What will the story be 30 years from now? | Page 3 | The Boneyard

What will the story be 30 years from now?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Messages
2,113
Reaction Score
8,480
One of our best hopes for conference realignment is that an enemy nation launches an EMP strike over the contintental United States, thus destroying the power grid and all electronics. Then and only then will college sports resort to regional conferences, where basketball will be played outside and teams will travel via horse-drawn carriage or steamboat.

Imagine a conference with UConn, BC, Providence, Syracuse, St. Johns, Georgetown, Maryland, Villanova, Seton Hall, and Penn State. All accessible by carriage. Games played on Saturdays in the night. Cold, but doable.

If this was the potential outcome of an EMP strike, sign me up for a nuclear blast instead.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2013
Messages
2,047
Reaction Score
5,700
One of our best hopes for conference realignment is that an enemy nation launches an EMP strike over the contintental United States, thus destroying the power grid and all electronics. Then and only then will college sports resort to regional conferences, where basketball will be played outside and teams will travel via horse-drawn carriage or steamboat.

Imagine a conference with UConn, BC, Providence, Syracuse, St. Johns, Georgetown, Maryland, Villanova, Seton Hall, and Penn State. All accessible by carriage. Games played on Saturdays in the night. Cold, but doable.

I'm Going to start seeing Hannah Davis
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
302
Reaction Score
446
Regarding contraction, do you really believe any B1G school would ever leave the B1G? Same with the SEC. Those schools aren't going anywhere.
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
265
Reaction Score
216
Regarding contraction, do you really believe any B1G school would ever leave the B1G? Same with the SEC. Those schools aren't going anywhere.

Schools have left the SEC before, albeit quite some time ago. Have any schools ever left the B1G besides Chicago? Honest question.... I really can't think of any.

You may be right on no one leaving the B1G, but I could see the SEC lose Mizzou and Arkansas if some other morph of the SWC/Big 8/Big XII were created many years down the road.

You're right, it probably would never happen, But I liked the B1G when it really was the Big Ten, and the ACC when it had 8 schools before adding FSU. I really wish we could go back in time and created a then new Eastern Athletic Conference with Miami, FSU, USC-e, ECU, VT, WVU, PSU, Rutgers, Syracuse and then made room for UConn later when they stepped up to BCS level football. My only beef is that only 5 of those are land grant schools, but at least FSU, USC-e and ECU are larger state schools.
 

pj

Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
8,597
Reaction Score
24,930
Schools have left the SEC before, albeit quite some time ago. Have any schools ever left the B1G besides Chicago? Honest question.... I really can't think of any.

You may be right on no one leaving the B1G, but I could see the SEC lose Mizzou and Arkansas if some other morph of the SWC/Big 8/Big XII were created many years down the road.

You're right, it probably would never happen, But I liked the B1G when it really was the Big Ten, and the ACC when it had 8 schools before adding FSU. I really wish we could go back in time and created a then new Eastern Athletic Conference with Miami, FSU, USC-e, ECU, VT, WVU, PSU, Rutgers, Syracuse and then made room for UConn later when they stepped up to BCS level football. My only beef is that only 5 of those are land grant schools, but at least FSU, USC-e and ECU are larger state schools.

Take away ECU and add BC and UConn and you have a nice 10-team conference. But you'd have to think FSU would still jump to ACC which would be looking for a Florida presence, and USC would still go to the SEC. I don't see that lineup as stable.

A northeastern conference with BC, UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers, PSU, Pitt, WVU, Va Tech, Cincy, Louisville would be more stable. And it actually could have happened, if Penn State had been brought into the Big East.
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
265
Reaction Score
216
Take away ECU and add BC and UConn and you have a nice 10-team conference. But you'd have to think FSU would still jump to ACC which would be looking for a Florida presence, and USC would still go to the SEC. I don't see that lineup as stable.

A northeastern conference with BC, UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers, PSU, Pitt, WVU, Va Tech, Cincy, Louisville would be more stable. And it actually could have happened, if Penn State had been brought into the Big East.

Oh, I thought I had UConn in my list as #10 when they bumped up to FBS in the early 2000s. Your list is good except for Louisville. Now that they're in the ACC, I feel like I need to look over my shoulder again.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,406
Reaction Score
7,935
I had no idea of what schools were land grant and which were not...surprised me to find that Michigan was not..nor South Carolina...Michigan State and Clemson are...Alabama is not, Auburn is..Oregon is not, Oregon State is...Oklahoma is not, OK State is...
 

storrsroars

Exiled in Pittsburgh
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
19,709
Reaction Score
38,406
30 years from now there won't be colleges or universities as we currently know them. So there won't be college sports as we know them. Simple as that.

Reasons are aplenty and they're pretty obvious:
1. Rising education debt and inability to pay off said debt.
2. Irrelevance (real or perceived) of traditional curricula.
3. Availability and affordability of on-demand, pay-as-you-go, personally-customized learning programs.
4. The nature of "one career path for life" will have mostly disappeared, with few exceptions (e.g. medicine).
5. There will no longer be a need for physically "attending" a university. So there will no longer be an impetus to use sports to attract students to a campus. "Collegiate" sports will cease to exist, replaced by organizations that offer a career path to those who wish to participate, and will sponsor those kids and teams. Think something like AAU on steroids.

So, enjoy college football while it lasts. It's not going to last that much longer.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
405
Reaction Score
458
30 years from now there won't be colleges or universities as we currently know them. So there won't be college sports as we know them. Simple as that.

Reasons are aplenty and they're pretty obvious:
1. Rising education debt and inability to pay off said debt.
2. Irrelevance (real or perceived) of traditional curricula.
3. Availability and affordability of on-demand, pay-as-you-go, personally-customized learning programs.
4. The nature of "one career path for life" will have mostly disappeared, with few exceptions (e.g. medicine).
5. There will no longer be a need for physically "attending" a university. So there will no longer be an impetus to use sports to attract students to a campus. "Collegiate" sports will cease to exist, replaced by organizations that offer a career path to those who wish to participate, and will sponsor those kids and teams. Think something like AAU on steroids.

So, enjoy college football while it lasts. It's not going to last that much longer.

I know that it seems to be fashionable to turn college credits into fungible widgets that can be consumed anywhere these days, but this makes the mistake that people and businesses consider all colleges to be equal. Much of the business world has become *more* snobby on educational credentials these days. The company that I work for doesn't care that you can get the same substance from an Intro to Microeconomics class whether it's taken at a top tier school, community college or online course. The "brand" of graduating from a top tier school is the selling point as opposed to vocational training - we want people with the combination of intelligence and work ethic that comes from getting a degree from a top tier school.

The very worst offenders of overloading students with debt are NOT traditional universities. Instead, they are the online college credit mills (you can't even call them "diploma mills" since so few people graduate) like the University of Phoenix that charge private school tuition prices for a substandard educational experience. What's even worse is that affluent and educated know this, so they're more competitive about steering their own children to top tier schools than ever. You don't see wealthy people trumpeting the greatness of online education - they're ensuring that their kids go to the schools that give them the best shot at upper income jobs, so the income cycle continues. If you think power centers like Wall Street, Silicon Valley and DC will suddenly start becoming *less* snobby on *where* you went to school, I don't know what to tell you. Meanwhile, the people attending the University of Phoenix are disproportionately the ones that can least afford it, so they're saddled with insane debt without even graduating in most instances.

Too many people have the perception that "online" means "cheaper". That clearly isn't the case (especially if you don't ever graduate).
 

storrsroars

Exiled in Pittsburgh
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
19,709
Reaction Score
38,406
I know that it seems to be fashionable to turn college credits into fungible widgets that can be consumed anywhere these days, but this makes the mistake that people and businesses consider all colleges to be equal. Much of the business world has become *more* snobby on educational credentials these days. The company that I work for doesn't care that you can get the same substance from an Intro to Microeconomics class whether it's taken at a top tier school, community college or online course. The "brand" of graduating from a top tier school is the selling point as opposed to vocational training - we want people with the combination of intelligence and work ethic that comes from getting a degree from a top tier school.

The very worst offenders of overloading students with debt are NOT traditional universities. Instead, they are the online college credit mills (you can't even call them "diploma mills" since so few people graduate) like the University of Phoenix that charge private school tuition prices for a substandard educational experience. What's even worse is that affluent and educated know this, so they're more competitive about steering their own children to top tier schools than ever. You don't see wealthy people trumpeting the greatness of online education - they're ensuring that their kids go to the schools that give them the best shot at upper income jobs, so the income cycle continues. If you think power centers like Wall Street, Silicon Valley and DC will suddenly start becoming *less* snobby on *where* you went to school, I don't know what to tell you. Meanwhile, the people attending the University of Phoenix are disproportionately the ones that can least afford it, so they're saddled with insane debt without even graduating in most instances.

Too many people have the perception that "online" means "cheaper". That clearly isn't the case (especially if you don't ever graduate).

I figured somebody would bring up Phoenix. That's like having a mobile app that's simply a re-sized version of your website. It's already an obsolete model.

Google "Minerva". This is one model of delivery. Other models are being created. An entire alternative economy will erupt in the next 10-15 years with a focus on post-secondary education - because the profit potential is enormous. It could very well be that the Ivies survive. But will 320+ members of the NCAA, including multiple state schools offering many types of curricula that won't require physical attendance survive?

Check back in 30 years. Let's see who's right.

I ran several internet conferences back in the 90s. I got an early look at a lot of business models. I won some bets, lost some others. I like my odds here.
 

junglehusky

Molotov Cocktail of Ugliness
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
7,186
Reaction Score
15,555
CNN did a pretty interesting documentary called the Ivory Tower on the changing landscape of college education, it was available at Redbox and is probably available somewhere online too. It looked at some different settings including landscape of online education contrasting the Cal State system (which contracted a company to run courses at San Jose State but had to pull back because it wasn't working) with some open courses being run at Harvard. And they looked at a lot of other types of colleges and issues... worth renting if you're interested in exploring these issues.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
405
Reaction Score
458
I figured somebody would bring up Phoenix. That's like having a mobile app that's simply a re-sized version of your website. It's already an obsolete model.

Google "Minerva". This is one model of delivery. Other models are being created. An entire alternative economy will erupt in the next 10-15 years with a focus on post-secondary education - because the profit potential is enormous. It could very well be that the Ivies survive. But will 320+ members of the NCAA, including multiple state schools offering many types of curricula that won't require physical attendance survive?

Check back in 30 years. Let's see who's right.

I ran several internet conferences back in the 90s. I got an early look at a lot of business models. I won some bets, lost some others. I like my odds here.

I agree with the belief that there will be growth in alternative models for higher education. Certainly, there is definitely demand for lower cost access to higher education and jobs where a more expensive traditional on-campus 4-year degree isn't necessary. However, what I disagree with believing that it will somehow become the general rule that people like Peter Thiel believe/want (with only a handful like the Ivies being the exception). Instead, I think we'll likely see a bifurcation in the educational marketplace - a large number of largely traditional institutions (let's say the top 150 or so schools in the US News rankings) whose alums will fill a disproportionate number of the higher income jobs in society, and then the lower tier jobs are filled by attendees/users of alternative models. The P5 athletic programs that we're talking about here are almost entirely within that upper tier of schools. The most at-risk schools are the middle to lower tier schools (especially private ones) that are still charging expensive tuition.

I've read about Minerva before and it's an interesting premise in targeting elite students who are attracted by the lower cost. I don't doubt that there is a subset of students that is willing to try this atmosphere or don't care at all about the trappings of the traditional university. However, I think it's a very wrong assumption that everyone feels this way, particularly the types of students that Minerva is trying to attract (as they're aiming for Ivy-level caliber students).

I'm just speaking for myself - there is NOTHING that I would trade for with respect to my experience in college. I don't consider the social connections that I made there (whether it was through the organizations that I was in, spending countless hours with the people in my freshman year dorm, watching sports, etc.) to be ancillary or frivolous. If anything, that's what made the entire experience *college*. Simply saying that you can check out books from the library or watch online lectures and learn the same material trivializes the entire experience.

Regardless, it's not what I think. The delivery of lower cost educational models is relatively easy - the "input" demand may very well be there if only because students certainly want to reduce education costs. We all know the technology is in place to spread information quickly to disparate locations. However, what matters for anyone attempting to sell these educational models is the output... or maybe more appropriately, the *perception* of that output. That is, are employers going to recognize those graduates as the same quality as those that went to traditional 4-year universities? If the answer is no, then all of the lower cost input in the world isn't going to convince parents (who are the ones that *really* need to be sold) to think that attending online classes is going to substitute for going to Harvard (or UConn or your typical state university, for that matter). (To be sure, I completely understand that it may depend upon the profession. An employer that wants a pure coder may very well just care about a person getting some type of online technical certification without regard to where he/she went to college. An employer that needs people with a higher level ability to manage a broader scope of issues is not going to look at it the same way.)
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
16,560
Reaction Score
19,301
How many jobs/functions performed here 15 years ago are performed in India today? How many current jobs will be shipped overseas in the next 15 years? The landscape will change drastically, kids are already making greater use of community colleges before going to universities, the whole system will continue to change. Between these temperatures and taxes, I think the CT population in 15 years will be about about 112.
I do believe that for many liberal arts, business, and other less technical degrees, people will realize that $100k plus is just too steep.
 

storrsroars

Exiled in Pittsburgh
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
19,709
Reaction Score
38,406
I'm just speaking for myself - there is NOTHING that I would trade for with respect to my experience in college. I don't consider the social connections that I made there (whether it was through the organizations that I was in, spending countless hours with the people in my freshman year dorm, watching sports, etc.) to be ancillary or frivolous. If anything, that's what made the entire experience *college*. Simply saying that you can check out books from the library or watch online lectures and learn the same material trivializes the entire experience.

Regardless, it's not what I think. The delivery of lower cost educational models is relatively easy - the "input" demand may very well be there if only because students certainly want to reduce education costs. We all know the technology is in place to spread information quickly to disparate locations. However, what matters for anyone attempting to sell these educational models is the output... or maybe more appropriately, the *perception* of that output. That is, are employers going to recognize those graduates as the same quality as those that went to traditional 4-year universities? If the answer is no, then all of the lower cost input in the world isn't going to convince parents (who are the ones that *really* need to be sold) to think that attending online classes is going to substitute for going to Harvard (or UConn or your typical state university, for that matter). (To be sure, I completely understand that it may depend upon the profession. An employer that wants a pure coder may very well just care about a person getting some type of online technical certification without regard to where he/she went to college. An employer that needs people with a higher level ability to manage a broader scope of issues is not going to look at it the same way.)

What's driving the impetus to design a driverless car? Is it traffic safety? Or, given Apple's and Google's interest in those vehicles, more free time to be connected (and served advertising as well as content).

We're headed to a place where we're wired 100% of the time. It's already difficult to keep students off screens in class. That's only going to get harder. They learn and process information differently than we did. And once screens are become fully integrated with curricula, why a physical building?

You know that part in the Matrix where Carrie Moss has a set of instructions for flying a helicopter sent to her? While that may be a stretch, something like that is coming via some future iteration of Google Glass for many real-life (and career) applications. So the question is, how many professions will really need a learning environment with a campus and buildings?

I see one potential future being F500 businesses investing more in recruiting pre-college and offering scholarships to universities of the business' choice, not the students'. The CIA already does this to some extent.

I graduated UConn in the late 70s. I went to a branch campus for two years because I couldn't afford room & board and had to work nights and weekends. It was not a traditional "college experience" (well, except for Friday night mixers). Yet most of my lifelong college friends came from there, not Storrs. I mention that I see no reason that "physical" attendance can't be better distributed on a local level instead of a main campus once interactive education becomes legitimized and widely adopted.

Where content used to be king, context is assuming power. I can't pretend to know what it's like to have grown up texting and living on SnapChat. But I do know today's kids make friends and build networks significantly differently than we did 40 years ago. And the education model has to adapt in order to remain relevant.

I just don't see college sports as we know it surviving that disintermediation.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,376
Reaction Score
68,269
The biggest obstacle for these alternate delivery systems is that it isn't only what happens in the classroom that has value.

The life experience and alumni networks are probably more valuable. It's hard to see the demand for the college experience not existing for those that can afford it or who don't sweat the loans.
 

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,376
Reaction Score
68,269
Grand Canyon is for-profit and their basketball team is in second place in the WAC, plays in a great arena and is coached by an NBA star.

At least one alternate delivery system sees some value in basketball at least.
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
265
Reaction Score
216
I had no idea of what schools were land grant and which were not...surprised me to find that Michigan was not..nor South Carolina...Michigan State and Clemson are...Alabama is not, Auburn is..Oregon is not, Oregon State is...Oklahoma is not, OK State is...

Clemson is, but South Carolina acts and feels more like the Land Grant for their state. I feel like Clemson is trying too banish their LG true roots. The more progressive my school gets, the farther away from a true Land Grant we get. There are only a few handful of universities that hold true to the LG mission.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
1,108
Reaction Score
1,868
I had no idea of what schools were land grant and which were not...surprised me to find that Michigan was not..nor South Carolina...Michigan State and Clemson are...Alabama is not, Auburn is..Oregon is not, Oregon State is...Oklahoma is not, OK State is...

Michigan was founded 40 years before the first land grant - Michigan State.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
572
Guests online
3,449
Total visitors
4,021

Forum statistics

Threads
155,774
Messages
4,031,172
Members
9,864
Latest member
Sad Tiger


Top Bottom