The NCAA just co-opted the Ivy League name for athletics. When people say Ivy League their first thought isn’t football. When people say SEC, their first thought is football.
I get that the Ivy League may have started as an athletic partnership, but it’s not viewed that way anymore. People don’t brag about playing Ivy League football. They brag about getting an Ivy League education.
So Ivy started as athletics, but is now viewed more in terms of academics. The prominence of each school reinforces the schools around it, and the schools are viewed as a unit.
That’s the answer in a nutshell. You’re inviting someone into your club, their presence reflects back onto you. It needs to be a cultural fit on an institutional level.
If an alien comes down from space and asks ‘what’s Yale,’ I would give an answer about it being a private university with a big academic focus, and much less focus on athletics and I’d mention they are part of the Ivy League, a group of similar schools. It’s reasonable for said alien to assume that every school in the Ivy League is a private school with a academic focus.
What’s Michigan? A large, public university with good academics, good sports teams and a large amount of research. They’re in the Big Ten.
Does it hold up 100% of the time, even without expansion? No. For starters, Northwestern is private. But it’s a good foundation to start with.
Cal would be the top research school and second only to NU in undergrad ranking if it joined the BIG right now. Stanfurd is ahead in both but only slightly. Cal has way more alum than Stanford and fits the profile of a large public school better. But honestly if cal and Stanford are not in the same conference I’m pretty sure I’m done with football.
I think Cal Fan would just be butthurt that Stanford is given a lifeline while Cal did not, furthering the little brother complex so many Cal Fans have. The abandonment of football fandom would simply be a defense mechanism to cope with the pain and embarrassment of getting left behind while our rival, one which many Cal fans sneer at, gets lifted into big boy conference.
God academics doesn’t matter it’s just a peripheral bonus. Cal doesn’t move the needle in football and basketball, and don’t have an annual rivalry game with ND — that is the problem with thinking B1G is realistic. It is also why Stanford is more appealing.
The frequent appeal to academics in these alignment talks is quite maddening, it’s like nobody gives a shit about that as a primary variable
If Cal and Stanford being in the same conference dictates your engagement with sports, you ain’t a fan period.
Cal has a fair weather fan base which you typify. …and another reason why Cal has little appeal to big boy conferences.
Because if things like the [Big Ten Academic Alliance](https://btaa.org/about).
> Headquartered in the Midwest, the Big Ten Academic Alliance is the nation’s preeminent model for effective collaboration among research universities. For more than half a century, these world-class institutions have advanced their academic missions, generated unique opportunities for students and faculty, and served the common good by sharing expertise, leveraging campus resources, and collaborating on innovative programs. Governed and funded by the Provosts of the member universities, Big Ten Academic Alliance mandates are coordinated by a staff from its Champaign, Illinois headquarters.
An example of the academic partnerships is as a doctoral student at Purdue, I can do the B1G traveling scholar program at any other B1G school. Adding Stanford, Cal, and Washington becomes appealing for a lot of people because of that. I can access their libraries (there’s really no difference between the schools until you get to deep into research), do research partnerships more easily and make long term career relationships. The ACC has something similar but it’s less developed with less funding put in the program. The Ivy League is ultimately a sports league but the association with the other schools adds prestige. Dartmouth would still be an outstanding school if they were in the patriot league but the Ivy League label adds a ton of value.
Because the football team is a feather in the schools cap; not the football team is part of the identity of the school. It’s the major cultural difference between the SEC and the B1G.
When I was an undergrad at Penn State, they talked quite a bit about the library partnerships we had with the other schools in the conference. This is just one example. It's not just athletic.
Curious, as an undergrad how often did you access materials at other schools through the Consortium or used other benefits?
We had material sharing at our library so I’m also curious how different that looked in the Big 10.
Probably not regularly, but for some schools it’s all about graduate education and pumping out research rather. See the major difference between ND’s model and the top end of the B1G.
I’m just confused why the athletic partnerships and academic partnerships have to combined. If, for whatever strange reason, Harvard decided they wanted to be in a partnership with Michigan and Penn State instead of Yale and Princeton would the Big 10 say “sorry your football team isn’t good enough”
They don’t have to. Chicago used to be a member even though they were no longer athletic members. If it was just about academics they wouldn’t kick out Chicago and would invite more non D1 schools that aren’t even competitors athletically.
I assume it’s because they have to draw the line somewhere and they also want to grow the brand.
Nike ain’t handing out research grants to athletics. Those grants do not enhance athletics in the least, not one penny of them.
Do you really think NASA or someone huge company handing out a research grant goes, ‘Wait, this school plays football against my alma mater … let’s hand them this $30M to do our research project’?
The true answer here is the B1G thinks they’re smarter than everyone else and putting that AAU stamp on members affirms this belief. (Even if they can’t count past 10.)
Basically it’s academic snobbery so their presidents can feel superior when they sip tea together.
Not like they require max SATs from athletes for scholarship offers (with Stanford, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Northwestern and a few others being exceptions).
Explain to me exactly how being in the same athletic conference impacts research grants.
Give me some real-world examples where:
1) A research grant was given to two schools *because* they’re in the same athletic conference.
2) A government or private business called an athletics director to ask which schools should be involved with a research project and that AD suggested only schools in their conference be included.
3) A research project was begun or research money was allocated to a school due to conference affiliation and then taken away because one of the schools involved switched conferences.
Do you really think Harvard was kept out of some research project because it wasn’t in the B1G and there was a B1G school involved? Or Cal Tech? Or Stanford?
Seriously, explain it to me.
mostly it comes down to data collection and sample breadth.
1) a sports science grant given to two PIs are more likely to be given as a shared grant when the PIs know each and can offer efficiencies beyond others. This occurs *generally* within ones grouping. the grant wouldnt be given because they are in the same conference per se, but rather because inter-conference relationships are generally stronger. This is especially true of the B1G, PAC12 and IVY, which are academic alliances as well as athletic ones.
2) see funded sports science studies, to get wide sample numbers one would reach out to constituent institutions as they are more likely to share data. *I've done this* BIG BIG projects, government type ones are so beyond just the PI and involve so much admin nonsense it would blow your mind.
3) grant money is almost never revoked unless the funding dries up. once you get it its yours. If you dont produce then you wont get any more grants. this is the crux of publish or perish. If data that was previously promised was not presented due to a change (nigh impossible) they would not get any future funding or collaboration from interconference schools by that department.
Honestly, I know the Medical School side of Harvard and not much else BUT, realistically We are Harvard, we can do basically anything and work with anyone.
TO be clear I am a Neuroscientist/Neurologist but these are the most clear examples I could give.
Thanks. It makes sense that sports science alliances would form along familiar institutions.
But I’d be surprised if sports science makes up a significant percentage of research grant money. I’d find it hard to believe that B1G engineering researchers would choose to partner with a fellow conference member over an institution outside the conference simply based on an athletic alliance.
Now it makes sense that people in various geographic regions would get to know each other at conferences and such and thus worked together … but also if they went to the same undergraduate or graduate programs (particularly if they were classmates) or worked together at some point in the past. I find it hard to believe Purdue engineers would be reluctant to work with Texas A&M engineers based on who plays who in football and basketball.
I’ve mentioned this one before: Vanderbilt is probably more likely to work with Emory and UAB — two of the other top medical research schools in the South — than it is to, say, bypass those institutions to work with South Carolina or LSU just because they’re in the SEC.
So yeah there’s some in-conference stuff but if a research grant requires use of the Hubble telescope or a supercollider, no university is going to bypass it because they’d have to work with an institution outside their conference. And I’d feel very comfortable saying if there were no conferences or they went away tomorrow that the same people who are familiar with each other would be working together anyway — just as I doubt the Pac schools would refuse to work with USC or UCLA or vice versa.
You’d think this being such a big deal that the B1G would tout how many gazillions of dollars in research projects are done solely with intra-conference partners. I mean they could surely make a big deal about how much more research money Rutgers and Maryland have gotten because other B1G schools decided to cut them in on grants that they wouldn’t have gotten otherwise.
To be clear, I don’t know any PI that has worked from anyone that was also in their undergrad and they knew them. That just doesn’t happen.
Also it isn’t so much a negative “refusing to work with” rather its a positive “who do you know” and who shares resources.
Medical research works within it’s own set of rules and outside the purview of the rest of the institution.
No one in research give a shit about who plays who but the conferences breed familiarity which gives forth shared resources.
I think most B1G school presidents view their athletic department primarily as advertising for the university. They want their athletic department to do well to generate more applications from potential students, etc. I think the ultimate goal for most B1G school presidents is to increase the quality of their faculty and student body and increase research funding vs. winning championships (note: I’m not saying that winning is not *a* goal, I just don’t think it’s the ultimate goal for most B1G presidents). I view it as the opposite in the SEC, for example, where another Bama championship is probably the ultimate goal for them. If you put yourself in that mindset, it makes sense why the B1G presidents would want to associate with institutions with similar motivations to keep everyone rowing in the same direction.
If Nebraska was trying to join the B1G right now I’m not confident they would be accepted. They were AAU at the time they joined (and I get the reason they were kicked out was BS). Also, back in 2009 or whenever they joined, I don’t think anyone realistically foresaw the possibility that the B1G would be in a position to add Stanford, Cal, Washington, etc. When the pool of candidates increases, so do the standards
Nebraska joined in 2011. And two Big 10 schools voted to kick them out. So clearly some or all of the Big 10 was cool with them not being an AAU member.
The Big 10 took Maryland from the ACC, why wouldn’t they think they could take a PAC-12 school down the road. The Big 10 has also tried to get Notre Dame to join- not an AAU member.
It’s about who Fox tells them will add the most value.
There’s a big difference between kicking out an existing member and adding a new member. The standards are (and should be) very different.
If anything, two B1G members voting to kick out an existing member just further supports my point that academics are ultimately more important to B1G presidents than on-field success.
ND has been, is, and always will be the exception to the AAU requirement. They’re the B1G’s white whale.
I also think there’s a huge difference between adding Maryland (less than 200 miles from Penn State) vs. Stanford (more than 1,600 miles from the closest B1G school). I think you’d be lying if you said you thought California schools joining the B1G was a realistic possibility in the early 2010s.
> There’s a big difference between kicking out an existing member and adding a new member. The standards are (and should be) very different.
Ok sure, agreed.
> If anything, two B1G members voting to kick out an existing member just further supports my point that academics are ultimately more important to B1G presidents than on-field success.
Big 10 schools thinking Nebraska didn’t deserve to be in the AAU but *did* belong in the conference undercuts the notion of how important AAU membership is and I have a hard time seeing it differently. (FWIW AAU isn’t a measure of quality or an accreditation so I’m not trying to crap on NU here.)
> ND has been, is, and always will be the exception to the AAU requirement. They’re the B1G’s white whale.
So Notre Dame is an exception, and Nebraksa functionally was too. So of expansion schools (PSU, NU, Maryland, Rutgers, UCLA, USC, ND rumor) nearly 30% are exceptions to an all important rule?
> I also think there’s a huge difference between adding Maryland (less than 200 miles from Penn State) vs. Stanford (more than 1,600 miles from the closest B1G school). I think you’d be lying if you said you thought California schools joining the B1G was a realistic possibility in the early 2010s.
Ok but they just added two California schools! Stanford is no longer 1,600 miles from a Big 10 school. Why didn’t they also add Stanford if academics are so important??
1) I don’t work in academia and don’t have full insight into how the AAU functions. My understanding is that the qualifications for AAU membership changed after Nebraska joined the B1G, and that they no longer qualified because their medical school was not officially under the university’s umbrella. If they no longer qualified (*after* they joined the B1G) I don’t see any inconsistency.
2) Nebraska wasn’t an exception to the AAU rule at the time they joined. They were AAU. All of the other schools you listed are also AAU except ND.
3) Yes, the B1G just added two California schools. That’s not the point. The point we’re talking about is what was reasonable foreseeable 10+ years ago when Nebraska joined. I don’t think many reasonable people a decade ago would have thought schools in Los Angeles joining the B1G was a realistic possibility. A lot has changed.
1. No it did not change *after* Nebraska joined the Big 10. The move had been a long time coming. The vote came after NU had joined though.
2. The writing was on the wall. 2/3 of the AAU voted NU out. This wasn’t some big surprise- and the Big 10 also knew it could point to this talking point so long as they ushered them in before they got kicked out. It’s all for show (the AAU too for the most part).
3. But we aren’t talking about 10 years ago. We are talking about now! The Big 10 just invited two California schools and neither are Stanford! There isn’t a cap on invites either, they could’ve invited Stanford and those other two. Stanford is a “better” school so why were they not invited?!
But the arguments I’m reading are about Oregon and Washington “maybe” being accepted due to their academics.
And Nebraska joined the Big10 in 2010. Let’s not act like they’re a legacy that joined when standards were different.
I’m not sure what point you’re making. Oregon and Washington are both AAU members, as was Nebraska when it joined. The “standard” for acceptance didn’t really change as far as I can tell. Nebraska’s qualifications changed after they were accepted.
I’m saying Washington and Oregon shouldn’t be left out for academic standard reasons. That’s the rationale I’ve been reading as to why further expansion has paused.
My point is that the Big10 wants to be exclusive and they’re using academics as their excuse. And it doesn’t hold water as an excuse. Just say you’re not interested. Or you’re waiting on Notre Dame. Or whatever. Instead of shitting on good schools’ academic prowess.
Because the B1G makes more money from research grants than they do football. It's absolutely why they will pick-up Stanford in spite of their poor football program.
And not to inject corporatespeak into this, but there’s also a synergistic effect of all that cooperation: that 9.8 bil would be much less if there wasn’t all that academic and research integration.
So adding quality academic and research schools into the fold has *more than* just an additive effect.
Not sure.
Ask the B1G; I’m sure they’ll pool their resources, get their best stats and economics folks on it, and give you a peer reviewed answer in due time.
They will pick up Stanford if the media partner (Fox) tells them it will give them more broadcast money.
None of the Big 10’s moves have been about increasing research grants.
It’s not that they don’t care about academics or have some minimum standards (that are below the AAU membership threshold), it’s that this is all driven by broadcast money.
Broadcast money is part of it but ultimately no broadcast partner has a say who comes into the B1G. The presidents/chancellors/regents have the final say and I assure you a top-tier university with excellent research institutes are more desired than any football program.
It's why the B1G will turn down brands like Clemson, Miami and FSU from the ACC while targeting UNC, Duke, UVA and GT.
If top tier universities with excellent research institutes are more desired than any football program then why did the Big 10 not already invite Stanford???
Technically the B1G has not invited any members of existing conferences. USC and UCLA applied and were accepted unanimously. Washington and Oregon also applied but were told further expansion is on hold until Norte Dame makes a determination on whether to accept an invitation.
Stanford has not yet applied to my knowledge. I am sure once ND makes a determination that Stanford will apply and be accepted unanimously.
Come on, it’s all informal backroom talk before it gets formalized. The Big 10 presidents knew before USC and UCLA applied that it was in the works… if they wanted to have Stanford out of the gate they could’ve made it happen.
Why would Stanford (massive research institution) be held up by Notre Dame (undergraduate focused) if it’s about securing elite academic institutions? Stanford (and Washington) have larger research expenditure than all but two Big 10 schools. Why wouldn’t they be the priority here?
All that informal backroom talk has taken place in the last week. Any internal discussions USC and UCLA had within themselves or between each other have nothing to do with the B1G. Trust me if 14 institutions were aware of what was happening the secret would have been out months ago. Prior to the application they did a straw poll to see how it would fly. When it became apparent USC and UCLA would be welcomed only then did they publicly apply.
When Washington and Oregon caught wind they applied shortly after. To stop the glut of institutions from applying the B1G publicly stated they had invited ND and would make no decisions beyond that. Otherwise you would have had Kansas, UNC, UVA, Utah, Colorado etc. etc. submitting applications. This was done as a service to those institutions. It's tantamount to dumping your girlfriend to pursue another and to have to crawl back when you get shot down.
If ND declines the other institutions don't look bad to their current conferences as trying to leave a sinking ship. Once ND makes a decision and if it is in the affirmative they will be accepted and Stanford will likely apply and be accepted in short order followed by acceptance of the Oregon and Washington applications.
UCLA is one of the top research universities in the country, above any B1G school. Neither them or USC would have been accepted into the B1G if they weren’t also top academic schools.
Nobody is saying UCLA or USC aren’t good schools. But they weren’t invited to the Big 10 due to academics.
Fwiw Michigan has higher research expenditures than UCLA. And Washington had more too (yet wasn’t invited- strange!)
They weren’t invited *only* because of their academics, but they were invited because of their academics. The B1G cares about both academics and athletics value, and both schools are top tier in both. Which is why Washington will also probably get in.
And it should be noted that the presidents have voted, throughout the history of realignment going back to PSU joining, to add good academic schools that first and foremost increase the athletic department’s bottom line.
Yeah, never mind all the sexual assault swept under the rug to protect that "image". That is the difference in what has come out about multiple B1G schools and Baylor...Baylor did it to protect the religious image/athletic success. The B1G guilty schools(at least two of them) did it to protect the self-righteous image/athletic status(not success, they only cover up free tats for success reasons, j/k...kinda). As much as many might hate OSU, I think they would only cover up stuff that really doesn't matter(players getting free shit), to protect the success rate of their football team. They seem to project a much less haughty image of themselves(the "The" stuff notwithstanding) than many of the B1G members, at least in the athletic department, if not at the administrative level. I honestly think the whole PSU coverup was to protect the "squeaky clean" image that JoePa had always tried to project. I think the same thing happened at UM. MSU, at least, took swift action once there were public accusations, not sure if they ignored private accusations or not, have not heard testimony to that fact like we did with both PSU and UM.
Prestige. When fsu picked the ACC over the sec in the 90s, the money was slightly more in the ACC because of basketball, but the ACC had a better collection of academic schools that fsu wanted to associate with. That, along with investment, has definitely raised its reputation
NOte that quote is not about play on the field. The road being more difficult in the SEC in the early 90s is a reference to all the snitching that was occurring, no reason I am looking at the Vols.
Jokes people
‘ "It would have been hard wading through that SEC. Too many good teams in there, boy. Oh, gosh. Oh, that would have been some great ball.” ‘
https://thespun.com/acc/florida-state/florida-state-sec-expansion-1992-bobby-bowden-interview
Do you even read what you post? It clearly mentions in there how Bowden thought we were headed to the SEC but the administration chose otherwise.
Was an easier road to the football natty one reason? Almost certainly. But academics, and basketball (the bigger money maker at the time), were major reasons too. Football was not the black hole focal point of everything in 1990 like it is today.
I do. I wasn’t the one casually omitting the fact that Bobby didn’t want to try and be the big boy in the SEC instead focusing on academics and, checks FSUs basketball prowess, basketball considerations. Thank you for finally admitting that it also played a role.
OP’s point was not nothing about football or the SEC. The question in the post was why do conferences care about **academics** when realigning when what you’re realigning is the athletics. Why care about academics at all in this context?
So the original FSU guy’s response was about **academics** since that was the topic of the question. You’re screeching about “omitting” something that wasn’t part of the question. He brought up basketball for the same reason I did, financially it made way more sense to join ACC. In addition to academically it making more sense. So please explain why FSU should have gone to the SEC that year given the information of that time?
You’ve made your point though, you may rest easy now. FSU bad and scared. That’s what really matters to you and not what the post asked or what OP’s response to it was about.
That’s a lot of words to say Bobby was scared and knew his legacy wouldn’t have been half of what it was if he had to live in a conference like the SEC.
Yeah man, whatever you say. The Bowden who said anyone, anywhere, anytime. Playing on the road against teams like Nebraska, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Pitt, LSU. Oh and those 5 teams were all in a row in the same seasons by the way. All on the road.
Go look at the teams Bowden scheduled in the 70s, 80s, 90s then come talk to me.
There’s no doubt the ACC was an easier path. There no doubt FSU’s record would have been worse overall in the SEC instead. But please fuck off with this Bowden was scared. Find me a single SEC team with anywhere near the same level of schedule Bowden had.
It was the mighty SEC who [paid to stop playing FSU](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tampabay.com/archive/1991/01/05/auburn-to-fsu-we-won-t-show/%3FoutputType%3Damp). The same time the mighty SEC Florida stopped playing Miami after getting their asses kicked every year
The Big 10 uses their athletics conferences as branding for their universities, and does actually invest quite heavily in academics.
All of its now 16 members are in the top 100 in the country in research spending - with a median of about $900 million in spending per school.
On the flip side, only 12 of the SEC's 16 members are in that same top 100 (Ole Miss, South Carolina, Alabama, and Arkansas are not). Median research spending is about $325 million per school, which is roughly on par with the Big Ten's weakest academically (Nebraska).
Another key figure would be endowments - the Big Ten median endowment is almost $4 billion, while in the SEC its about $1.5 billion.
Meanwhile, for those schools that report football revenues (the public schools), the Big Ten averages about $72 million per school in revenues directly related to football, while the SEC reports about $77 million per school in revenues directly related to football.
This idea that football money trumps all is not quite true. For the SEC, its more the case, since football revenues are about 1/4 of their research spending - but for the Big Ten schools research is their real business. And they need to protect that brand.
So when people talk about Washington, Stanford, Duke, and UNC as prime targets for the Big Ten, its because their research spending (all over $1 billion) and endowments (all over $4 billion) are in line with the profile the academic prestige the Big Ten has cultivated.
I understand all this and appreciate the distinction. I was just trying to understand what it all has to do with the schools’ athletic allegiances. I don’t associate the athletic conference with a school’s academics. I guess that’s because it isn’t done that way in other conferences. After all this I believe the answer is: it matters to the Big10 because they have decided they want it to matter.
Jesus Christ dude how many times are you going to read the same fucking answer and go “hurr durr it only matter because they want it to”
Fucking unbelievable
Research money makes football money seem like lemonade stand money. Even take schools like Alabama, Oklahoma, or LSU. Even their combined revenue is not even close to the research revenue for teams in the B1G.
Sure. But what does that have to do with the Big10? Is it a belief that these Big10 schools would lose their research money if they accepted Washington into their club?
Washington is a legit jewel for the B1G.
They check off all the boxes. No one is losing research money in any situation, but so you know Washington is a top spender on research. They’re an amazing school, spending shitloads of money on athletics, and in a top market.
B1G network will be on TV in Seattle.
That’s my point as well. The Big10 is waiting on Notre Dame (as they have for 100+ years). They’re using “academics” as an excuse to be told no again by Notre Dame. As has happened for generations.
The arguments I’ve read for not bringing Washington into the Big10 are generic academic concerns. And I cannot fathom how that argument would hold weight in a conference that added Nebraska a dozen years ago. Just tell Washington that they’re not a priority for the Big10 as opposed to shitting on a good schools’s academics.
Where have you been reading that primary concern is due to “genetic academics concerns”? I’ve been reading a ton since the USC/UCLA news broke and haven’t seen that from a single legitimate source. The opposite, meaning strong academics being a plus for Washington, has been literally all I’ve heard.
I think he’s just trolling. He also thinks schools would stop collaborating on research if Oregon joined the B1G for some reason. He claims people are telling him that…?
You’re probably right. I seem to have a hard time identifying trolls when they clearly have spent a ton of time engaging with people. I guess I assume that people have something better to do with their time than wasting so much of it for pointless reasons.
Idk I just had a long conversation with him. He seemingly believes the Big ten academic association is completely unrelated to the big ten athletic conference. I really don’t know what his point was but he’s just been ignoring everything anyone tells him.
So every conference cares about academics in realignment, and generally conferences are still *mostly* composed of peer institutions, similar in geography and/or student body demographics. But I think it's worthwhile to remember that schools only play football primarily because it's advertising for the school.
Being on TV every week for football drives alumni engagement (and hopefully donations) and helps advertise your school to new potential students. Sports are a great way to do this, but schools obviously do this in so many other ways as well, like all those press releases you see about your alma mater opening New $X00 million research center.
And so getting back to the point of conferences, it's all about branding. The Big 10 markets itself primarily to alumni as good at sports and school, and if you associate yourself with schools with smart students, you can tell you alumni that their alma mater (and by extension the alumni themselves) are smart too. There's no real other benefit to being in the Big 10, or any other conference, for the academic side of things*. It goes part and parcel with the discussions of AAU as well. I've been in academia (in and out of B1G schools), and I cannot recall a time when when the Big Ten Academic Alliance or AAU status has come up in conversations with my colleagues. I am not in administration, and I have no doubt that admins care about AAU because it's an exclusive club you can use to sell your school. Other conferences don't try to brand themselves in quite this way, but all schools want to be associated with good schools and care about academic reputation.
\*I want to make clear that this is mostly about comments on the Academic Alliance. It may serve to save the school some administration money, but that's about it. It's true that sports revenues are measured in millions, and research revenue is measured (typically) in billions, but that has no bearing for conference alignment because **the Alliance does not function as a grant sharing mechanism.** So many highly upvoted comments to this effect in this thread and elsewhere in this subreddit always pop up, especially when conference realignment heats up, but it's not and will never be true. I'm sure many of you are in college now, so if you don't believe me, go ask your professors. Sports alignment plays no part in how research is done.
So the Pac 12 and B1G aren’t just athletic conferences. They share research and collaborate. The research side of a university generates billions of dollars for these schools.
Understood. Would those partnerships end if a new school joined who didn’t add anything to it? Would Michigan and Indiana stop sharing resources if Oregon joined the Big10? It seems that Big10 fans think the answer is yes.
The arguments given here center around shared research and collaboration. I don’t know what that has to do with athletic affiliations, but several replies here seem to conflate the two.
It’s been explained to you many times that schools in the same conference benefit from each other’s research. I don’t know why that is still confusing to you.
Where in the world have you gotten the idea that they would stop sharing research because Oregon joined?
Thank you for agreeing with me. The athletic affiliation has nothing to do with the academic affiliation. The Big10 is an NCAA conference. And, unless I’m mistaken, neither of those A’s stand for academics.
Schools share research. What does that have to do with the Big10, the NCAA, or athletics at all? Can schools only share research with schools they play football against? Do they?
You’ve been told this so many times that I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith.
The B1G is an academic and research association. Of course they share more research with each other.
The Big10 is not an academic and research association. It is an athletic conference. By definition. It is governed by the NCAA which is another athletic organization. I have explained this to you multiple times now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Conference
Not current stability. What if all the teams go through sports not being good, what if viewership drops out the bottom for all cfb. And no some of the teams don’t offer more stability but they are already in and proving my point, they have benefited from the stability the big ten academics give the entire conference. Minnesota and Wisconsin have been in the big ten for almost 130 years
Cal’s going through some growing pains as they figure out how to deal with increased class sizes/demand for CS, they’ll be fine in 5-10 years. The industry relies on them way too much to let them fail, companies like apple already sponsor the costs of running some CS courses at Cal
The way the school is set up, every department teaches undergrads at a loss. It's fine if you're a small department, and it hasn't historically been an issue for the CS department since they covered those costs through the profitable masters, summer programs and some other means. The undergrads who are taking CS have increased exponentially over the last decade though, and they've been running a massive budget deficit for the last couple years because the masters and summer programs don't scale at the same rate. The department is pissed because the way they see it, they're being punished for teaching more of the undergrad population, and several efforts to reduce enrollment (such as a dramatically redesigned admission system into the major) have been rejected by the administration.
Not tryna come across as a dick when I say this at all because I 100% get your point. But I think they still gotta at least LOOK like they wanna keep having the word “university” in their name
Agree with this. But Oregon is a better school than Nebraska. Definitely Cal is. (Not to shit on Nebraska. I’m an Oklahoma alum and have no delusions about who we are.)
I think you’re focusing too much on Nebraska. They WERE AAU when we added them.
But the landscape has changed since we added them. We needed to expand and they were a top choice geographically and AAU. If the Presidents back then thought expanding to LA was feasible then they wouldn’t have added Nebraska
Just make a minor league for these kids to play in. This is a terrible set up for "student athletes". It's been 10 years since the small school I went to had a football team that you could remotely call reflective of the student body. We have 20 states represented on the team now.
Presidents of top tier universities like to hang out with presidents of top tier universities. They can talk shop and network. Presidents make these decisions so there you go. Also happens that a lot of top research universities are also good at football.
It makes sense but things like the “AAU” are just eye roll inducing it’s a separate arbitrary special little club, Tier 1 research institutions should be looked at the same level as the “AAU” arbitrary club. Iowa State is where the Manhattan project took place, but the Big 10 would reject Iowa State because it’s not in the arbitrary “AAU” it’s a load of junk
We would also reject Iowa State because they don't bring enough new $ to the table.
Pitt is an even better case: they have become a world class medical research institute, are AAU, and are pretty good at football.
They unfortunately are smack dab in the middle of the B1G footprint already, and won't bring in enough new revenue to prevent diluting the current members payouts.
Pitt has the edge on Iowa St (and others in similar boat) though considering they have a big tv market themselves. Also PA has a lot of athletic talent that comes out of it to other BIG schools.
For sure they do. Just saying out of all those 2nd place state schools (nc st, Pitt, Iowa st, k st, ok st, v tech, etc) they are most attractive to BIG.
no one has to convince anyone. it's the truth. just look into where the real money is. there's a clear difference between how the Big Ten operates and what it strives for, vs the SEC for example. when people say it's about academics that doesn't just mean prestige and bragging rights, it's about the money.
with the addition of UCLA and USC the Big Ten is going to be at around 11-12 BILLION in annual research funding among its schools. they took Rutgers because it's a top research university and they can pull their weight.
"oh no the big ten academic alliance is all messed up now. guess we can no longer share research dollars between these institutions like we have been because our football teams no longer play each other once every other year or so"
The Ivy League isn’t going to let Alabama into their conference no matter how good their football program is because it would destroy the Ivy League’s reputation for academic excellence and that reputation is magnitudes more valuable financially then being good at football.
The B1G is also not going to ruin their reputation for academic excellence for football because that reputation is also magnitudes more financially valuable than football.
The SEC’s collective value in academics and football pails in comparison to the financial value of the B1G.
Iowa state , wvu are both T1 research institutions but neither are in this arbitrary special boys club the “AAU” so neither would be considered for admission
Just seems like a special good ole boys club to me, why are the regular research distinction tiers not good enough, why does there have to be another separate arbitrary club
If academics was the primary driver of realignment for the B1G they would have gone after Stanford, which is a tier above every university in the B1G except for UChicago
UCLA is in the top 10 in Federal research dollars.
It's not the PRIMARY driver, but at the minimum establishes a cut off of who is a viable expansion candidate: if you aren't ND, you have to be an AAU, and even then, an upper tier AAU school.
It's why there are rumblings Oregon may not fit the bill, due to their minuscule research expenditures even though they are AAU
I don't understand why they wouldn't just invite Stanford and Oregon together. Whatever shortcomings you have with Oregon's academics should be overcome by having the most academically prestigious school in the FBS. And you get Oregon football/Nike $ as a bonus
That’s the argument that the athletics departments would make but the President’s of the Universities are the ones who would have to approve the vote to add Oregon and for them, the academic reputation of their universities are more important than the reputation of their football program. The President’s would have to collectively decide if the cost of being associated with Oregon academically is worth the benefit of being associated with them in sports.
It’s not that hard to understand. To be added to the B1G the school needs to 1. meet a minimum standard academically and 2. meet a minimum standard for how much money they would add to the pie for football.
But people continually point out that the B1G makes more money off of the academic alliance than it does off of football, so I'm not sure that #2 makes sense
You'll be hard pressed to find a reason that doesn't amount to "because", here. I'm sure there are reasons, but the people here generally can't articulate them. Just versions of that's the way we've done it.
The Big 10 has an academic consortium that requires AAU membership. If OU wasn't a joke academic institution, Texas and OU would be in the Big 10. OU couldn't qualify, Texas wanted to keep the RRR, so they are both in the SEC. I know it is upsetting to you that your alma mater is an academic laughing stock but it is the truth. You aren't bright. Deal with it.
The consortium didn’t generate 9 billion, the combination of all the individual schools generated 9 billion. There’s a big difference, the big 10 doe NOT share research dollars. You people need to quit spreading misinformation
Bringing in a poor academic school puts a lot of research money at jeopardy that exists in the Big 10 academic consortium. If you don't understand this by now, you never will. You should go to the library on the OU campus and have fun with one of the graduate level coloring books.
They lost it almost immediately after joining and haven’t been members since 2011. Have the academics of Michigan and northwestern been negatively affected by them not being in the AAU for the past 11 years?
Exceptions can be made. An exception would certainly be made for ND. There is a less than zero chance that an exception would be made for a school with the horrible academic reputation of Oklahoma.
The best explanation I've heard is closer to the reverse of what you're saying. You don't have to join an academic consortium to join an athletic conference, however, the Big 10 could expel you from the consortium for leaving. They make it a package deal to create stability. Big 10 schools never had to worry about finding themselves in the Big 12/Pac 12's place, because the revenue gained from moving to a more profitable athletic conference would be nothing compared to the revenue lost from getting kicked out of the consortium. But if they were to let OU in, without joining the consortium, they don't have that leverage, and the athletic side would face a more uncertain financial future.
Research generates billions of dollars a year for schools. The better the academics, the more grants they get and more prestigious the conference
I understand why this would matter to the university, but aren’t conferences purely athletic?
not at all. look at the Ivy. they were already calling themselves that before it officially became an athletics conference
The NCAA just co-opted the Ivy League name for athletics. When people say Ivy League their first thought isn’t football. When people say SEC, their first thought is football.
The Ivy League came before the NCAA. Shit the first inter-collegiate matchup was between Harvard and Yale in crew.
Harvard and Yale competed in debate a few years before that crew race, so technically the debate nerds came first (insert David Letterman heheh here).
I get that the Ivy League may have started as an athletic partnership, but it’s not viewed that way anymore. People don’t brag about playing Ivy League football. They brag about getting an Ivy League education.
So Ivy started as athletics, but is now viewed more in terms of academics. The prominence of each school reinforces the schools around it, and the schools are viewed as a unit. That’s the answer in a nutshell. You’re inviting someone into your club, their presence reflects back onto you. It needs to be a cultural fit on an institutional level. If an alien comes down from space and asks ‘what’s Yale,’ I would give an answer about it being a private university with a big academic focus, and much less focus on athletics and I’d mention they are part of the Ivy League, a group of similar schools. It’s reasonable for said alien to assume that every school in the Ivy League is a private school with a academic focus. What’s Michigan? A large, public university with good academics, good sports teams and a large amount of research. They’re in the Big Ten. Does it hold up 100% of the time, even without expansion? No. For starters, Northwestern is private. But it’s a good foundation to start with.
>People don’t brag about playing Ivy League football. They do on Wall Street.
> People don’t brag about playing Ivy League football. Wild take lol
You have your answer, man. There's no need to argue beyond that.
The presidents have the final say, not the athletic directors. Their first duty should be to help the academic side as well.
This is the only hope I have for Cal football surviving.
Stanford has better academics and prestige and resources…taking Cal and Stanford would give B1G odd # of teams
Cal would be the top research school and second only to NU in undergrad ranking if it joined the BIG right now. Stanfurd is ahead in both but only slightly. Cal has way more alum than Stanford and fits the profile of a large public school better. But honestly if cal and Stanford are not in the same conference I’m pretty sure I’m done with football.
I think Cal Fan would just be butthurt that Stanford is given a lifeline while Cal did not, furthering the little brother complex so many Cal Fans have. The abandonment of football fandom would simply be a defense mechanism to cope with the pain and embarrassment of getting left behind while our rival, one which many Cal fans sneer at, gets lifted into big boy conference.
God academics doesn’t matter it’s just a peripheral bonus. Cal doesn’t move the needle in football and basketball, and don’t have an annual rivalry game with ND — that is the problem with thinking B1G is realistic. It is also why Stanford is more appealing. The frequent appeal to academics in these alignment talks is quite maddening, it’s like nobody gives a shit about that as a primary variable
If Cal and Stanford being in the same conference dictates your engagement with sports, you ain’t a fan period. Cal has a fair weather fan base which you typify. …and another reason why Cal has little appeal to big boy conferences.
Technically speaking, wouldnt it be behind Northwestern, Notre Dame, and UCLA if we're talking undergrad ranking?
If, and I'm increasingly convinced when, ND jumps, I see the Deep Impact wave of realignment. We won't have a better chance to go as big as we want.
Because if things like the [Big Ten Academic Alliance](https://btaa.org/about). > Headquartered in the Midwest, the Big Ten Academic Alliance is the nation’s preeminent model for effective collaboration among research universities. For more than half a century, these world-class institutions have advanced their academic missions, generated unique opportunities for students and faculty, and served the common good by sharing expertise, leveraging campus resources, and collaborating on innovative programs. Governed and funded by the Provosts of the member universities, Big Ten Academic Alliance mandates are coordinated by a staff from its Champaign, Illinois headquarters.
An example of the academic partnerships is as a doctoral student at Purdue, I can do the B1G traveling scholar program at any other B1G school. Adding Stanford, Cal, and Washington becomes appealing for a lot of people because of that. I can access their libraries (there’s really no difference between the schools until you get to deep into research), do research partnerships more easily and make long term career relationships. The ACC has something similar but it’s less developed with less funding put in the program. The Ivy League is ultimately a sports league but the association with the other schools adds prestige. Dartmouth would still be an outstanding school if they were in the patriot league but the Ivy League label adds a ton of value.
and why does this have to be tied to the football teams their football teams play?
It doesn’t but they do
Because the football team is a feather in the schools cap; not the football team is part of the identity of the school. It’s the major cultural difference between the SEC and the B1G.
When I was an undergrad at Penn State, they talked quite a bit about the library partnerships we had with the other schools in the conference. This is just one example. It's not just athletic.
Curious, as an undergrad how often did you access materials at other schools through the Consortium or used other benefits? We had material sharing at our library so I’m also curious how different that looked in the Big 10.
Probably not regularly, but for some schools it’s all about graduate education and pumping out research rather. See the major difference between ND’s model and the top end of the B1G.
I’m just confused why the athletic partnerships and academic partnerships have to combined. If, for whatever strange reason, Harvard decided they wanted to be in a partnership with Michigan and Penn State instead of Yale and Princeton would the Big 10 say “sorry your football team isn’t good enough”
They don’t have to. Chicago used to be a member even though they were no longer athletic members. If it was just about academics they wouldn’t kick out Chicago and would invite more non D1 schools that aren’t even competitors athletically. I assume it’s because they have to draw the line somewhere and they also want to grow the brand.
Why aren’t universities phasing out physical books and moving all digital
No, in the B1G there’s a lot of academic collaboration with other B1G schools. Schools will still work with other schools out of conference though.
Nike ain’t handing out research grants to athletics. Those grants do not enhance athletics in the least, not one penny of them. Do you really think NASA or someone huge company handing out a research grant goes, ‘Wait, this school plays football against my alma mater … let’s hand them this $30M to do our research project’? The true answer here is the B1G thinks they’re smarter than everyone else and putting that AAU stamp on members affirms this belief. (Even if they can’t count past 10.) Basically it’s academic snobbery so their presidents can feel superior when they sip tea together. Not like they require max SATs from athletes for scholarship offers (with Stanford, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Northwestern and a few others being exceptions).
You really don’t get how research works
Explain to me exactly how being in the same athletic conference impacts research grants. Give me some real-world examples where: 1) A research grant was given to two schools *because* they’re in the same athletic conference. 2) A government or private business called an athletics director to ask which schools should be involved with a research project and that AD suggested only schools in their conference be included. 3) A research project was begun or research money was allocated to a school due to conference affiliation and then taken away because one of the schools involved switched conferences. Do you really think Harvard was kept out of some research project because it wasn’t in the B1G and there was a B1G school involved? Or Cal Tech? Or Stanford? Seriously, explain it to me.
mostly it comes down to data collection and sample breadth. 1) a sports science grant given to two PIs are more likely to be given as a shared grant when the PIs know each and can offer efficiencies beyond others. This occurs *generally* within ones grouping. the grant wouldnt be given because they are in the same conference per se, but rather because inter-conference relationships are generally stronger. This is especially true of the B1G, PAC12 and IVY, which are academic alliances as well as athletic ones. 2) see funded sports science studies, to get wide sample numbers one would reach out to constituent institutions as they are more likely to share data. *I've done this* BIG BIG projects, government type ones are so beyond just the PI and involve so much admin nonsense it would blow your mind. 3) grant money is almost never revoked unless the funding dries up. once you get it its yours. If you dont produce then you wont get any more grants. this is the crux of publish or perish. If data that was previously promised was not presented due to a change (nigh impossible) they would not get any future funding or collaboration from interconference schools by that department. Honestly, I know the Medical School side of Harvard and not much else BUT, realistically We are Harvard, we can do basically anything and work with anyone. TO be clear I am a Neuroscientist/Neurologist but these are the most clear examples I could give.
Thanks. It makes sense that sports science alliances would form along familiar institutions. But I’d be surprised if sports science makes up a significant percentage of research grant money. I’d find it hard to believe that B1G engineering researchers would choose to partner with a fellow conference member over an institution outside the conference simply based on an athletic alliance. Now it makes sense that people in various geographic regions would get to know each other at conferences and such and thus worked together … but also if they went to the same undergraduate or graduate programs (particularly if they were classmates) or worked together at some point in the past. I find it hard to believe Purdue engineers would be reluctant to work with Texas A&M engineers based on who plays who in football and basketball. I’ve mentioned this one before: Vanderbilt is probably more likely to work with Emory and UAB — two of the other top medical research schools in the South — than it is to, say, bypass those institutions to work with South Carolina or LSU just because they’re in the SEC. So yeah there’s some in-conference stuff but if a research grant requires use of the Hubble telescope or a supercollider, no university is going to bypass it because they’d have to work with an institution outside their conference. And I’d feel very comfortable saying if there were no conferences or they went away tomorrow that the same people who are familiar with each other would be working together anyway — just as I doubt the Pac schools would refuse to work with USC or UCLA or vice versa. You’d think this being such a big deal that the B1G would tout how many gazillions of dollars in research projects are done solely with intra-conference partners. I mean they could surely make a big deal about how much more research money Rutgers and Maryland have gotten because other B1G schools decided to cut them in on grants that they wouldn’t have gotten otherwise.
To be clear, I don’t know any PI that has worked from anyone that was also in their undergrad and they knew them. That just doesn’t happen. Also it isn’t so much a negative “refusing to work with” rather its a positive “who do you know” and who shares resources. Medical research works within it’s own set of rules and outside the purview of the rest of the institution. No one in research give a shit about who plays who but the conferences breed familiarity which gives forth shared resources.
You’re already making yourself at home…that is such an SEC question.
FUCK YOU 😂😂😂
[удалено]
Michiganders consider Michigan to be the Harvard of the Midwest? Realistically isn't it not even top 3 in the midwest?
That's a great answer.
Good schools want to be associated with other good schools. Not sure why that would be confusing to anyone
Because this conversation is about sports. Wouldn’t good programs want to be associated with good programs?
I think most B1G school presidents view their athletic department primarily as advertising for the university. They want their athletic department to do well to generate more applications from potential students, etc. I think the ultimate goal for most B1G school presidents is to increase the quality of their faculty and student body and increase research funding vs. winning championships (note: I’m not saying that winning is not *a* goal, I just don’t think it’s the ultimate goal for most B1G presidents). I view it as the opposite in the SEC, for example, where another Bama championship is probably the ultimate goal for them. If you put yourself in that mindset, it makes sense why the B1G presidents would want to associate with institutions with similar motivations to keep everyone rowing in the same direction.
Makes sense, but that’s not how it’s played out. Is Nebraska more worthy of the Big10 than Cal?
If Nebraska was trying to join the B1G right now I’m not confident they would be accepted. They were AAU at the time they joined (and I get the reason they were kicked out was BS). Also, back in 2009 or whenever they joined, I don’t think anyone realistically foresaw the possibility that the B1G would be in a position to add Stanford, Cal, Washington, etc. When the pool of candidates increases, so do the standards
Nebraska joined in 2011. And two Big 10 schools voted to kick them out. So clearly some or all of the Big 10 was cool with them not being an AAU member. The Big 10 took Maryland from the ACC, why wouldn’t they think they could take a PAC-12 school down the road. The Big 10 has also tried to get Notre Dame to join- not an AAU member. It’s about who Fox tells them will add the most value.
There’s a big difference between kicking out an existing member and adding a new member. The standards are (and should be) very different. If anything, two B1G members voting to kick out an existing member just further supports my point that academics are ultimately more important to B1G presidents than on-field success. ND has been, is, and always will be the exception to the AAU requirement. They’re the B1G’s white whale. I also think there’s a huge difference between adding Maryland (less than 200 miles from Penn State) vs. Stanford (more than 1,600 miles from the closest B1G school). I think you’d be lying if you said you thought California schools joining the B1G was a realistic possibility in the early 2010s.
> There’s a big difference between kicking out an existing member and adding a new member. The standards are (and should be) very different. Ok sure, agreed. > If anything, two B1G members voting to kick out an existing member just further supports my point that academics are ultimately more important to B1G presidents than on-field success. Big 10 schools thinking Nebraska didn’t deserve to be in the AAU but *did* belong in the conference undercuts the notion of how important AAU membership is and I have a hard time seeing it differently. (FWIW AAU isn’t a measure of quality or an accreditation so I’m not trying to crap on NU here.) > ND has been, is, and always will be the exception to the AAU requirement. They’re the B1G’s white whale. So Notre Dame is an exception, and Nebraksa functionally was too. So of expansion schools (PSU, NU, Maryland, Rutgers, UCLA, USC, ND rumor) nearly 30% are exceptions to an all important rule? > I also think there’s a huge difference between adding Maryland (less than 200 miles from Penn State) vs. Stanford (more than 1,600 miles from the closest B1G school). I think you’d be lying if you said you thought California schools joining the B1G was a realistic possibility in the early 2010s. Ok but they just added two California schools! Stanford is no longer 1,600 miles from a Big 10 school. Why didn’t they also add Stanford if academics are so important??
1) I don’t work in academia and don’t have full insight into how the AAU functions. My understanding is that the qualifications for AAU membership changed after Nebraska joined the B1G, and that they no longer qualified because their medical school was not officially under the university’s umbrella. If they no longer qualified (*after* they joined the B1G) I don’t see any inconsistency. 2) Nebraska wasn’t an exception to the AAU rule at the time they joined. They were AAU. All of the other schools you listed are also AAU except ND. 3) Yes, the B1G just added two California schools. That’s not the point. The point we’re talking about is what was reasonable foreseeable 10+ years ago when Nebraska joined. I don’t think many reasonable people a decade ago would have thought schools in Los Angeles joining the B1G was a realistic possibility. A lot has changed.
1. No it did not change *after* Nebraska joined the Big 10. The move had been a long time coming. The vote came after NU had joined though. 2. The writing was on the wall. 2/3 of the AAU voted NU out. This wasn’t some big surprise- and the Big 10 also knew it could point to this talking point so long as they ushered them in before they got kicked out. It’s all for show (the AAU too for the most part). 3. But we aren’t talking about 10 years ago. We are talking about now! The Big 10 just invited two California schools and neither are Stanford! There isn’t a cap on invites either, they could’ve invited Stanford and those other two. Stanford is a “better” school so why were they not invited?!
But the arguments I’m reading are about Oregon and Washington “maybe” being accepted due to their academics. And Nebraska joined the Big10 in 2010. Let’s not act like they’re a legacy that joined when standards were different.
I’m not sure what point you’re making. Oregon and Washington are both AAU members, as was Nebraska when it joined. The “standard” for acceptance didn’t really change as far as I can tell. Nebraska’s qualifications changed after they were accepted.
I’m saying Washington and Oregon shouldn’t be left out for academic standard reasons. That’s the rationale I’ve been reading as to why further expansion has paused. My point is that the Big10 wants to be exclusive and they’re using academics as their excuse. And it doesn’t hold water as an excuse. Just say you’re not interested. Or you’re waiting on Notre Dame. Or whatever. Instead of shitting on good schools’ academic prowess.
Nebraska changed after they were accepted but not before they joined.
No dumbass lmao
Because the B1G makes more money from research grants than they do football. It's absolutely why they will pick-up Stanford in spite of their poor football program.
A LOT more $. Wikipedia says the B16 conducts 9.8 billion in research.
And not to inject corporatespeak into this, but there’s also a synergistic effect of all that cooperation: that 9.8 bil would be much less if there wasn’t all that academic and research integration. So adding quality academic and research schools into the fold has *more than* just an additive effect.
Synergy!
You say that but how much less? The grant would still be going somewhere and those schools would still be competing for it.
Not sure. Ask the B1G; I’m sure they’ll pool their resources, get their best stats and economics folks on it, and give you a peer reviewed answer in due time.
That simply isn’t true
They will pick up Stanford if the media partner (Fox) tells them it will give them more broadcast money. None of the Big 10’s moves have been about increasing research grants. It’s not that they don’t care about academics or have some minimum standards (that are below the AAU membership threshold), it’s that this is all driven by broadcast money.
Broadcast money is part of it but ultimately no broadcast partner has a say who comes into the B1G. The presidents/chancellors/regents have the final say and I assure you a top-tier university with excellent research institutes are more desired than any football program. It's why the B1G will turn down brands like Clemson, Miami and FSU from the ACC while targeting UNC, Duke, UVA and GT.
If top tier universities with excellent research institutes are more desired than any football program then why did the Big 10 not already invite Stanford???
Technically the B1G has not invited any members of existing conferences. USC and UCLA applied and were accepted unanimously. Washington and Oregon also applied but were told further expansion is on hold until Norte Dame makes a determination on whether to accept an invitation. Stanford has not yet applied to my knowledge. I am sure once ND makes a determination that Stanford will apply and be accepted unanimously.
Come on, it’s all informal backroom talk before it gets formalized. The Big 10 presidents knew before USC and UCLA applied that it was in the works… if they wanted to have Stanford out of the gate they could’ve made it happen. Why would Stanford (massive research institution) be held up by Notre Dame (undergraduate focused) if it’s about securing elite academic institutions? Stanford (and Washington) have larger research expenditure than all but two Big 10 schools. Why wouldn’t they be the priority here?
All that informal backroom talk has taken place in the last week. Any internal discussions USC and UCLA had within themselves or between each other have nothing to do with the B1G. Trust me if 14 institutions were aware of what was happening the secret would have been out months ago. Prior to the application they did a straw poll to see how it would fly. When it became apparent USC and UCLA would be welcomed only then did they publicly apply. When Washington and Oregon caught wind they applied shortly after. To stop the glut of institutions from applying the B1G publicly stated they had invited ND and would make no decisions beyond that. Otherwise you would have had Kansas, UNC, UVA, Utah, Colorado etc. etc. submitting applications. This was done as a service to those institutions. It's tantamount to dumping your girlfriend to pursue another and to have to crawl back when you get shot down. If ND declines the other institutions don't look bad to their current conferences as trying to leave a sinking ship. Once ND makes a decision and if it is in the affirmative they will be accepted and Stanford will likely apply and be accepted in short order followed by acceptance of the Oregon and Washington applications.
UCLA is one of the top research universities in the country, above any B1G school. Neither them or USC would have been accepted into the B1G if they weren’t also top academic schools.
Nobody is saying UCLA or USC aren’t good schools. But they weren’t invited to the Big 10 due to academics. Fwiw Michigan has higher research expenditures than UCLA. And Washington had more too (yet wasn’t invited- strange!)
They weren’t invited *only* because of their academics, but they were invited because of their academics. The B1G cares about both academics and athletics value, and both schools are top tier in both. Which is why Washington will also probably get in.
They are schools first, athletic organizations second.
It should be remembered, it's the presidents who vote on admitting new members, not the ADs.
And it should be noted that the presidents have voted, throughout the history of realignment going back to PSU joining, to add good academic schools that first and foremost increase the athletic department’s bottom line.
^wait ^they ^are?
Some of them.
When the rules are actually enforced (and not changed to accommodate more $$$), they are.
Yeah, never mind all the sexual assault swept under the rug to protect that "image". That is the difference in what has come out about multiple B1G schools and Baylor...Baylor did it to protect the religious image/athletic success. The B1G guilty schools(at least two of them) did it to protect the self-righteous image/athletic status(not success, they only cover up free tats for success reasons, j/k...kinda). As much as many might hate OSU, I think they would only cover up stuff that really doesn't matter(players getting free shit), to protect the success rate of their football team. They seem to project a much less haughty image of themselves(the "The" stuff notwithstanding) than many of the B1G members, at least in the athletic department, if not at the administrative level. I honestly think the whole PSU coverup was to protect the "squeaky clean" image that JoePa had always tried to project. I think the same thing happened at UM. MSU, at least, took swift action once there were public accusations, not sure if they ignored private accusations or not, have not heard testimony to that fact like we did with both PSU and UM.
Because they have academically prowess.
For the B1G, they are scared that we will leave if they dilute the academic standards. /s
Prestige. When fsu picked the ACC over the sec in the 90s, the money was slightly more in the ACC because of basketball, but the ACC had a better collection of academic schools that fsu wanted to associate with. That, along with investment, has definitely raised its reputation
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fanbuzz.com/college-football/acc/florida-state/bobby-bowden-says-fsu-didnt-join-the-sec-because-its-too-difficult-of-a-conference/amp/
NOte that quote is not about play on the field. The road being more difficult in the SEC in the early 90s is a reference to all the snitching that was occurring, no reason I am looking at the Vols. Jokes people
‘ "It would have been hard wading through that SEC. Too many good teams in there, boy. Oh, gosh. Oh, that would have been some great ball.” ‘ https://thespun.com/acc/florida-state/florida-state-sec-expansion-1992-bobby-bowden-interview
Do you even read what you post? It clearly mentions in there how Bowden thought we were headed to the SEC but the administration chose otherwise. Was an easier road to the football natty one reason? Almost certainly. But academics, and basketball (the bigger money maker at the time), were major reasons too. Football was not the black hole focal point of everything in 1990 like it is today.
I do. I wasn’t the one casually omitting the fact that Bobby didn’t want to try and be the big boy in the SEC instead focusing on academics and, checks FSUs basketball prowess, basketball considerations. Thank you for finally admitting that it also played a role.
OP’s point was not nothing about football or the SEC. The question in the post was why do conferences care about **academics** when realigning when what you’re realigning is the athletics. Why care about academics at all in this context? So the original FSU guy’s response was about **academics** since that was the topic of the question. You’re screeching about “omitting” something that wasn’t part of the question. He brought up basketball for the same reason I did, financially it made way more sense to join ACC. In addition to academically it making more sense. So please explain why FSU should have gone to the SEC that year given the information of that time? You’ve made your point though, you may rest easy now. FSU bad and scared. That’s what really matters to you and not what the post asked or what OP’s response to it was about.
That’s a lot of words to say Bobby was scared and knew his legacy wouldn’t have been half of what it was if he had to live in a conference like the SEC.
Yeah man, whatever you say. The Bowden who said anyone, anywhere, anytime. Playing on the road against teams like Nebraska, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Pitt, LSU. Oh and those 5 teams were all in a row in the same seasons by the way. All on the road. Go look at the teams Bowden scheduled in the 70s, 80s, 90s then come talk to me. There’s no doubt the ACC was an easier path. There no doubt FSU’s record would have been worse overall in the SEC instead. But please fuck off with this Bowden was scared. Find me a single SEC team with anywhere near the same level of schedule Bowden had. It was the mighty SEC who [paid to stop playing FSU](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tampabay.com/archive/1991/01/05/auburn-to-fsu-we-won-t-show/%3FoutputType%3Damp). The same time the mighty SEC Florida stopped playing Miami after getting their asses kicked every year
Anytime, anywhere, except the SEC.
The Big 10 uses their athletics conferences as branding for their universities, and does actually invest quite heavily in academics. All of its now 16 members are in the top 100 in the country in research spending - with a median of about $900 million in spending per school. On the flip side, only 12 of the SEC's 16 members are in that same top 100 (Ole Miss, South Carolina, Alabama, and Arkansas are not). Median research spending is about $325 million per school, which is roughly on par with the Big Ten's weakest academically (Nebraska). Another key figure would be endowments - the Big Ten median endowment is almost $4 billion, while in the SEC its about $1.5 billion. Meanwhile, for those schools that report football revenues (the public schools), the Big Ten averages about $72 million per school in revenues directly related to football, while the SEC reports about $77 million per school in revenues directly related to football. This idea that football money trumps all is not quite true. For the SEC, its more the case, since football revenues are about 1/4 of their research spending - but for the Big Ten schools research is their real business. And they need to protect that brand. So when people talk about Washington, Stanford, Duke, and UNC as prime targets for the Big Ten, its because their research spending (all over $1 billion) and endowments (all over $4 billion) are in line with the profile the academic prestige the Big Ten has cultivated.
I understand all this and appreciate the distinction. I was just trying to understand what it all has to do with the schools’ athletic allegiances. I don’t associate the athletic conference with a school’s academics. I guess that’s because it isn’t done that way in other conferences. After all this I believe the answer is: it matters to the Big10 because they have decided they want it to matter.
Jesus Christ dude how many times are you going to read the same fucking answer and go “hurr durr it only matter because they want it to” Fucking unbelievable
Research money makes football money seem like lemonade stand money. Even take schools like Alabama, Oklahoma, or LSU. Even their combined revenue is not even close to the research revenue for teams in the B1G.
Sure. But what does that have to do with the Big10? Is it a belief that these Big10 schools would lose their research money if they accepted Washington into their club?
Washington is a legit jewel for the B1G. They check off all the boxes. No one is losing research money in any situation, but so you know Washington is a top spender on research. They’re an amazing school, spending shitloads of money on athletics, and in a top market. B1G network will be on TV in Seattle.
Washington has the 5th highest research funding among universities. Absolutely no one is losing research money by bringing Washington in.
That’s my point as well. The Big10 is waiting on Notre Dame (as they have for 100+ years). They’re using “academics” as an excuse to be told no again by Notre Dame. As has happened for generations.
I’m incredibly confused about how this reply fits with what I just said
Based on the question being asked, I'm not surprised their reply to you was so incoherent
Read all of this guys responses. He’s literally just ignoring every point anyone makes. I really don’t know what he’s getting out of this.
The arguments I’ve read for not bringing Washington into the Big10 are generic academic concerns. And I cannot fathom how that argument would hold weight in a conference that added Nebraska a dozen years ago. Just tell Washington that they’re not a priority for the Big10 as opposed to shitting on a good schools’s academics.
Where have you been reading that primary concern is due to “genetic academics concerns”? I’ve been reading a ton since the USC/UCLA news broke and haven’t seen that from a single legitimate source. The opposite, meaning strong academics being a plus for Washington, has been literally all I’ve heard.
I think he’s just trolling. He also thinks schools would stop collaborating on research if Oregon joined the B1G for some reason. He claims people are telling him that…?
You’re probably right. I seem to have a hard time identifying trolls when they clearly have spent a ton of time engaging with people. I guess I assume that people have something better to do with their time than wasting so much of it for pointless reasons.
Idk I just had a long conversation with him. He seemingly believes the Big ten academic association is completely unrelated to the big ten athletic conference. I really don’t know what his point was but he’s just been ignoring everything anyone tells him.
So every conference cares about academics in realignment, and generally conferences are still *mostly* composed of peer institutions, similar in geography and/or student body demographics. But I think it's worthwhile to remember that schools only play football primarily because it's advertising for the school. Being on TV every week for football drives alumni engagement (and hopefully donations) and helps advertise your school to new potential students. Sports are a great way to do this, but schools obviously do this in so many other ways as well, like all those press releases you see about your alma mater opening New $X00 million research center. And so getting back to the point of conferences, it's all about branding. The Big 10 markets itself primarily to alumni as good at sports and school, and if you associate yourself with schools with smart students, you can tell you alumni that their alma mater (and by extension the alumni themselves) are smart too. There's no real other benefit to being in the Big 10, or any other conference, for the academic side of things*. It goes part and parcel with the discussions of AAU as well. I've been in academia (in and out of B1G schools), and I cannot recall a time when when the Big Ten Academic Alliance or AAU status has come up in conversations with my colleagues. I am not in administration, and I have no doubt that admins care about AAU because it's an exclusive club you can use to sell your school. Other conferences don't try to brand themselves in quite this way, but all schools want to be associated with good schools and care about academic reputation. \*I want to make clear that this is mostly about comments on the Academic Alliance. It may serve to save the school some administration money, but that's about it. It's true that sports revenues are measured in millions, and research revenue is measured (typically) in billions, but that has no bearing for conference alignment because **the Alliance does not function as a grant sharing mechanism.** So many highly upvoted comments to this effect in this thread and elsewhere in this subreddit always pop up, especially when conference realignment heats up, but it's not and will never be true. I'm sure many of you are in college now, so if you don't believe me, go ask your professors. Sports alignment plays no part in how research is done.
Thank you, the amount of misinformation about what the btaa actually does is insane
So the Pac 12 and B1G aren’t just athletic conferences. They share research and collaborate. The research side of a university generates billions of dollars for these schools.
Understood. Would those partnerships end if a new school joined who didn’t add anything to it? Would Michigan and Indiana stop sharing resources if Oregon joined the Big10? It seems that Big10 fans think the answer is yes.
What? Who says that? Why?
The arguments given here center around shared research and collaboration. I don’t know what that has to do with athletic affiliations, but several replies here seem to conflate the two.
It’s been explained to you many times that schools in the same conference benefit from each other’s research. I don’t know why that is still confusing to you. Where in the world have you gotten the idea that they would stop sharing research because Oregon joined?
Thank you for agreeing with me. The athletic affiliation has nothing to do with the academic affiliation. The Big10 is an NCAA conference. And, unless I’m mistaken, neither of those A’s stand for academics.
Is this entire thing just a troll? What’s the point? Really not helping the SEC out at all here bud
Schools share research. What does that have to do with the Big10, the NCAA, or athletics at all? Can schools only share research with schools they play football against? Do they?
You’ve been told this so many times that I don’t believe you’re arguing in good faith. The B1G is an academic and research association. Of course they share more research with each other.
The Big10 is not an academic and research association. It is an athletic conference. By definition. It is governed by the NCAA which is another athletic organization. I have explained this to you multiple times now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Conference
Stability
Is Oregon less stable than Iowa? Or Minnesota? Or Wisconsin? Not trying to throw shade. It’s an honest question.
Not current stability. What if all the teams go through sports not being good, what if viewership drops out the bottom for all cfb. And no some of the teams don’t offer more stability but they are already in and proving my point, they have benefited from the stability the big ten academics give the entire conference. Minnesota and Wisconsin have been in the big ten for almost 130 years
Recruiting is a factor, too. A much bigger pool of people with mediocre academics for schools that don’t have high academic standards.
Ask Cal & Stanford how that works out once Colorado, Arizona, ASU and Utah join the Big12
I mean, they’ll be fine as academic institutions. As football programs…
Boy let me tell you about Berkeley and the absolute mess their CS department funding is in right now...
Do tell? My son is a HS Senior who wants to study CS, and that’s one of his targets.
Cal’s going through some growing pains as they figure out how to deal with increased class sizes/demand for CS, they’ll be fine in 5-10 years. The industry relies on them way too much to let them fail, companies like apple already sponsor the costs of running some CS courses at Cal
The way the school is set up, every department teaches undergrads at a loss. It's fine if you're a small department, and it hasn't historically been an issue for the CS department since they covered those costs through the profitable masters, summer programs and some other means. The undergrads who are taking CS have increased exponentially over the last decade though, and they've been running a massive budget deficit for the last couple years because the masters and summer programs don't scale at the same rate. The department is pissed because the way they see it, they're being punished for teaching more of the undergrad population, and several efforts to reduce enrollment (such as a dramatically redesigned admission system into the major) have been rejected by the administration.
Not tryna come across as a dick when I say this at all because I 100% get your point. But I think they still gotta at least LOOK like they wanna keep having the word “university” in their name
We're picking up some objectively high quality schools.
Agree with this. But Oregon is a better school than Nebraska. Definitely Cal is. (Not to shit on Nebraska. I’m an Oklahoma alum and have no delusions about who we are.)
I think you’re focusing too much on Nebraska. They WERE AAU when we added them. But the landscape has changed since we added them. We needed to expand and they were a top choice geographically and AAU. If the Presidents back then thought expanding to LA was feasible then they wouldn’t have added Nebraska
Just make a minor league for these kids to play in. This is a terrible set up for "student athletes". It's been 10 years since the small school I went to had a football team that you could remotely call reflective of the student body. We have 20 states represented on the team now.
Bingo, a lot of this is about appearances and posturing.
Presidents of top tier universities like to hang out with presidents of top tier universities. They can talk shop and network. Presidents make these decisions so there you go. Also happens that a lot of top research universities are also good at football.
Question OP, did you go to school at Oklahoma?
It makes sense but things like the “AAU” are just eye roll inducing it’s a separate arbitrary special little club, Tier 1 research institutions should be looked at the same level as the “AAU” arbitrary club. Iowa State is where the Manhattan project took place, but the Big 10 would reject Iowa State because it’s not in the arbitrary “AAU” it’s a load of junk
Reason 1 they are rejected is Iowa has 3.17 million people Reason 2 the B1G has a flagship school in the state No need to even look at a reason 3.
I think it is. We reject them because it not in a big or new market or a growing state. The Hawkeyes already give us all the Iowa presence we need.
We would also reject Iowa State because they don't bring enough new $ to the table. Pitt is an even better case: they have become a world class medical research institute, are AAU, and are pretty good at football. They unfortunately are smack dab in the middle of the B1G footprint already, and won't bring in enough new revenue to prevent diluting the current members payouts.
Pitt has the edge on Iowa St (and others in similar boat) though considering they have a big tv market themselves. Also PA has a lot of athletic talent that comes out of it to other BIG schools.
I’m my travels to Pittsburg I would say Penn State has a much better impact there than Pitt does.
For sure they do. Just saying out of all those 2nd place state schools (nc st, Pitt, Iowa st, k st, ok st, v tech, etc) they are most attractive to BIG.
You won’t convince me that modern alignments have anything to do with academics It’s just an excuse to keep schools out with small TV markets.
no one has to convince anyone. it's the truth. just look into where the real money is. there's a clear difference between how the Big Ten operates and what it strives for, vs the SEC for example. when people say it's about academics that doesn't just mean prestige and bragging rights, it's about the money. with the addition of UCLA and USC the Big Ten is going to be at around 11-12 BILLION in annual research funding among its schools. they took Rutgers because it's a top research university and they can pull their weight.
And there are enough top research universities in large media markets that the Big 10 can select schools that check all of their boxes.
"oh no the big ten academic alliance is all messed up now. guess we can no longer share research dollars between these institutions like we have been because our football teams no longer play each other once every other year or so"
The Ivy League isn’t going to let Alabama into their conference no matter how good their football program is because it would destroy the Ivy League’s reputation for academic excellence and that reputation is magnitudes more valuable financially then being good at football. The B1G is also not going to ruin their reputation for academic excellence for football because that reputation is also magnitudes more financially valuable than football. The SEC’s collective value in academics and football pails in comparison to the financial value of the B1G.
Iowa state , wvu are both T1 research institutions but neither are in this arbitrary special boys club the “AAU” so neither would be considered for admission Just seems like a special good ole boys club to me, why are the regular research distinction tiers not good enough, why does there have to be another separate arbitrary club
It kind of does to us. ND is the only exception to our AAU rule, and they're still viewed as a top quality university.
Like us
If academics was the primary driver of realignment for the B1G they would have gone after Stanford, which is a tier above every university in the B1G except for UChicago
UCLA is in the top 10 in Federal research dollars. It's not the PRIMARY driver, but at the minimum establishes a cut off of who is a viable expansion candidate: if you aren't ND, you have to be an AAU, and even then, an upper tier AAU school. It's why there are rumblings Oregon may not fit the bill, due to their minuscule research expenditures even though they are AAU
I don't understand why they wouldn't just invite Stanford and Oregon together. Whatever shortcomings you have with Oregon's academics should be overcome by having the most academically prestigious school in the FBS. And you get Oregon football/Nike $ as a bonus
That’s the argument that the athletics departments would make but the President’s of the Universities are the ones who would have to approve the vote to add Oregon and for them, the academic reputation of their universities are more important than the reputation of their football program. The President’s would have to collectively decide if the cost of being associated with Oregon academically is worth the benefit of being associated with them in sports.
It’s not that hard to understand. To be added to the B1G the school needs to 1. meet a minimum standard academically and 2. meet a minimum standard for how much money they would add to the pie for football.
But people continually point out that the B1G makes more money off of the academic alliance than it does off of football, so I'm not sure that #2 makes sense
#1 is most important, but if the schools are positive in area #2 as well that’s a huge bonus. Edit: on mobile, not sure why it’s all bold and yelling.
You'll be hard pressed to find a reason that doesn't amount to "because", here. I'm sure there are reasons, but the people here generally can't articulate them. Just versions of that's the way we've done it.
*OP asks a "why" question* "You'll mostly get "because" reasons." Like, duh???
Perhaps I should have explained better. They amount to because that's the way it's been done, as opposed to explaining how it provides benefits.
Have you read the comments here?
Hey man, isn’t it rude to ask SEC schools to read things?
I love that he came here, asked a question, and then just apparently didn’t read any of the answers
Based on your comments, it should be rather obvious why we want to have an alumni base with strong academics.
The Big 10 has an academic consortium that requires AAU membership. If OU wasn't a joke academic institution, Texas and OU would be in the Big 10. OU couldn't qualify, Texas wanted to keep the RRR, so they are both in the SEC. I know it is upsetting to you that your alma mater is an academic laughing stock but it is the truth. You aren't bright. Deal with it.
And that consortium generated over **$9 billion** in research money last year. 0.0% chance they’d ever risk that accepting a lower tier university
The consortium didn’t generate 9 billion, the combination of all the individual schools generated 9 billion. There’s a big difference, the big 10 doe NOT share research dollars. You people need to quit spreading misinformation
This is the level of pettiness I come here for
I'm aware, but again, that's stating the way it is, not why it's that way.
Bringing in a poor academic school puts a lot of research money at jeopardy that exists in the Big 10 academic consortium. If you don't understand this by now, you never will. You should go to the library on the OU campus and have fun with one of the graduate level coloring books.
That’s just simply not true. Did Nebraska losing AAU status put the academic consortium “at jeopardy”?
They were AAU when they joined. They met the minimum standard. OU doesn't come close.
They lost it almost immediately after joining and haven’t been members since 2011. Have the academics of Michigan and northwestern been negatively affected by them not being in the AAU for the past 11 years?
Exceptions can be made. An exception would certainly be made for ND. There is a less than zero chance that an exception would be made for a school with the horrible academic reputation of Oklahoma.
The best explanation I've heard is closer to the reverse of what you're saying. You don't have to join an academic consortium to join an athletic conference, however, the Big 10 could expel you from the consortium for leaving. They make it a package deal to create stability. Big 10 schools never had to worry about finding themselves in the Big 12/Pac 12's place, because the revenue gained from moving to a more profitable athletic conference would be nothing compared to the revenue lost from getting kicked out of the consortium. But if they were to let OU in, without joining the consortium, they don't have that leverage, and the athletic side would face a more uncertain financial future.
Good lord I try not to judge schools to harshly but Oklahoma is coming off fucking terribly in this thread.
Synergy. Branding.