Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
From what I've heard they could have been kicked out for 10 years straight.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.
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.Originally posted by Huskers_Rule_All:
From what I've heard they could have been kicked out for 10 years straight.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.
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.
Yes! With Scott Frost as Chancellor in Waiting.Originally posted by Husker.Wed.:
So do the regents go after Jim Tressel? Wouldn't that be a hoot.
OK. Thanks for the info.Originally posted by whiplash:
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.Originally posted by Huskers_Rule_All:
From what I've heard they could have been kicked out for 10 years straight.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.
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.
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
By losing AAU membership, how has that impacted UNL negatively?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.
Originally posted by HuskerTimOmaha:
By losing AAU membership, how has that impacted UNL negatively?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.
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.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 BIGOriginally 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.
Willful misreading and stupidity on your part. Shocking!!Originally posted by HuskerTimOmaha:
6 paragraphs and you didn't answer my question. Shocking!
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.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 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.Originally posted by mel mains:
Willful misreading and stupidity on your part. Shocking!!Originally posted by HuskerTimOmaha:
6 paragraphs and you didn't answer my question. 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.
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?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
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 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.
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.Originally posted by Archie Graham:
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 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.
That's fine. I wasn't trying to get into the previous discuss; rather, just seek clarification. I got that. Thanks.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.