should we get ready for a back-to-back Lombardi trophies being added to the shrine that is the Packers HOF? 

[🏀]

What makes it a model for the nation?

Cost, success rates, graduation rates, workforce development, amongst others.

I'm a FIB and I can recognize how good the UW system is.

[forgetful]

Cost, success rates, graduation rates, workforce development, amongst others.

I'm a FIB and I can recognize how good the UW system is.

Agree to an extent.  The UW system has done a poor job of establishing tier 1 research universities, with only Madison qualifying.  Illinois has two.  California has 8.  Even Alabama has 2 (and that doesn't include the University of Alabama, which is tier 2).

[GGGG]

Agree to an extent.  The UW system has done a poor job of establishing tier 1 research universities, with only Madison qualifying.  Illinois has two.  California has 8.  Even Alabama has 2 (and that doesn't include the University of Alabama, which is tier 2).

That is a little misleading.  In many states, Alabama for instance, you have the Engineering school (Auburn) separate from the other Research 1 school (Alabama.)  Same with South Carolina, Indiana, etc.  Wisconsin has that centered into one campus...which also includes the medical school and law school.  There aren't many states of Wisconsin's size that concentrate all of that into one campus.  Minnesota is another example.

Not to mention that the UW System isn't really all that interested in establishing another school that is going to compete with Madison.  Milwaukee has tried to make strides in that area, but the System isn't devoting a great deal of resources to that campus for that purpose.  But right now UWM is the only other school that even offers PhDs.

That being said, I think the UW System has too many smaller campuses and I have heard a few are struggling.  If you designed it from the bottom up, you probably would have campuses more in the 15-20,000 student range and not in the 8-12,000 student range.

[Eldon]

Agree to an extent.  The UW system has done a poor job of establishing tier 1 research universities, with only Madison qualifying.  Illinois has two.  California has 8.  Even Alabama has 2 (and that doesn't include the University of Alabama, which is tier 2).

What do you mean by tiers?  Carnegie classification?

I don't think that the stated (or even unstated) goal of the UW-system is to create research institutions.  UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee are the only schools in the system that offer (non Ded) doctorate degrees so they are the only two that qualify as research status.  Madison is RU/VH (tier 1) and UW-Milwaukee is RU/H (tier 2).  The other UW@ schools aren't research schools because they're not designed to be.  

By two schools in IL, I'm assuming that you mean Urbana-Champane and UIC.  UIC has such high research status because of their medical school (and dentistry school), where, as a comparison, UW-Milwaukee does not have such schools, through no fault of their own.

I like the UW-system.  Madison is a research behemoth.  If WI channeled away resources from Madison to the other UW schools, then Madison would lose its notoriety.  If that happened, WI would have two somewhat-better-than-average research schools (eg, Oregon), rather than one huge research giant.

EDIT:  Sultan basically beat me to the punch

[GGGG]

What do you mean by tiers?  Carnegie classification?

I don't think that the stated (or even unstated) goal of the UW-system is to create research institutions.  UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee are the only schools in the system that offer (non Ded) doctorate degrees so they are the only two that qualify as research status.  Madison is RU/VH (tier 1) and UW-Milwaukee is RU/H (tier 2).  The other UW@ schools aren't research schools because they're not designed to be. 

By two schools in IL, I'm assuming that you mean Urbana-Champane and UIC.  UIC has such high research status because of their medical school (and dentistry school), where, as a comparison, UW-Milwaukee does not have such schools, through no fault of their own.

I like the UW-system.  Madison is a research behemoth.  If WI channeled away resources from Madison to the other UW schools, then Madison would lose its notoriety.  If that happened, WI would have two somewhat-better-than-average research schools (eg, Oregon), rather than one huge research giant.

EDIT:  Sultan basically beat me to the punch

Yeah, but you said it better than I did.

[Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup]

In a sport where there are only 5 people on the court for a team, it really isn't all that surprising. It's simply about who has the best 1 or 2 players in the world. The Pistons in 04 are really the only exception to that rule. And besides the Lakers' 10 in the time frame, nothing is too ridiculous - but that;ll happen when you have Kareem, Magic, Kobe, and Shaq playing for you in their primes.

Also 9 is more than every major soccer league has, and about every league has at least one team with more championships than the most winning NBA team (Lakers) in the same period. Even the number 2 team usually has more than the Bulls. And this is a sport with 11 people on the field at one time and little scoring! But nice try.

Here's the No. of Championships since 1980 in the major leagues. And if you actually look at the timeline, you'll see it's only getting worse. The only reason these are not more lopsided is because we are stretching it back to the 1980s.

Premier League
Man U - 13 (all after 1992)
Arsenal - 5
Liverpool - 6
Chelsea - 3
Total: 27 championships of last 34

Italian Serie A
Juventus - 11
Milan - 8
Internazionale - 7
Total: 26 championships of last 34

Spanish La Liga
Real Madrid - 12
Barcelona -13
Total: 25 championships of last 34

German Bundesliga
Bayern Munich - 18
Borussia Dortmund - 5
Total: 23 championships of last 34

Relax, friend. I know a thing or two about the beautiful game. I know how it works.

All I'm saying is it's not that different here in America. It's not necessarily the grand crapshoot (or "paradigm of competition") you made it out to be just because we don't have pro/rel stateside.

[forgetful]

What do you mean by tiers?  Carnegie classification?

I don't think that the stated (or even unstated) goal of the UW-system is to create research institutions.  UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee are the only schools in the system that offer (non Ded) doctorate degrees so they are the only two that qualify as research status.  Madison is RU/VH (tier 1) and UW-Milwaukee is RU/H (tier 2).  The other UW@ schools aren't research schools because they're not designed to be.  

By two schools in IL, I'm assuming that you mean Urbana-Champane and UIC.  UIC has such high research status because of their medical school (and dentistry school), where, as a comparison, UW-Milwaukee does not have such schools, through no fault of their own.

I like the UW-system.  Madison is a research behemoth.  If WI channeled away resources from Madison to the other UW schools, then Madison would lose its notoriety.  If that happened, WI would have two somewhat-better-than-average research schools (eg, Oregon), rather than one huge research giant.

EDIT:  Sultan basically beat me to the punch

I would argue that your viewpoint is a bit short-sighted.  You look at the Universities as competing against one another, which is incorrect for multiple reasons.

1)  Research is national, people are not going to UW because it is in Wisconsin, they are going because of their reputation.  So establishing another research powerhouse would be well worth it.

2)  You would not be devoting resources away from UW by establishing another research center.  Research at UW nets a hefty profit. By investing in another tier 1 University they would bring more dollars into the system and turn an even larger profit.  Not to mention the economic benefits of the research as they can spin off companies from the research.  This would bring in new jobs in fast moving high impact fields, this would be particularly beneficial in Milwaukee.

3)  By establishing another research University they would greatly improve the undergraduate education in the sciences.  Getting hands on research at an early stage of ones career is essential for their downstream success.  This requires that their the undergraduate universities are involved in nationally funded research.  With the research centralized in Madison (and to a lesser extent UW-Milwaukee) you detract from the education of undergraduates in the rest of the state.

Note, to Sultan...Auburn is also not tier 1.  And by Tier 1 I mean by the carnegie system, used to be called R1, now RU/VH, I prefer tier 1.

[GGGG]

Relax, friend. I know a thing or two about the beautiful game. I know how it works.

All I'm saying is it's not that different here in America. It's not necessarily the grand crapshoot (or "paradigm of competition") you made it out to be just because we don't have pro/rel stateside.

But you only picked out one example...the NBA.

That being said, European soccer has become more about the Champions League than the domestic league.  Everyone knows Bayern will win Germany...Juventus will win Italy...Barca or Real in Spain...and likely Man U again in England (although that could be very interesting.)  

The real race is which one of these teams (or others like PSG) wins the Champions League.

[GGGG]

I would argue that your viewpoint is a bit short-sighted.  You look at the Universities as competing against one another, which is incorrect for multiple reasons.

1)  Research is national, people are not going to UW because it is in Wisconsin, they are going because of their reputation.  So establishing another research powerhouse would be well worth it.

2)  You would not be devoting resources away from UW by establishing another research center.  Research at UW nets a hefty profit. By investing in another tier 1 University they would bring more dollars into the system and turn an even larger profit.  Not to mention the economic benefits of the research as they can spin off companies from the research.  This would bring in new jobs in fast moving high impact fields, this would be particularly beneficial in Milwaukee.

3)  By establishing another research University they would greatly improve the undergraduate education in the sciences.  Getting hands on research at an early stage of ones career is essential for their downstream success.  This requires that their the undergraduate universities are involved in nationally funded research.  With the research centralized in Madison (and to a lesser extent UW-Milwaukee) you detract from the education of undergraduates in the rest of the state.

Note, to Sultan...Auburn is also not tier 1.  And by Tier 1 I mean by the carnegie system, used to be called R1, now RU/VH, I prefer tier 1.

Thank you for the note.

Even if I agreed completely with your points however, and I really don't know if I do, what you are suggesting is going to require start up capital that UWM doesn't have access to at this point.  Blame the System..the state government...the legislature...whatever.  It is going to take a lot of money to change UWM from a former teachers college and commuter school into hefty research institution.  You have to invest in facilities, faculty, etc. 

And in the short-term where do you take those resources from?

They've tried.  The new school of public health is a good step, so maybe a bunch of smaller steps will add up to something big.

[forgetful]

Thank you for the note.

Even if I agreed completely with your points however, and I really don't know if I do, what you are suggesting is going to require start up capital that UWM doesn't have access to at this point.  Blame the System..the state government...the legislature...whatever.  It is going to take a lot of money to change UWM from a former teachers college and commuter school into hefty research institution.  You have to invest in facilities, faculty, etc. 

And in the short-term where do you take those resources from?

They've tried.  The new school of public health is a good step, so maybe a bunch of smaller steps will add up to something big.

I agree that it is actually too late now. They really needed to leverage the success of UW about 20 years ago and push UW-M.  I know they have tried to accomplish this recently, but now is actually the wrong climate (and they lost promising faculty due to a lack of infrastructure). 

My point was that the UW system is great, but they missed opportunities to make an even bigger impact on the research side, which would have greatly benefitted the state as a whole.

Right now with federal funding rates at essentially all time lows, it is to risky to try and establish a new research University, as you note the seed money required is cost prohibitive.

Many though often over-estimate the costs.  A good faculty member will with research dollars alone, provide a 100% return of investment in less than 6 years.  That doesn't even include the value they bring through teaching.  The main costs are on the core infrastructure.  To establish the facilities necessary for competition with the big Universities you would easily be exceeding a $100 million dollar investment, with a return on investment probably being a 10-15 year timeline.

[brewcity77]

I'm skeptical anyone is going to tank for Wiggins. He's not a generational talent, i.e. LeBron, Ewing, Duncan, etc.

Also, for all the criticism directed toward it, the lottery has all but eliminated the benefits of tanking a season. Since 1990, the league's worst team has ended up with the #1 overall pick just three times (Orlando, 2004; Cleveland, 2003; New Jersey, 1990). The second-worst team has earned it just three times. So even if you wanted to tank for Wiggins - and again, nobody will - you're far from guaranteed a shot at drafting him.

Regardless, no professional sports team owner in this country will ever go for relegation (for good reason), so it's a moot discussion.

I think Wiggins may well be a generational talent. Not sure there's been a better prospect a year away from the draft since the NBA 2003 class. And another plus for this draft is that even if you don't tank and get Wiggins, there are other potential legitimate stars.

It is moot as relegation will never happen here, but it would make late-season games involving non-playoff teams watchable, which they rarely are now. Unfortunate that not even MLS will adopt it.

[jesmu84]

Unfortunate that not even MLS will adopt it.

The MLS couldn't afford to. It already has attendance issues and is still a young, growing league.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Thank you for the note.

Even if I agreed completely with your points however, and I really don't know if I do, what you are suggesting is going to require start up capital that UWM doesn't have access to at this point.  Blame the System..the state government...the legislature...whatever.  It is going to take a lot of money to change UWM from a former teachers college and commuter school into hefty research institution.  You have to invest in facilities, faculty, etc. 

And in the short-term where do you take those resources from?

They've tried.  The new school of public health is a good step, so maybe a bunch of smaller steps will add up to something big.

What about whitewater?

[4everwarriors]

Bro, you're up early. Had some bad Mexican last night?