ADVERTISEMENT

Pealman to step down in 2016

They guy deserves a lot of credit. Playing poker with Texas and making the move to the Big 10 was a great long term move. On the academic and prominence side, it has been a strong period of sustained growth. Cheers Harvey.
 
I fail to see how losing AAU membership is an indicator of a strong period of sustained growth on the academic and particularly "prominence" side, but to each his own.

And yes, i know the arguments and issues with the AAU vote, but its outcome is what it is.

This post was edited on 4/1 10:56 AM by mel mains

edit: added link
 
Originally posted by mel mains:
I fail to see how losing AAU membership is an indicator of a strong period of sustained growth on the academic and particularly "prominence" side, but to each his own.

And yes, i know the arguments and issues with the AAU vote, but its outcome is what it is.
From what I've heard they could have been kicked out for 10 years straight.

I suspect that boot has a lot to do with Texas influence. Bob Berdahl was the head of the AAU at the time and he was the former UT president who tried to screw NU at every turn.
 
So do the regents go after Jim Tressel? Wouldn't that be a hoot.

Harvey is a good man and I was fine with him representing and guiding my university. It is easy to take shots at individual decisions made while trying to run a highly complex organization, but the general trend is the university is bigger and better due to his leadership IMHO. The move to the B1G and Innovation campus were master-strokes.
 
Originally posted by Huskers_Rule_All:
Originally posted by mel mains:
I fail to see how losing AAU membership is an indicator of a strong period of sustained growth on the academic and particularly "prominence" side, but to each his own.

And yes, i know the arguments and issues with the AAU vote, but its outcome is what it is.
From what I've heard they could have been kicked out for 10 years straight.

I suspect that boot has a lot to do with Texas influence. Bob Berdahl was the head of the AAU at the time and he was the former UT president who tried to screw NU at every turn.
UT voted in favor to keep Nebraska in the AAU. Along with all of the Big 12 members and Colorado.There were a couple B1G members who voted against Nebraska. Michigan and Wisconsin, along with all of the Ivy League schools (hearsay), lobbied to vote Nebraska out.

Nebraska was removed by 3 votes, with the vote response time extended to get the additional votes.




This post was edited on 4/1 11:55 AM by whiplash

Wisconsin and Michigan opposed Nebraska's AAU memb
 
HUGE LOSS for the university! Nebraska never gets into the Big 10 without Harvey and his connections. The popular theory with some Nebraska fans is that Osborne played a key part in this process but that is far from the truth.
 
Originally posted by Husker.Wed.:
So do the regents go after Jim Tressel? Wouldn't that be a hoot.
Yes! With Scott Frost as Chancellor in Waiting.

Got it straight from my mailman's cousin's cable installer.
 
Originally posted by whiplash:
Originally posted by Huskers_Rule_All:
Originally posted by mel mains:
I fail to see how losing AAU membership is an indicator of a strong period of sustained growth on the academic and particularly "prominence" side, but to each his own.

And yes, i know the arguments and issues with the AAU vote, but its outcome is what it is.
From what I've heard they could have been kicked out for 10 years straight.

I suspect that boot has a lot to do with Texas influence. Bob Berdahl was the head of the AAU at the time and he was the former UT president who tried to screw NU at every turn.
UT voted in favor to keep Nebraska in the AAU. Along with all of the Big 12 members and Colorado.There were a couple B1G members who voted against Nebraska. Michigan and Wisconsin, along with all of the Ivy League schools (hearsay), lobbied to vote Nebraska out.

Nebraska was removed by 3 votes, with the vote response time extended to get the additional votes.




This post was edited on 4/1 11:55 AM by whiplash
OK. Thanks for the info.
 
Originally posted by mel mains:

I fail to see how losing AAU membership is an indicator of a strong period of sustained growth on the academic and particularly "prominence" side, but to each his own.
By losing AAU membership, how has that impacted UNL negatively?
 
Originally posted by HuskerTimOmaha:
Originally posted by mel mains:

I fail to see how losing AAU membership is an indicator of a strong period of sustained growth on the academic and particularly "prominence" side, but to each his own.
By losing AAU membership, how has that impacted UNL negatively?
BCDYv.gif
 
Get serious Mel.

A penny is to $100 bill what lossing AAU is to getting into the Big 10 from an acedmic and institutional prominence standpoint. If Nebraska wants research grants (which is what the AAU is all about), they will have many more opportunities with its Big 10 affiliation than the archaic AAU membership.

For more on the AAU and the behind the scenes political moves, check out this article where Syracuse voluntarily removed itself after they voted Nebraska out.

Syracuse Out of AAU
 
If a person doesn't see being voted out of the elite group of universities, by those universities, despite being an inaugural member, as a loss of prestige to the university, then that person is (in my opinion) in the minority.

In just the article I linked, even Pearlman himself is quoted as having labeled it "disconcerting news" to his faculty; and elsewhere every commenting party involved in Nebraska moving to the Big 10 referenced it as a positive factor in the University's selection, including Wisconsin's president, who less than a year later voted Nebraska out.

So again, if one doesn't see the AAU defenstration as having had a negative impact on Nebraska's "prominence" (not my word but used in the post to which I was responding), then I believe he is wrong.

That all said, the singular loss of AAU prestige or "prominence" is likely most noteworthy among people like university presidents and chancellors, with whom pretty much we in the rest of the world have little in common. I tend to lump them as academic elitists, and generally am not favorable to anyone who at least one point in his or her adult life has actually contributed, directly, to the GNP; and whose salaries are rooted in winning grants of taxpayer money while sitting on a pile of endowment.

But at some level, if it results in fewer research dollars won and/or more difficulty in recruiting professors (chicken/egg) then that may trickle into common appreciation for the University, exhibited in something as understandable as the US News university rankings, where Nebraska still wallows near the 100 mark.

And if nothing about AAU mattered, Pearlman would not have spent his first ten years at the helm trying to make the case for Nebraska remaining a member, now would he?
 
Prestige is pretty much the only benefit of AAU membership and as long as Nebraska doesn't lose its R1 status, no potential faculty give a shit, IMO
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by MichHusker :

Get serious Mel.

A penny is to $100 bill what lossing AAU is to getting into the Big 10 from an acedmic and institutional prominence standpoint. If Nebraska wants research grants (which is what the AAU is all about), they will have many more opportunities with its Big 10 affiliation than the archaic AAU membership.

For more on the AAU and the behind the scenes political moves, check out this article where Syracuse voluntarily removed itself after they voted Nebraska out.
I know all about the CIC, but I am not aware of that organization itself offering research grants (but I would admit ignorance if you can show otherwise). The CIC is a prestigious affiliation, no doubt, but it is more of a collaborative, sharing entity among the Big 10 + 1 universities. But each university's research remains funded by (mostly) federal dollars.

How being out of the AAU actually helps our University actually get more federal dollars, I can't understand that conclusion.

Being in the CIC, though, is undoubtedly the best part of moving to the Big 10, long-term for the State and its growth. (That and the football games are now within easy driving distance for me.)
 
Originally posted by MichHusker :

Get serious Mel.

A penny is to $100 bill what lossing AAU is to getting into the Big 10 from an acedmic and institutional prominence standpoint. If Nebraska wants research grants (which is what the AAU is all about), they will have many more opportunities with its Big 10 affiliation than the archaic AAU membership.

For more on the AAU and the behind the scenes political moves, check out this article where Syracuse voluntarily removed itself after they voted Nebraska out.
agreed ... what Neb may have lost in perceived prestige they have more than made up in actual tangible benefits by becoming CIC members as a result of joining the BIG
 
Originally posted by HuskerTimOmaha:
6 paragraphs and you didn't answer my question. Shocking!
Willful misreading and stupidity on your part. Shocking!!

Nice try.

And its an expression of an opinion, mine alone. I've no reason to justify it to HTegO, regardless of how much he thinks he owns this board.
 
Originally posted by mel mains:

Willful misreading and stupidity on your part. Shocking!!

Nice try.

And its an expression of an opinion, mine alone. I've no reason to justify it to HTegO, regardless of how much he thinks he owns this board.
You're not as smart as you think you are. And since you're an attorney, your original response is exactly what I thought it would be, gibberish non-sense with zero support of your original claim. Yada, yada, yada.

I'm still waiting.

An opinion with no facts to support, attorney style!
 
Harvey will be greatly missed. I spent 16 years at UNL as both student and employee, and I saw the best and worst of UNL during that time. Harvey is largely responsible for the good, despite what the uninformed football trolls want to say about him.

And bringing AAU membership into it. Did a stupid grenade explode in here???

Nebraska's slide out of the AAU was 40 years in the making. Harvey had actually begun to turn things around when the expulsion happened. What's stupid is that a group of elite universities kicked out one of its founding members after the member had implemented many of the demands they had made, but were largely ignored for decades.

I'm still waiting for some moron to suggest Tom Osborne take Perlman's place as chancellor, so he can hire Frank Solich (or Ron Brown, or some other unqualified former assistant) as athletic director, and restore Bo Pelini to head coach to resurrect the football program's former 9-4 glory.



This post was edited on 4/1 6:51 PM by redfanusa
 
Originally posted by mel mains:
Originally posted by HuskerTimOmaha:
6 paragraphs and you didn't answer my question. Shocking!
Willful misreading and stupidity on your part. Shocking!!

Nice try.

And its an expression of an opinion, mine alone. I've no reason to justify it to HTegO, regardless of how much he thinks he owns this board.
You do realize Mel that the Unicameral is the one that cost NU its AAU membership don't you? They passed legislation splitting off the UNMC from UNL back in the late 70s I believe that made UNMC a separate entity. By doing that, UNL lost the research dollars from the balance sheet from the UNMC. THAT was the sticking point. There wasn't a damned thing that Harvey could have done about that. Call your legislator if you want to bitch.
 
Kind of hope the next guy is a bit more aggressive with research. Adjusted for inflation Perlman has increased research perhaps 25% during his tenure.
 
Originally posted by jawbreakingsafetyplay:
Dingle, stop using facts. The moron is on a roll. The fire Harvey folks are too busy having circle jerks to care about the truth
Oh for god's sake what is with you people. Can nobody submit an even mildly contrarion post about anyone who fired Bo Pelini without it turning into a drone attack?

Jaws, I never said Harvey should be fired, ever. Not a single damn time, ever. And you trolling the thread, acting as if you are some sort of fact gate-keeper? You alleged the Pelini Foundation was a fraud, "shady", then doubled down when challenged to show how, and you're calling me out on facts? What fact did I misrepresent? Go jump in a lake.

Dingle, did you read my initial post, or the article that I linked? I stated that I knew the facts of the AAU situation, and the article specifically notes the Med Center aspect of it. Too damn much for you?

The post I responded to said that Harvey had improved the prestige of the University. I suggested that losing AAU status during his tenure hurt its prestige. How the hell can that statement be such a big deal? Harvey did many good things for the University and its system is better for it, but in my mind its prestige is pretty much the same as it was when he took the job.
 
Originally posted by mel mains:
Dingle, did you read my initial post, or the article that I linked? I stated that I knew the facts of the AAU situation, and the article specifically notes the Med Center aspect of it. Too damn much for you?

The post I responded to said that Harvey had improved the prestige of the University. I suggested that losing AAU status during his tenure hurt its prestige. How the hell can that statement be such a big deal? Harvey did many good things for the University and its system is better for it, but in my mind its prestige is pretty much the same as it was when he took the job.
So if the UNMC dollars were a major point, and Harvey couldn't control that, isn't the expulsion washed from his naughty list? I understand that it occurred during his tenure; however, you comments above seem to document that he really shouldn't be held responsible for this. Thoughts?
 
Originally posted by Archie Graham:

Originally posted by mel mains:
Dingle, did you read my initial post, or the article that I linked? I stated that I knew the facts of the AAU situation, and the article specifically notes the Med Center aspect of it. Too damn much for you?

The post I responded to said that Harvey had improved the prestige of the University. I suggested that losing AAU status during his tenure hurt its prestige. How the hell can that statement be such a big deal? Harvey did many good things for the University and its system is better for it, but in my mind its prestige is pretty much the same as it was when he took the job.
So if the UNMC dollars were a major point, and Harvey couldn't control that, isn't the expulsion washed from his naughty list? I understand that it occurred during his tenure; however, you comments above seem to document that he really shouldn't be held responsible for this. Thoughts?
Look, language matters. The post I responded to stated, "On the academic and prominence side, it has been a strong period of sustained growth." I pointed out that losing AAU status during that period was detrimental and injurious to the University's prestige. The Bo haters took it to another level because I dared to mildly point out a negative fact about Harvey, who apparently cannot be questioned because he fired Bo.

I never said it was Harvey's fault, and don't blame him for the vote, although the Lincoln paper seemed to report that he pissed off the Association by revealing to his Big 10 brethren that the University was subject to retention vote, when the Association considered that to be a confidential matter. Whether that tipped the vote, who knows; the cards had been dealt by then, likely.
 
Originally posted by mel mains:
Look, language matters. The post I responded to stated, "On the academic and prominence side, it has been a strong period of sustained growth." I pointed out that losing AAU status during that period was detrimental and injurious to the University's prestige. The Bo haters took it to another level because I dared to mildly point out a negative fact about Harvey, who apparently cannot be questioned because he fired Bo.

I never said it was Harvey's fault, and don't blame him for the vote, although the Lincoln paper seemed to report that he pissed off the Association by revealing to his Big 10 brethren that the University was subject to retention vote, when the Association considered that to be a confidential matter. Whether that tipped the vote, who knows; the cards had been dealt by then, likely.
That's fine. I wasn't trying to get into the previous discuss; rather, just seek clarification. I got that. Thanks.
 
ADVERTISEMENT